Pubdate: Mon, 22 Dec 2014
Source: Gazette, The (Colorado Springs, CO)
Copyright: 2014 The Gazette
Contact: http://www.gazette.com/sections/opinion/submitletter/
Website: http://www.gazette.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/165

DOJ COULD HELP NEIGHBORS WE BURDEN WITH MARIJUANA

A weird lawsuit filed in the Supreme Court of the United States 
against Colorado only formalizes what we know. Colorado's marijuana 
free-for-all is a burden to our neighbors. We grow and sell some of 
the most potent pot in the world and it crosses into other states as 
dealers and drug tourists come and go. Colorado voters chose to 
subject themselves and their children to this ill-fated experiment, 
but neighboring states get to live with an abundance of our spillover.

It makes us the neighborhood drug house, lowering the quality of life 
for the rest of the block. That's why Oklahoma and Nebraska want 
judicial relief.

The effect of one state's laws on another state's population is one 
reason the United States Constitution contains an interstate commerce 
clause. It's too often abused, but serves as the only authority the 
federal government has to enforce federal drug laws. The federal 
supremacy clause gives federal law more weight than a conflicting 
state law, but only if the federal law complies with powers granted 
the federal government by the Constitution. In Gonzales v. Raich 
(2005), the Supreme Court ruled the United States Congress may 
criminalize production and use of home-grown marijuana in states that 
approve its use - even for so-called medicinal purposes - because it 
affects interstate commerce. Some call it a gargantuan stretch, but 
nevertheless it is the law.

"The federal government could, tomorrow, come in and shut down every 
dispensary in Colorado under the Substance Control Act," John Suthers 
told The Gazette's editorial board Friday. "But, as you know, the 
Justice Department has sent out all these memos saying if a state is 
in compliance with this, this and that, we're not going to use our 
power to force compliance."

It's only because the federal government has chosen to look the other 
way that Oklahoma and Nebraska felt compelled to sue. They want the 
law enforced, so their children aren't subjected to dangers Colorado 
voters ostensibly imposed only upon themselves.

 From a legal perspective, the case probably has no merit beyond 
sending a message of frustration with Colorado and the federal government.

"I'm very sympathetic to these states. We are burdening them," 
Suthers said. "Just last year, 40 states reported to us they have 
seized packaged Colorado medical and/or recreational marijuana."

But Suthers was elected to uphold Colorado law, and Amendment 64 
legalizes pot within his jurisdiction. Though the federal government 
could use the supremacy clause to enforce adjudicated drug laws, 
Oklahoma and Nebraska probably have no standing. Their laws have no 
supremacy over Colorado's laws and federal officials, under the 
guidance of President Barack Obama, don't seem interested in exerting 
authority to trump Amendment 64.

Furthermore, a state can't demand the federal government stop another 
state from decriminalizing an activity of any sort.

"We could decriminalize murder, if we wanted to," Suthers said. "It 
would be a very unwise decision, but voters could do so and no one 
could stop them. We can decriminalize anything we want."

Hope for states that want protections from Colorado's drug exports 
won't be found in a frivolous lawsuit the Supreme Court is likely to 
blow off. It rests in the authority of the federal Justice 
Department, which would act if only given a nod from Obama.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom