SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The Supreme Court has refused to hear a challenge to Colorado's recreational cannabis law from neighboring states:
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a lawsuit filed by the states of Nebraska and Oklahoma against their neighbor Colorado over a law approved as a ballot initiative by Colorado voters in 2012 that allows the recreational use of marijuana. The court declined to hear the case filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma, which said that marijuana is being smuggled across their borders and noted that federal law still prohibits the drug. Two conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, said they would have heard the case.
Nebraska and Oklahoma contended that drugs such as marijuana threaten the health and safety of children and argued that Colorado had created "a dangerous gap" in the federal drug control system. Colorado stands by its law. It noted that the Obama administration has indicated the federal government lacks the resources and inclination to enforce fully the federal marijuana ban.
Also at The Washington Post, NYT.
See the Plaintiffs' brief, and Colorado's brief in opposition.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by schad on Monday March 21 2016, @11:37PM
That would be unconstitutional. Only the federal government is allowed to do that.
I don't think you understand what that clause means. The power to regular interstate commerce is a power reserved for the federal government, meaning that the states are specifically barred from exercising it. A ruling that pot trafficking across state lines is interstate commerce -- which would make no sense, but that's par for the course when it comes to that clause -- would serve to invalidate state-run checkpoints. And the feds would continue to be under no obligation to operate such checkpoints themselves. (The legal authority to do a thing is not the same as a requirement to do that thing.)
Originally, the interstate commerce clause was intended to prevent interstate protectionism (or at least, that's how it was generally interpreted in the early days). For example, Georgia couldn't impose tariffs on out-of-state cotton. And Virginia couldn't impose taxes on Georgia cotton passing through the state en route to New York. This latter interpretation is probably the most interesting one in this context. If you were to drive from Colorado to another state where pot is legal with the intent to sell a bunch of pot, and got (legally) pulled over and searched while crossing through a third state where pot is not legal, what would happen then? It seems like black-letter law, but somehow I doubt it would be so simple.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday March 22 2016, @12:08AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2016, @12:27AM
Back in the 30s or 40s the Federal government brought a case against a farmer analagous to this one.
The farmer in question was exceeding his 'export grain quota' in order to locally feed his livestock and for other on-farm uses. The Feds successfully won the case by claiming that his actions qualified under the interstate trade act because it allowed him to negatively affect interstate trade by not buying the necessary grain from outside of the state. This was quoted on the green site years ago and linked to both the wikipedia article and case files from cornell or somewhere. Maybe someone can find, link, and compare it to this case.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2016, @01:36AM
That's an example of using the interstate commerce clause to destroy people who were not engaging in interstate commerce in the first place. The actions of a corrupt, tyrannical government.
(Score: 2) by J053 on Tuesday March 22 2016, @01:44AM
Cornell Law School [cornell.edu]
A critique [nolanchart.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2016, @02:07AM
GP here. Thank you for the interesting comment. My own knowledge of history as concerns the commerce clause was lacking (with exception for events leading to the Civil War). I was mostly being cynical.
If you were to drive from Colorado to another state where pot is legal with the intent to sell a bunch of pot, and got (legally) pulled over and searched while crossing through a third state where pot is not legal, what would happen then?
A couple years ago I took a road trip to Colorado. I tried edibles, but that wasn't my cup of tea (or bar of chocolate). I'd briefly considered attempting to get an “exit bag” as they're called with a quarter gram of cannabis flower through all the states I needed to travel through to get back to flyover country. Of course I would have no intention to sell; my only intention was to attempt to heal from the mental illness which I currently suffer.
I would fully expect to be arrested in pursuance of state laws in the state in which I was apprehended. Another similar situation might be found with certain haz-mat. Consider class 7 haz-mat: radioactive material. I don't have my haz-mat endorsement any more due to DHS rules (and haven't driven a big truck in 10 years at any rate). Can a driver here elaborate? I've never driven an oversized load, but I'm familiar with the regulations. Are there similar rules for class 7 haz-mat similar?
At any rate, that would clearly fall under the commerce clause. I suppose I just have to wonder whether or not states in-between would want commercial vehicles transporting cannabis flower on their roads or not. The prohibition of cannabis flower is all very steeped in emotion and quite irrational (hence my comparison to radioactive material).
Goodness knows people think cannabis flower should be class 7 haz-mat. It's green! ZOMG!
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday March 22 2016, @07:50PM
"I tried edibles, but that wasn't my cup of tea (or bar of chocolate)."
Is it a different effect? I tried smoking the stuff a couple times, with mixed results. Ultimately I can't stand the smell, which reminds me of roadkill on warm summer nights in the West. An edible form might be interesting to try.
Washington DC delenda est.