Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by CoolHand on Monday March 21 2016, @09:49PM   Printer-friendly
from the going-green dept.

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.

Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2016, @12:27AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2016, @12:27AM (#321347)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2016, @01:36AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 22 2016, @01:36AM (#321367)

    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

    by J053 (3532) <{dakine} {at} {}> on Tuesday March 22 2016, @01:44AM (#321369) Homepage
    Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).
    Cornell Law School []
    A critique []