Dangerous Implications Of Nebraska-Oklahoma Lawsuit Against Marijuana Legalization

Shandar

New Member
Co-blogger Jonathan Adler and Vanderbilt law professor Robert Mikos have pointed out some of the flaws in the lawsuit filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma urging a federal court to invalidate marijuana legalization in neighboring Colorado. In the unlikely event that the plaintiff states prevail, they will also have set a very dangerous precedent — one that conservatives are likely to rue in other areas.

Nebraska and Oklahoma argue that Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana under state law, in the face of continuing federal prohibition, harms neighboring states because it facilitates the flow of marijuana across their borders and may increase crime there. Liberal states with strict gun control laws raise exactly the same complaints about the flow of guns from neighboring conservative states with relatively permissive firearms laws. If Nebraska and Oklahoma can force Colorado to criminalize marijuana under state law because the federal government has done so under federal law, then Maryland can force Virginia to ban any gun sales that are restricted under federal law. Liberals have, in fact, advocated the enactment of stronger federal gun control laws for years. The same goes for conservative states that have less restrictive labor regulations or environmental regulations than neighboring states do.

Conservatives can argue that Colorado's marijuana laws inflict greater harm on Nebraska than, say, Virginia's gun laws inflict on Maryland. The claim that the possible benefits of drug prohibition outweigh the enormous costs of imprisoning large numbers of people and bolstering organized crime by creating black markets is itself dubious. But even if it is true, the proposition that marijuana legalization is more dangerous than gun legalization is unlikely to persuade liberal federal judges, or even many moderate ones.

As Jonathan points out, the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit also risks validating and further expanding expanding one of the Supreme Court's worst federalism precedents: Gonzales v. Raich. By allowing Congress to use its power to regulate interstate commerce to ban the possession of marijuana that had never crossed state lines or been sold in any market, the Supreme Court allowed federal power to expand further than ever before and created a serious obstacle to efforts to enforce meaningful limits on congressional authority. The decision was also blatantly at odds with the text and original meaning of the Commerce Clause. By claiming that Raich not only validates sweeping federal power, but also requires states to ban marijuana under state law, the Nebraska-Oklahoma suit risks making this harmful precedent even worse than it already is.

In other situations, including the Obamacare case, Nebraska and Oklahoma have fought to strengthen enforcement of constitutional limits on federal power. But if their interest in that cause is genuine rather than a case of "fair weather federalism," they should be working to limit and eventually overrule Gonzales v. Raich instead of expanding its reach.

bcouet.jpg


News Moderator: Shandar @ 420 MAGAZINE ®
Source: Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis
Author: Ilya Somin
Contact: https://www.washingtonpost.com/actmgmt/help/
Website: Dangerous implications of the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit against marijuana legalization in Colorado - The Washington Post
 
Re: Dangerous Implications Of Nebraska-Oklahoma Lawsuit Against Marijuana Legalizatio

I don't know anything about Virginia vs Maryland n that other case, I'll have to read up on them later. I haven't heard that people are smuggling lbs of it, just bringing back "souvenirs". Oklahoma and Nebraska main issue with that is it's putting a major drain on law enforcement's finances and clogging the criminal justice system. Cannabis from Colorado is keeping them these two states from focusing on crimes such as rape, burglary, etc. Am I correct? If so, I'm interested to know the truth as to just why is cannabis a more priority than real crime for these two states?
 
Re: Dangerous Implications Of Nebraska-Oklahoma Lawsuit Against Marijuana Legalizatio

I remember they fought a states right issue and now they want to fight for the opposite. Their argument is the feds have cannabis as schedule 1 which is it's highly addicting and dangerous. Isn't it a known fact that that is not true? And it having no medical value also to be well known to be a lie? How did industrial hemp get on schedule 1? Isn't this fraud? We know cannabis became illegal to protect and increase the financial interests of certain industries from competition. I wonder how much cleaner our environment would be if cannabis would have been allowed to compete in the market? Does the federal gov have the right to do that? In the mindset of the constitution, how can this stand? If Colorado has to spend a bunch of money to fight back, might as well make it backfire on Oklahoma and Nebraska and get it off schedule 1 and where it belongs.

If our next president is anti cannabis and this case drags in court, will he or she be limited on enforcement of any anti marijuana laws they make?
 
Back
Top Bottom