Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts

Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot 484

SternisheFan notes that Nebraska and Oklahoma are suing Colorado over marijuana legalization. The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines. The suit invokes the federal government's right to regulate both drugs and interstate commerce, and says Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana has been "particularly burdensome" to police agencies on the other side of the state line. In June, USA TODAY highlighted the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska: felony drug arrests in Chappell, Neb., just 7 miles north of the Colorado border have skyrocketed 400% in three years. "In passing and enforcing Amendment 64, the state of Colorado has created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system enacted by the United States Congress. Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining plaintiff states' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," says the lawsuit. "The Constitution and the federal anti-drug laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local pro-drug policies and licensed distribution schemes throughout the country which conflict with federal laws."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Colorado Sued By Neighboring States Over Legal Pot

Comments Filter:
  • Simple answer... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dins ( 2538550 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @07:32AM (#48632353)
    All they need to do is legalize it themselves.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      And give up all those extra federal enforcement dollars they hope to get as a result of this suit. You're hopped up crazy, man.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Legalize itnand tax it and make up the difference many times over

      • by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:54AM (#48632679) Homepage
        or they could you know, legalize and tax, making money legit instead of stealing it to use against good americans
    • Re:Simple answer... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Guy From V ( 1453391 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:33AM (#48632593) Homepage

      By mot doing so, Congress makes itself look weak..er. I have heard rumors in the county next to me in OR (I'm in WA) that last year there were a a lot of instances of jury nullification brought up in some marijuana cases. They either never carried all the jury or judges lied and intimidated the jury beforehand or after...illegally...but still effective. Not too long after that Measure 91 passed. Even just the rumor is an indication of a shifting awareness, go with the flow, D.C. and not look any wimpier than you already do.

    • the REAL solution: (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2014 @09:53AM (#48633069)

      strip the DEA of scheduling authority!

      here's a simple thought experiment:

      you just awoke from a 50 year coma and in playing around with this new-fangled interweb thingy you learn that final authority over the legality of a given substance rests NOT with the FDA (an army of PhDs) or the AMA (an army of MDs) but with this new agency called the "DEA" - a bunch of frakin' COPS! "wait? say that again?!?" you say "a bunch of COPS who know as much about chemistry, biology & medicine as my dead cat have VETO POWER over armies of MDs & PhDs on the legality of ingesting a given chemical?!? what rocket surgeon came up with that bright idea?!?"

      we need to abolish the DEA not just b/c we happen to disagree with them on THC (and MDMA, etc) but b/c the basic model is IDIOTIC!!!

  • by bucket_brigade ( 1079247 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @07:35AM (#48632367)

    How about not enforcing the laws there since doing otherwise is a stupid waste of law enforcement time and resources? I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization. You have to be basically live up your own ass for decades to come up with that opinion.

    • by Fjandr ( 66656 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:12AM (#48632501) Homepage Journal

      You are obviously a part of Satan's cabal, attempting to spread his grip to God-fearing communities through the insanity-inducing devil-weed known as marajawana...

    • by david_bonn ( 259998 ) <(moc.cam) (ta) (nnobdivad)> on Friday December 19, 2014 @09:13AM (#48632793) Homepage Journal

      How about not enforcing the laws there since doing otherwise is a stupid waste of law enforcement time and resources? I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization. You have to be basically live up your own ass for decades to come up with that opinion.

      There are lots of examples of this in action. Many states have laws against adultery, cohabitation, and consensual oral sex. Yet when was the last time someone got a felony rap for carpet munching?

      On a even less serious note, many states have ridiculous laws which were put on the books back during the Jurassic period of American jurisprudence. So, as an example, in Washington state it is illegal to sell bedding or meat on a Sunday. You will recall the wave of busts against Bed Bath and Beyond, Pottery Barn, and Safeway. Yeah, right...

    • by Ottibus ( 753944 )

      I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization.

      What you can or cannot believe isn't important, the truth is that canabis can have a devastating effect on the developing teenage mind. Even if you don't consider that enough to warrant criminalization, that does not justify insulting those of us who do.

      • by flink ( 18449 )

        I can't believe anyone can be stupid enough to think cannabis is dangerous enough to merit criminalization.

        What you can or cannot believe isn't important, the truth is that cannabis can have a devastating effect on the developing teenage mind. Even if you don't consider that enough to warrant criminalization, that does not justify insulting those of us who do.

        By that measure, so is alcohol, or any number of other drugs that are sold over the counter. Yes it should be age restricted, but the point is that it is not any more dangerous than plenty of other substances that are legal. It's certainly less dangerous than cigarettes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Meneth ( 872868 )
      I'm sorry to say your belief in people's lack of stupidity is flawed.
  • by The Real Dr John ( 716876 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @07:39AM (#48632379) Homepage
    in many states, and they don't want to lose that revenue. It is not about right or wrong, legal or illegal, it is really about money. But as the various other states see revenue flow into states like Colorado in the form of pot taxes, they may change their minds, just like all states changed their minds about gambling and lotteries.
    • by FudRucker ( 866063 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @07:44AM (#48632393)
      still, legalizing it would be the better option, Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana, plus it frees up law enforcement to pursuit more serious crimes, empties jails and prisons of otherwise law abiding citizens that were only merely in possession or smoking a small amount of herb, i hope this forces the federal Govt to finally realize that marijuana should be legalized just like alcohol (legal for any adult, and no driving under the influence)
      • by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:42AM (#48632623) Homepage

        still, legalizing it would be the better option, Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana, plus it frees up law enforcement to pursuit more serious crimes, empties jails and prisons of otherwise law abiding citizens that were only merely in possession or smoking a small amount of herb, i hope this forces the federal Govt to finally realize that marijuana should be legalized just like alcohol (legal for any adult, and no driving under the influence)

        The problem is that federal Byrne grants are very lucrative and legalized marijuana is probably a losing proposition financially for states. Or, at least, for police agencies. Ever wonder why the officers on COPS turn into raving lunatics looking for drugs every time they pull some poor guy over? I mean, seriously, they act like addicts looking for a fix. The reason is that if they find drugs they make money from the feds, so every little joint is worth money.

        We've set up a system of perverse incentives. Apparently in Nebraska it's reached the point that subsequent arrests for drugs aren't yielding more federal dollars so it's not worth it to them.

      • by GauteL ( 29207 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:55AM (#48632705)

        "Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana"

        Colorado probably got significantly increased business from being the first, surrounded by neighbours where it is still illegal. They probably even have increased secondary trade from people travelling in to get marijuana and then buying other stuff. Also, there's probably the effect of the novelty. I'm not saying there isn't a permanent increase, but it will be less if Nebraska and Oklahoma also legalise it.

      • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

        Colorado already proved that with the tax revenue they brought in from legalized marijuana,

        False. Colorado brought in 20% of the promised revenue from legalization [yahoo.com] and the prospects of them meeting their initial projections are about as likely as Steve Ballmer running Linux.

        Before you then say, "Well, they at least got something," I would like to remind you of this article [slashdot.org] wherein people on here were claiming Chicago's use of red light cameras a failure when they only got 44% of the initial proj
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by operagost ( 62405 )
          Blaming dispensaries for robbery is like blaming a woman's attire for her being raped. From the same article you linked:

          Because marijuana remains banned by Congress, banks and security firms deny services to most dispensaries. That leaves them cash-based and vulnerable, a magnet for criminals who like the idea of unguarded counting rooms and shelves lined with lucrative horticulture.

          THIS is the problem. It needs to be made totally legal, so we can end this dangerous nonsense.

    • It would seem, if the other states don't want to lose the revenue from drug enforcement (which I believe is certainly true), that this increase in arrests and subsequent convictions/asset forfeiture would be welcomed.

  • Dry Counties? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jeillah ( 147690 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @07:44AM (#48632395)

    Why is this any different than counties that don't allow the sale of alcohol adjacent to counties that do? Do the dry counties sue the wet counties because they have to be on the lookout for drunk drivers on their borders? Looks like a way to get some attention or maybe some cash to me...

    • Re:Dry Counties? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:11AM (#48632489)

      I'm posting anonymously on purpose. I work in Scottsbluff, Nebraska and in my profession need to work with various law enforcement agencies. What they have been telling me is that since Colorado legalized pot, they have seen a huge increase in people bringing pot into the state. That is the difference from a dry to wet county. Those counties have existed for some time and police are accustomed to dealing with it. At least in Nebraska, the police reports I've seen show quite a large increase in the number of people trafficking pot within the state.

      I spoke with one officer a couple of weeks ago and he said to me, "I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go. I would also estimate that probably 70 percent of the folks I know in the area are against legalization.

      Now, the folks they are stopping are being stopped for other things first, such as speeding. These folks also aren't bringing back a little for themselves. They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale. I know of one stop earlier this year near Kimball, Nebraska of folks that were trying to take pot back to Minnesota to sell. They were originally stopped for speeding.

      Also in western Nebraska is the Wing Drug Task Force. Think of what their sole existence is for. We have a problem with meth in western Nebraska. There's lots of wide open spaces here, so a meth lab is easy to hide, yet I always read more about pot busts than meth with the task force.

      We also have police officers who do outreaches to the schools. They talk about railroad safety (because kids still think they can beat the trains) and not doing drugs. While all drugs are covered in their talks to students, meth and pot are the main focus.They tell the kids about these big studies that tell how bad pot is and then detail the awful things pot does to you.

      I personally wish Nebraska would just legalize pot, but I'm pretty sure the state government wants the title of "last state to legalize pot."

      • Re:Dry Counties? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @09:23AM (#48632875)

        "I don't care if you go to Colorado and smoke pot, but it's still illegal here and if I catch you with it, I have to arrest you." Law enforcement officers I know are mixed on whether they think pot is okay or not, but they all agree that if you're caught with it, they can't just let you go.

        But the police have argued all the way to the Supreme Court that "discretion" is a right of the cops, and they are *never* required to enforce any law.

      • by 605dave ( 722736 )

        Well I am not going to post anonymously.

        While I don't believe that marijuana is without it's risks, if police are telling children that meth and weed are the same then they are doing a disservice to the children. There is absolutely no comparison between the impact of the two drugs on peoples lives. Meth is highly addictive, and will make your body slowly melt into death. I should know, I watched it happen to my uncle. I on the other hand have stayed away from all drugs (including alcohol) for years, but ha

      • by pla ( 258480 )
        What they have been telling me is that since Colorado legalized pot, they have seen a huge increase in people bringing pot into the state. That is the difference from a dry to wet county.

        I wouldn't really call that a "difference" - The exact same thing happens in "dry" counties/town. Maybe somewhere in the deep, dark South you can find a town or two that really believe in all that "dry" bullshit, but in practice, prohibitions against alcohol work just as well as prohibitions against pot - ie, not at all
      • I'm posting anonymously on purpose. I work in Scottsbluff, Nebraska and in my profession need to work with various law enforcement agencies. What they have been telling me is that since Colorado legalized pot, they have seen a huge increase in people bringing pot into the state. That is the difference from a dry to wet county.

        Now, the folks they are stopping are being stopped for other things first, such as speeding. These folks also aren't bringing back a little for themselves. They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale. I know of one stop earlier this year near Kimball, Nebraska of folks that were trying to take pot back to Minnesota to sell.

        You have no clue what you are talking about. The prices of "legitimate" cannabis purchased in Colorado are around 35% higher than black market cannabis you can purchase in neighboring states due to increased overhead and high taxation levels. While I have absolutely no doubt in my mind there is an uptick in college kids carrying across a single ounce or two, no dealer or wholesaler in their right mind would procure from the legitimate market and transport vs. obtaining it on the black market or producing it

      • They bring so much that it's obvious that it's for sale.

        And how much would that be? I know that federal statutes have rules in them where if you have more then X amount it's 'obvious' you intended to sell them, then lowered said amounts because the dealers simply started carrying less, stashing their stuff in small amounts. The only ones with large amounts were the mules. There are recorded cases of tolerant people where a week's worth of their habit busted those limits easily.

        If you're an individual user driving the 200 miles from Denver to Scottsbluff, or t

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alrescha ( 50745 )

      "Why is this any different than counties that don't allow the sale of alcohol adjacent to counties that do?"

      I think the difference here is that marijuana is illegal under federal law. It is not a law the states created, and so they are complaining about the disproportionate burden placed on them.

      A.

  • Let me FTFY ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CaptainDork ( 3678879 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @07:54AM (#48632421)

    ... this is similar in nature to same sex marriage, and women's reproductive rights.

    It's legal some places and banned in others.

    America needs to make up its mind. Which way are we going to go?

    The decision should be based on case law and public need and citizen's rights.

    Legalize all that shit and let's play spin the bottle and stuff.

    yw

    • ... this is similar in nature to same sex marriage, and women's reproductive rights.

      It's legal some places and banned in others.

      No, it's not. Marijuana is still illegal throughout the United States due to federal law. In no state (including Colorado) is it legal. It's simply that Colorado has removed any state law criminalizing it. The federal prohibition remains. That is not the case with same sex marriage and women's reproductive rights. The next president could easily tell the DEA to go in and shut down every marijuana dealer and grower in Colorado if he/she orders it.

      • ... this is similar in nature to same sex marriage, and women's reproductive rights.

        It's legal some places and banned in others.

        No, it's not. Marijuana is still illegal throughout the United States due to federal law. In no state (including Colorado) is it legal. It's simply that Colorado has removed any state law criminalizing it. The federal prohibition remains. That is not the case with same sex marriage and women's reproductive rights. The next president could easily tell the DEA to go in and shut down every marijuana dealer and grower in Colorado if he/she orders it.

        You're neglecting the fact that the DEA doesn't have the resources to enforce that. The DEA relies on local law enforcement to do almost all of their work. They only become involved in very big cases. So yes, they could take out the stores and maybe the larger farms, but the real change is the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people growing it in their back yards. What I'm really surprised about is that the price hasn't really gone down yet. The prices you see at those dispensaries are still higher

        • by plover ( 150551 )

          Supply, demand, taxes, and regulations all combine to control the prices. If people are willing to pay X, and you're selling all your product, why would you reduce prices? All it would do is lower their profits; if they're even making any.

          My guess is there are a lot of hidden factors, like big insurance costs. Most insurance policies have an exemption so they don't pay out if you're doing something illegal. This means they may have to self-insure, or find a company willing to take on the risk of a federal b

  • Really? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by LostMyBeaver ( 1226054 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:02AM (#48632461)
    It sounds like the cops have nothing better to do that waste time on pot arrests. They just want money from taxes on pot without having to collect it themselves
  • Attn Border States:

    The Interstate Commerce Clause. Read up on it, and how it means you can't do jack about what a neighboring state does or does not legalize. The feds certainly can, and do, have anti-drug laws, but states have no jurisdiction over federal law enforcement priorities.

  • by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:13AM (#48632505)

    Chappell, NE is a don't-blink-or-you'll-miss-it town of 929 on I-80 between North Platte, NE and Cheyenne, Wyoming. A 400% increase in felony drug arrests sounds like a lot, but how many felony drug arrests could there ever have been in a town of 929? Did we go from 1 to 4?

    I also wonder how many shitkicker rural sheriffs in neighboring states went on full batshit alert once Colorado legalized it and began pulling over every car they could with out of state license plates coming from Colorado, knowing that they would hit paydirt on at least some of them? You can pretty easily create your own crisis if you start looking for it.

    To be fair to the sheriffs, I don't doubt there is some increased amount of pot leaving Colorado -- it's a tourist destination even without pot and it wouldn't surprise me at all if people who go there for other reasons (like skiing or other outdoor activities) decide to bring some home.

    It also wouldn't surprise me if some people went there specifically to bring some home, although from what I've been told the retail pricing isn't all that competitive on a dollar basis with black market pot and the economics of driving cross-country to pick up a couple of ounces of weed don't seem to lend themselves to a lot of people deciding to make that trip.

    I don't think you can factor in any kind of organized criminal enterprises into these complaints -- that was a "problem" *before* it was legalized. Bitching about it now because you're frothed up about pot legalization and seeing it everywhere you look just seems paranoid.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2014 @09:14AM (#48632807)

      I also wonder how many shitkicker rural sheriffs in neighboring states went on full batshit alert once Colorado legalized it and began pulling over every car they could with out of state license plates coming from Colorado, knowing that they would hit paydirt on at least some of them? You can pretty easily create your own crisis if you start looking for it.

      As someone with several friends in Colorado who frequently leave the state by car I'm gonna go by what they've told me which is that since day one of legal cannabis in Colorado cops in neighboring states have pretty much been camped out at the state line stopping cars for pretty much no reason at all ("You were going 3 mph over the limit, DO YOU HAVE ANY DRUGS IN THE VEHICLE?").

      • That is common whenever the laws change when passing an unseen line. They do that in my city during New Years an July 4th since we aren't allowed fireworks in the city. Firework stands are set up right outside city limits and cops right inside city limits.

        Only the city and big / influential businesses are allowed to shoot off fireworks in San Antonio.

        Same with highways that drop to 15 miles an hour to sustain small towns via tourist tickets

  • Unlike the dry county / wet county and guns references (or gay marriage, etc), this particular case uses the fact that marijuana remains illegal under federal law.

    The suit should prod US Congress to pass a law explicitly allowing Colorado and Washington to self regulate marijuana.

    If that happens, it's all good, the Nebraskas actually move the ball forward by removing the legal dichotomy.

    I'd think Congress could do that. They might be chicken to actually remove the federal law, but they could explicitly cr

  • There is a gap in the program, and fortunately, Colorado, Washington, Alaska are leading the way through it.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:41AM (#48632613)

    http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2014/12/department-justice-congress-war-medical-marijuana
    The $1.1 trillion federal spending bill approved by the Senate on Saturday has effectively ended the longstanding federal war on medical marijuana. An amendment to the bill blocks the Department of Justice from spending money to prosecute medical marijuana dispensaries or patients that abide by state laws.

  • by MitchDev ( 2526834 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:51AM (#48632667)

    Fuck off losers

  • by SternisheFan ( 2529412 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:55AM (#48632701)
    This whole criminalization debacle was started by paper magnate William Randolph Hearst and his buddies to keep hemp from competing with their product. Why U.S. citizens are still jailed for pot in this day and age is idiotic, we aren't living in the 1930's anymore, are we?

    (From Wiki) - Regulations and restrictions on the sale of cannabis sativa as a drug began as early as 1860 (see Legal history of cannabis in the United States). The head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN), Harry J. Anslinger, argued that, in the 1930s, the FBN had noticed an increase of reports of people smoking marijuana. He had also, in 1935, received support from president Franklin D. Roosevelt for adoption of the Uniform State Narcotic Act, state laws that included regulations of cannabis. The total production of hemp fiber in the United States had in 1933 decreased to around 500 tons/year. Cultivation of hemp began to increase in 1934 and 1935 but production remained at very low volume compared with other fibers.

    Some parties have argued that the aim of the Act was to reduce the size of the hemp industry largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family. The same parties have argued that with the invention of the decorticator, hemp had become a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry. These parties argue that Hearst felt that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the Du Pont family's new synthetic fiber, nylon, a fiber that was competing with hemp. In 1916, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) chief scientists Jason L. Merrill and Lyster H. Dewey created a paper, USDA Bulletin No. 404 "Hemp Hurds as Paper-Making Material", in which they concluded that paper from the woody inner portion of the hemp stem broken into pieces, so called hemp hurds, was "favorable in comparison with those used with pulp wood". Dewey and Merrill believed that hemp hurds were a suitable source for paper production. However, later research does not confirm this. The concentration of cellulose in hemp hurds is only between 32% and 38% (not 77%, a number often repeated by Jack Herer and others on the Internet). Manufacture of paper with hemp as a raw material has shown that hemp lacks the qualities needed to become a major competitor to the traditional paper industry, which still uses wood or waste paper as raw material. In 2003, 95% of the hemp hurds in the EU were used for animal bedding, almost 5% were used as building material.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    • Not this garbage again.
      If this is true please answer this.
      Where are Hearst vast forests? Plesae give coordinates so far there is more proof of the elephant graveyard. However you can easily find receipts of his newspaper companies purchasing large quantities of paper and of the paper companies purchasing wood.
      Since there are no vast Hearst forests he then had to be the stupidest business man in history since he was throwing away a resource that would of resulted in cheaper production costs for him.
      The
  • by bradley13 ( 1118935 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @08:57AM (#48632711) Homepage

    The stupid thing is: it may well work. The federal government regularly twists the Commerce Clause beyond all recognition. The most egregious case, the one that really set the ball rolling, was the one where the federal government claimed the right to regulate farmers feeding their own grain to their own livestock [wikipedia.org]. Why? Because that meant that they bought less grain from elsewhere, some of which might, potentially come from out of state. Hence, the Commerce Clause allowed the regulation.

    Given that sort of precedent, the federal government can justify essentially any regulation that it wants. Certainly including telling Colorado that it's state-wide laws are invalid, because they happen to indirectly affect neighboring states.

  • If Colorado simply required a state ID for purchasers that would seem to mute the issue. Purchases by out of state people would be illegal like anywhere else and CO would have done nothing to impact NE and OK. Of course, we tourists would be infuriated and might try our own suit claiming unfair impact.

  • by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @09:22AM (#48632869)

    The state is libertarian, not Bible Belt, and yet Idaho police organizations are incensed over pot legalization in neighboring Oregon and Washington. There have been a number of well-publicized cases of Bad Cop behavior exercised against out-of-state pot users, even to the extent of spying by Idaho cops in the pot-legal states in hopes of entrapping legally operating businessmen passing through Idaho.

    Idaho has such a large population of anti-government types that I can see it not only legalizing pot, which they regard as basically a side issue, but being the first state to seriously cut back on law enforcement property seizure powers. Based on this year's headlines, this will start an even more popular serious of referenda across the country than pot legalization.

  • Decades?

    Trillions spent on it? And I can still go down the street & score. Why are people crossing into Colorado to score when Billy next door grows it? This really makes no sense.

    Stressing their law enforcement resources my ass... Nebraska is making money on these busts, we know that. Now they want to double dip & get some of Colorado's tax windfall.

  • Why not a purge? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Carnivore24 ( 467239 ) <briansho@NOSPaM.comcast.net> on Friday December 19, 2014 @09:57AM (#48633103)
    Make all drugs legal for 1 month out of every year. That way Darwin comes in and filters through all the idiots who can't control themselves. By the end of the month everyone who practices personal responsibility and respect continue contributing to the normal human gene pool. It it's a hit expand it to 2-3 months a year.
  • by luis_a_espinal ( 1810296 ) on Friday December 19, 2014 @10:01AM (#48633153) Homepage

    The attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado in the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, arguing state-legalized marijuana from Colorado is improperly spilling across state lines

    Seriously, wtf. Oklahoma is way up there among the meth'iest states in the Union, and in Nebraska, LEO's report 1 meth lab incident per 200K people (compared to 1 incident per 376K people in Colorado.) Meth is far more dangerous than pot, I would think these two states should get their shit together before trying to drag another state to federal court.

    Furthermore, Colorado is doing far better in almost all indicators than these two states. Not because of pot legalization obviously, but because of a variety of reasons (many of them social).

    So, Oklahoma and Nebraska, butt off. Get your shit together. Then worry about legal consequences, if any, that you might be experiencing because Coloradoans are baking brownies the type your granny used to eat back in Woodstock (yes, either she did that there or in a barn, get over it.)

One person's error is another person's data.

Working...