Nebraska, Oklahoma sue over Colorado marijuana law

a reply to: Southern Guardian

The taxes and bureaucracy keeps the government big.

"Legalize" and don't tax would make government smaller.

Keeping something "Illegal" is also big government and cost more in taxes.

I'm not taking a stand to keep MJ illegal. I'm against the taxes. All of them.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: xuenchen

I guess that is one spin on it...

So big gov is not them telling you what is or is not ok to put in your body but just the taxing of it?

Think people wanting 'small' gov need to figure out what exactly that is.

All government interference is big government.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Southern Guardian

The taxes and bureaucracy keeps the government big.

"Legalize" and don't tax would make government smaller.

Keeping something "Illegal" is also big government and cost more in taxes.

I'm not taking a stand to keep MJ illegal. I'm against the taxes. All of them.

I'm fairly certain these governor generals would be suing Colorado for legalization regardless of whether or not they included taxing MJ in their laws. It makes no difference. You're against all taxes apparently, that's a whole other debate, but it has little to nothing to do with the argument from the Nebraska and Oklahoman state governments against the rights of Colorado on legalizing within their state lines.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I imagine there needs to be some sort of plan to accommodate the distribution of tax dollars from the new revenue stream that MJ taxes as sure to produce, and away from the stream of dollars going to prisons to keep MJ users locked up.

Those empty prisons are gonna need filling up. I wonder what crimes will replace the void?....Pointing your finger like a gun or eating a pop tart in the shape of gun, maybe.

The complaint says the measure runs afoul of federal law and therefore violates the Constitution's supremacy clause, which says federal laws trump state laws.

In a policy statement last year, the U.S. Justice Department noted it doesn't have the resources to police all violations of federal marijuana law

so, it seems that nebraska`s beef isn`t really with Colorado but with the justice dept.

Nebraska is saying:
" MJ is a violation of federal law so why isn`t the justice dept. enforcing the law?"

the justice dept. is saying:
"pfft, are you kidding me, the fed just make the laws we don`t actually have the resources to enforce them"

Colorado is saying:
" we aren`t going to spend state resources to enforce a fed law that isn`t even a crime in our state"

It looks like the federal government is on the losing end, they can make any laws that they want but since they can`t force the states to use state resources to enforce federal laws, those laws have no teeth, they are useless.

The fed is looking pretty stupid now,
"DOH! we made this law but we have no way to enforce it! and now the states won`t help us"

Uh oh, It seems the Pot activists just suffered a setback....

here's another source.....

Oklahoma and Nebraska are suing Colorado over its marijuana policy, complaining that the substance is being smuggled across borders.

Why Three States Are Sparring Over Legal Weed

So maybe the "old" smugglers are taking a financial bath

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Dear average southern conservative, how do you feel about the nanny state and big government?

"Smaller gubmint, dammit! Git away from mah guns, dammit! State rights, dammit! Rabble, rabble, dammit!"


Ok, what about gay marriage, recreational marijuana, and non-Christian religions?

"Oh, the gays? The potheads? The heathens? Why isn't the gubmint making them live how I want them to?! They should do something about that!"

I wish I could give this a thousand stars.

it's only about states' rights when it's pro their way of life.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
Uh oh, It seems the Pot activists just suffered a setback....

How so?

I haven't seen where the SC is even considering the case? You have something we don't?

ok. is the place where it is a felony to get caught twice with rolling papers. It is also home to one of the largest Native American reservations where it is now legal to possess and grow wacky tabacky according to federal law. That will never work and they clearly have to adjust.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Because Federal law, specifically the CSA, states marijuana is a controlled narcotic with no medicinal applications under federal law. By refusing to enforce that law the surrounding states can argue the feds are violating the law by not enforcing it.

The states right argument is moot since any conflict between state and federal law automatically defaults to federal. While the state and federal governments are separate sovereigns, the feds win by default.

The full faith and credit clause, which states legal proceedings from one state must be recognized by other states, is not automatic nor absolute. Congress can prescribe what is valid and what is not.

The follow on argument based on federal law not being enforced is the criminal increase in these 2 states that are directly related to Colorado's law. Colorado is also seeing a good size uptick in accidents where marijuana is a factor.

In laymen's terms think of these 2 states and being 2 houses on the same block and across the street is Colorado, which can be viewed as a drug house on the block.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
Colorado is also seeing a good size uptick in accidents where marijuana is a factor.

I've called you out on this before but you ignored it. I'll ask again.

Prove it.

How was marijuana the factor? Just because it was in someone's system?

Were prescription drugs also tested for?

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Just saying... apparently there isn't a consensus on the issue....

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

and you ignored what I was saying.

Study: More marijuana-positive drivers involved in fatal car accidents in Colorado


UC School of Medicine - Pot-Related Auto Crashes Increase

Colorado Dept of Transportation report - 2013 - PDF LINK

NHTSA - Impaired driving.

Finally, and many people don't seem to know this, when dealing with individuals who are dwi/dui can extend beyond a breath test. As a matter of fact a blood draw is one of the accepted tests we can request if we feel impairment is caused by something other than alcohol.

During field sobriety tests there are signs to look for that suggest something other than alcohol is in their system.

12 Step DRE process[edit]

A DIE involves the following 12 steps (a detailed description for each step is given at the DECP.org[5])
1.Breath Alcohol Test: The arresting officer reviews the subject’s breath alcohol concentration (BrAC) test results and determines if the subject’s apparent impairment is consistent with the subject’s BrAC. If so, the officer will not normally call a DRE. If the impairment is not explained by the BrAC, the officer requests a DRE evaluation.
2.Interview of the Arresting Officer
3.Preliminary Examination and First Pulse
4.Eye Examination
5.Divided Attention Psychophysical Tests
6.Vital Signs and Second Pulse
7.Dark Room Examinations
8.Examination for Muscle Tone
9.Check for Injection Sites and Third Pulse
10.Subject’s Statements and Other Observations
11.Analysis and Opinions of the Evaluator
12.Toxicological Examination : After completing the evaluation, the DRE normally requests a urine, blood and/or saliva sample from the subject for a toxicology lab analysis.

Drug Evaluation Field test form - PDF

A blood test can test for alcohol, marijuana and other legal / illegal narcotics.

Bruning's knuckles run white with desire....
to perpetuate self-serving Ignorance-driven Hypocrisy for all entire.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

I would suggest following the money, a tired and obvious adage i know, but one that doesn't become an adage for nothing.

Are there any large pharma outfits in Nebraska and Oklahoma?

Are the Community Anti-Drug Coalition of America (CADCA) especially active there?

One of the large sponsors of this CADCA outfit is none other than Purdue Pharma, the manufacturer of Oxy-Contin, the highly addictive painkiller responsible for many millions of pain relieved users, but also responsible for many thousands of deaths annually.

The fact that Cannabis can replace Oxy-Contin and many other similar drugs, at mere fractions of their cost, and do it while causing ZERO deaths annually, and providing other health benefits at the same time should give people some rough idea as to why pharmaceutical corporations are at the driving edge of Cannabis prohibition and anti-Cannabis propaganda campaigns...their bottom lines are suffering, and despite the often lethal nature of their 'clean and legal' pharmaceutical drug offerings, will push their synthetics and besmirch safe and effective alternatives like Cannabis to keep their profits high..cynical and disgraceful..but that's caring big business for ya !

It might surprise those seeking actual stats and figures on these issues, to cut through the pro and anti propaganda that inevitably follows topics like these around, to learn a singular home truth regarding which drugs are truly harmful and which are not.

Ready for the acid test (no pun intended) on drugs propaganda?

Since 1976 and up until 2006, a relatively short 30 year period of time, approximately 62 Million people have been KILLED by using pharmaceutical prescription drugs, and NONE have been killed by using Cannabis.

62,000,000 pharma drug deaths Vs. zero Cannabis deaths....there, right there is all the information we should ever require when debating the harm profiles of (amazingly) legal drugs vs (surprisingly) illegal drugs and which is really killing and damaging us in our tens of millions !

Before you think that these prescription drugs were all intentional OD's, you ought to know that over 25% of the deaths connected to Pharmaceutical prescription drugs were prescribed in a hospital or medical setting.

The reason Cannabis is illegal is obvious, and it has NOTHING to do with harming our health and EVERYTHING to do with rightfully harming pharmaceutical corporations profits.

As always, follow the money.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Does that blood test determine if the "subject" is actually impaired or if there is THC metabolites in the system.

I'll let you figure out the difference.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

and you ignored what I was saying.

No, just telling you there is a difference between testing positive for marijuana use and actually being impaired. But, you and the police at large like to hide this fact.

Study: More marijuana-positive drivers involved in fatal car accidents in Colorado

Please...Fox News? Why not site Wikipedia? At least Wikipedia doesn't have a lawsuite behind it saying it can lie to the American public.

Also, again the old tested positive vs. actually impaired.

UC School of Medicine - Pot-Related Auto Crashes Increase

Same study sighted. Again tested positive vs. actually impaired.

Colorado Dept of Transportation report - 2013 - PDF LINK

NHTSA - Impaired driving.

Can you specifically site the portion were it talks about marijuana? Unlike a cop, I don't have all day to search the internet.

Blood testing does not tell you how impaired the driver is when it comes to marijuana.

Marijuana can remain in the bloodstream for up to four hours after use. Individuals who use marijuana frequently have longer detection periods, due to the accumulation of THC in their bloodstream.

Can you tell me with a straight face that 4 hours after that joint people are still impaired?

Therefore, blood tests are administered in the workplace after an accident because of its ability to determine use within 12 to 24 hours.

www.livestrong.com...

12 to 24 hours? Same question as above.

Now prove to me that marijuana caused those accidents because someone was actually impaired and not just tested positive.

Hint.....you can't because they haven't developed the test yet.

Swab testing you say? Again 12-24 hours after use.

Try again.

Fireworks are illegal in my state but legal in surrounding states. According to the CPSC there was a >30% increase in injuries related to fireworks between 2012 and 2013. Shouldn't the Feds slap those states where it is legal? I mean, weren't fireworks used in the pressure cooker bombs at the Boston Marathon terrorist attack?

source

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Dear average southern conservative, how do you feel about the nanny state and big government?

"Smaller gubmint, dammit! Git away from mah guns, dammit! State rights, dammit! Rabble, rabble, dammit!"


Ok, what about gay marriage, recreational marijuana, and non-Christian religions?

"Oh, the gays? The potheads? The heathens? Why isn't the gubmint making them live how I want them to?! They should do something about that!"

You basically just summed up half of ATS.

"I want smaller gubberment! but am pro torture, Pro drug prohibition, Pro MIC and Pro CIA/NSA spying state"

The hypocrisy is blinding from these people.