Anti-marijuana group to file lawsuit seeking to overturn legalization in Colorado

Oh good grief, here we go again:

Some group of people want to drive the pot market back into the underground into the hands of criminals.

Source

ponents of Colorado’s marijuana legalization are expected to file a federal lawsuit on Thursday that will seek to shut down the state’s new industry and which they say will accuse participants of violating racketeering laws.

Voters in Colorado chose to legalize the use of recreational marijuana by adults in a landmark 2012 ballot, even as the drug remains federally outlawed. Washington state has also legalized recreational pot, while Alaska and Oregon are following suit.

But the Safe Streets Alliance, a Washington, D.C.-based group which describes itself as a national non-profit aimed at reducing youth drug use and violent crime, said its lawsuit will allege that state and local officials in Colorado are violating federal law by promoting the commercialization of marijuana.

“Safe Streets is asking the federal courts to order Colorado officials to comply with federal law and stop issuing state licenses to deal illegal drugs,” it said in an online statement.

Here's the funniest part:

The group called for testimony from individuals who feel that they, their relatives, properties or businesses have been hurt by the marijuana industry, and said federal racketeering laws give plaintiffs injured by a commercial drug conspiracy the right to an injunction, treble damages, and attorney’s fees.

How are they going to prove that anybody was 'damaged' by this? Loitering stoned teenagers in the park? Doritos bags left unchecked in the streets?

The last line of the article sums it up nicely:

“It’s hard to imagine why anyone would prefer marijuana be controlled by criminals instead of by tightly regulated businesses. If drug cartels relied on litigation instead of violence, this is the lawsuit they would file.

The Fed has already established that they will not interfere with state's rights concerning legalization of MJ. And honestly, it it wasn't so close to election time, I'm pretty sure there would be soon a national conversation, about removing MJ from the Federal Schedule as a Class A drug.

I guess we'll see when the next justice department is sworn in.

~Tenth

Obviously them dunno how to do math.
The numbers kind of speak for themselves, a quick google search will give all the information one needs.
They got so much money people are getting giant tax returns this year. So good luck to them, people have had a taste and there is no going back now.

They should learn to just chill man!! Have a toke or two and allow people to get on with living their lives.

Besides, the revenue being generated by the sales of Pot, should make people's lives better surely? How will making using pot recreationally illegal, keep the streets safe? I would have thought it would have the opposite effect if they push it underground again.

Oh well, there are NIMBYs all over the World it appears.

Good god, let em smoke. They are going too even if it is illegal.
Just tax the sh&$ out of it like cigarettes. Gotta fund the rehab centers with something.

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
Good god, let em smoke. They are going too even if it is illegal.
Just tax the sh&$ out of it like cigarettes. Gotta fund the rehab centers with something.

By making it legal, the pressure and money of pot crimes is lifted off the judicial system. That alone is enough and then some to pay for the rehab centers.

The guy who runs Safe Streets is James Wootton, as a political appointee in the Reagan Justice Department he helped create the National Partnership to Prevent Drug and Alcohol Abuse and Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Programs.

So I guess he's still fighting the War on Drugs. Hopefully his lawsuits will not go anywhere (seems a bit egotistical to think you know better than the residents of Colorado and that you would fight the will of the people as demonstrated by vote).

Amusingly enough, he's also part of Tomorrowscurestoday.org who's mission statement includes:

TCTF focuses on educating Americans and heightening the public's awareness of the regulatory hurdles that slow the discovery of cures in the United States, restrict funding for primary research, and hinder productivity that results in exorbitant drug prices.

The foundation assembles and organizes research, medical experts, organizations, companies and patients that can best provide an overall understanding of the problems within our current drug approval system, the severity of the limitations to developing medical cures, and the wide spread inefficiencies of the biopharmaceutical industry due to excessive regulatory demands.

But I guess excessive regulatory demands and drug reform only apply to drugs and companies he approves of, Typical...

Yeah, lets tie up the courts with more BS. People telling others how they should live, even when the people have spoken loud and clear.

Idiots.

originally posted by: AzureSky
Obviously them dunno how to do math.
The numbers kind of speak for themselves, a quick google search will give all the information one needs.
They got so much money people are getting giant tax returns this year. So good luck to them, people have had a taste and there is no going back now.

cannabis is a gateway drug to tax refunds?
ha h aha

i couldn't resist. :-)

a reply to: subfab

That's the best thing I've read all week.

~Tenth

If only they had the determination and initiative about pollution and oil production destroying nature, and how future generations won't experience sunny filled days.

Don't they have crack to worry about? I mean, that drug does lower property value?

originally posted by: chiefsmom
Yeah, lets tie up the courts with more BS. People telling others how they should live, even when the people have spoken loud and clear.

Idiots.

The majority of the people want legal weed, therefore it should be legal. Do you feel that way about everything?

Actually black market is cheaper...GO FIGURE.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Tax free too.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

I don't understand your question.
I feel that the people of Colorado voted on this issue and passed this issue. So people from other states need to leave them the hell alone.

a reply to: chiefsmom


Ok I'll ask in a different way with an example of majority rules.
Since the voters in California voted down gay marriage, "proposition 8". Should everybody else just accept that the majority decided or should they voice their opinion until they get their way?

I'm not against gay marriage so I don't want to hear about it either.

a reply to: Hoosierdaddy71

Bad example. One law discriminated, this one doesn't.

I get what you mean though. But yeah, states right's issues should be kept to the state they were involved in. A SCOTUS ruling on the Colorado legalization is actually a welcome thing among people who work and support the industry.

As they are most likely to vote in favor of Colorado as opposed to those bringing the law suit.

~Tenth

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: chiefsmom


Ok I'll ask in a different way with an example of majority rules.
Since the voters in California voted down gay marriage, "proposition 8". Should everybody else just accept that the majority decided or should they voice their opinion until they get their way?

I'm not against gay marriage so I don't want to hear about it either.

Gay marriage involves other people's rights. Gay people are a minority and "majority rules" works fine for issues, but if it ends up stepping on the minority's rights, it's unconstitutional.

So, legalizing pot is one thing. Denying rights to a group of people is quite different, and the majority's views don't rule.

What BH and Tenth Said, LOL

Discrimination is telling someone else what they can and cant do with their own body. (or heart if you will)
(yes, I realize I oversimplified it, but for the case in the OP, this works.)
I am a firm believer in "my decisions are my choice, as long as they harm no one else" AKA my body my choice. Whom I sleep with, what I put in my body, what I do to my body, is nobody's damn business, as long it concerns consenting adults, and doesn't harm anyone or anything (just to add animals and property, to be clear) else.


That help?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
a reply to: chiefsmom


Ok I'll ask in a different way with an example of majority rules.
Since the voters in California voted down gay marriage, "proposition 8". Should everybody else just accept that the majority decided or should they voice their opinion until they get their way?

I'm not against gay marriage so I don't want to hear about it either.

Gay marriage involves other people's rights. Gay people are a minority and "majority rules" works fine for issues, but if it ends up stepping on the minority's rights, it's unconstitutional.

So, legalizing pot is one thing. Denying rights to a group of people is quite different, and the majority's views don't rule.

I'm fine with that logic. Gays have all the right in the world to be miserable like so many married straight people, and the tax breaks that come with it.

But please use that same logic on all the Anti gun folks that want to take away my rights.

I have an old friend in Colorado and he helps a guy stash his cash. He rents storage buildings to store it in. All legal but too much for the system. Just like breaking bad but the piles are smaller because the police can scan storage buildings for the money. They store it in job boxes to negate the scanner.