Nebraska and Oklahoma sue Colorado over legal marijuana

[EC]

Nebraska and Oklahoma have asked the US Supreme Court to nullify a 2012 law that made marijuana legal in the US state of Colorado.

The two states allege that Colorado's law is in violation of federal law.

They say that they are suing just Colorado, and not Washington state where marijuana is also legal, because they do not share a border with Washington.

Colorado's attorney general said their suit was without merit.

"Federal law undisputedly prohibits the production and sale of marijuana," said Nebraska attorney general Jon Bruning in a press release.

"Colorado has undermined the United States Constitution, and I hope the US Supreme Court will uphold our constitutional principles."

Colorado's attorney general John Suthers said in a statement that the state had been expecting legal action after Nebraska and Oklahoma complained about marijuana grown in Colorado coming into their states.

But he said he would vigorously defend Colorado's law as "it appears the plaintiffs' primary grievance stems from non-enforcement of federal laws regarding marijuana, as opposed to choices made by the voters of Colorado".

Colorado's citizens voted to legalise marijuana in 2012, and earlier this year the state became the first in the US to offer marijuana for sale for recreational use.

Already, Colorado has collected $7m in taxes from marijuana sales, adding a valuable revenue stream to the state's coffers.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30542646

[jmyrlefuller]

The litigating states have no standing.

[aligncare]

The only reason Colorado allowed the legalization of marijuana was so they could get a piece of the action. From what I understand the cost of legal weed in Colorado, plus state and federal taxes, is substantially high – no pun intended.

Back in the 70s Alaska legalized the growing of marijuana for personal use; no state involvement, other than the non arrest of individuals who grew and used it for themselves. If memory serves, a few years later however that law was repealed.

After some thought, and from a liberty standpoint, I think government should stay out of the business of allowing the sale of marijuana just so they could tax it. I'd rather see citizens left alone on that issue like the Alaska law did.

[massadvj]

I agree the suit is likely to be thrown out based on lack of legal standing.  I think this marijuana trend coincides with the gay marriage trend and the trend toward states legalizing casino gambling.  There is a lot of money to be made, and when there is a pot of cash available you can bet revenue-starved government will want a piece of the action.

Here in Pennsylvania I often joke that the government is like a mafia operation.  It runs several gambling casinos, race tracks and a state lottery.  It also owns state-run liquor stores.  Add to that the onerous taxes on cigarettes and the nature of a big part of the state's revenue stream becomes clear.  We don't elect a governor, we choose a godfather.  Pennsylvania is now toying with the idea of medical marijuana, and I have little doubt it will be highly taxed and controlled.

My wife is in chemo, and while we are currently trying to keep her on an improvement course with diet and exercise, there may come a time when she is on a slow, downward spiral and we simply want to keep her comfortable.  Marijuana is beneficial for people in the latter category, and much safer than the anti-depressant and anti-nausea medications they currently prescribe.  I'd like it to be available for her, but I think I might rather get it on the black market than have to buy it from state-run facilities.  I agree with AC that there is just something onerous about the state regulating sin so the politicians can empower themselves.