Pubdate: Thu, 25 Dec 2014
Source: Boulder Weekly (CO)
Column: Weed Between the Lines
Copyright: 2014 Boulder Weekly
Contact:  http://www.boulderweekly.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/57
Author: Leland Rucker

A LUMP OF COAL FOR COLORADO FROM NEBRASKA AND OKLAHOMA

Time was when the only Nebraska- Colorado rivalry was about pigskin 
prowess. That annual NU-CU fall tilt gave sportswriters a chance to 
tell crude jokes about each other's jurisdictions to rile the fan 
base while coaches worked the teams to fever pitch by game day.

That all went away, of course, when CU decided that it was too good 
for the Midwest and, seemingly forgetting that Boulder is still 
located on the Great Plains, looked westward in search of greener 
financial pastures. So far at least, that hasn't worked out very 
well. Rivalries are now few and far between.

That competition was a marketing ploy created by the CU football 
coach, but a new rivalry is underway. This one has been instigated by 
Nebraska and has nothing to do with what happens inside Folsom Field. 
It began a couple of years ago after Colorado legalized cannabis and 
Cornhusker police and highway patrol began complaining about it 
crossing into Nebraska and creating havoc there.

The feud reached a critical point earlier this month when Nebraska, 
joined by Oklahoma, filed suit against Colorado in the Supreme Court 
of the United States. Using the argument that Amendment 64 is 
preempted by the Controlled Substances Act, it seeks to force the 
U.S. to enforce federal cannabis laws in Colorado because, according 
to the complaint, legalization here harms neighboring states and may 
increase crime and, of course, endanger the children.

It's quite a document. Reading it, you might think that Nebraska and 
Oklahoma were states whose citizens didn't begin using cannabis until 
Colorado legalized it. Having spent time in Nebraska over the last 40 
years, I can vouch that there was no shortage of cannabis there 
before 2012. Any Nebraska citizen, like any American across the 
country, despite federal prohibitions, can purchase cannabis on the 
black market. And the argument that marijuana in Nebraska comes 
exclusively from the legal market in Colorado is pretty specious. 
Marijuana crosses borders from every direction, just as it does 
anywhere in this country where it's illegal. The only difference is 
that Colorado cannabis, which is regulated, might be more 
distinguishable than black market pot.

As Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University points out 
in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, the suit brings up a 
precedent that could prove problematic for Republicans down the road.

"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," Somin writes. "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."

In this case, Somin is warning to be careful what you ask for.

And the wicket gets even stickier. The lawsuit uses as a precedent 
Gonzalez v. Raich, a 2005 Supreme Court ruling in a California case 
which found that under the Commerce Clause, Congress may criminalize 
the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states 
approve its use for medicinal purposes.

This is interesting, because many observers argue that Gonzalez v. 
Raich considerably expanded Congressional power and that in using it 
as precedent, this lawsuit seeks to expand those powers even further. 
And as Somin and many others point out, using this argument totally 
contradicts conservatives' usual POV, especially when it comes to a 
law like the Affordable Care Act, for which Nebraska and Oklahoma 
have argued for states' rights over federal control. You can't have 
it both ways.

Another problem with the suit was outlined by Colorado Attorney 
General John Suthers, who will be defending the state. Since Colorado 
and Washington legalized cannabis, the Justice Department, in a 
series of memos, has made it quite clear that it is not interested in 
forcing federal cannabis laws over state ones. The Justice 
Department, he explains, "has sent out all these memos saying if a 
state is in compliance with this and that, we're not going to use our 
power to force compliance."

For the most part, legal observers are saying that the lawsuit has 
little merit. One of the great things about the Constitution is that 
it allows states to apply their own laws, try different things and 
sometimes become incubators for changing laws that people find 
useless or oppressive. Prohibitions and arrests for cannabis are 
among those that Americans are finding tedious.

What's really a shame is that authorities in Nebraska and Oklahoma 
are wasting money, time and effort to force a change in a neighboring 
state's law that they say has created a nuisance. They would be much 
better served working to end an antiquated federal law which, while 
noticeably enriching law enforcement, has done nothing to stop people 
from using cannabis and has created a greater nuisance for the entire country.

Happy holidays, everybody, and may your celebrations be higher rather 
than lower.

You can hear Leland discuss his most recent column and Colorado 
cannabis issues each Thursday morning on KGNU. 
http://news.kgnu.org/category/features/weedbetween-the-lines/
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom