The struggle marijuana legalization is one of the most prevalent and controversial conflicts about federalism in recent times. The roles of federal and state drug laws have created a lot of instability and put the legality of marijuana in question. Nebraska and Oklahoma tried to sue Colorado over the legalization of recreation marijuana, however, the Supreme Court refused their complaint. The two states claimed that Colorado's legalization caused Nebraska and Oklahoma to struggle with enforcing the federal ban and that Colorado's establishment of a regulated market prompted marijuana to flow into their states. It drains their treasuries, places stress on their justice systems, and endangers the health of their residents. Nebraska and Oklahoma did concede that Colorado has the power to legalize production, distribution, possession, and use of marijuana. Nebraska Attorney General said the Supreme Court's denial of the case does not mean that "unconstitutional facilitation of marijuana industrialization is legal." Those on Colorado's side say that states have the right to regulate or prohibit the marijuana industry, and Colorado as a state has "done more to control marijuana than just about any other state." This case indicates the fight between state and federal powers. The federal government is able to regulate marijuana based on the Commerce clause while state authority regulates it based on the Tenth Amendment which states the powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States and the people. State governments have sovereign powers but are not equal to the federal government because of the Supremacy Clause. However, states are free to write their own criminal statutes and thus does not conflict with federal law.
Questions:
1. The article states the claim that Colorado's law puts stress on Nebraska and Oklahoma's criminal justice systems. Discuss the drawbacks and benefits of Colorado's law.
2. The article makes it clear that Nebraska and Oklahoma were both against Colorado's law. What was Nebraska and Oklahoma's standing?
3. Opinion: What do you think the outcome of the case should have been and provide your reasoning.
3. If the case had been brought in front of the Supreme Court, the outcome of the case would probably be in favor of Colorado, saying that the other states have to respect the laws and decisions of other states, possibly applying the 10th amendment. Although it is illegal on a federal level after Gonzalez v Raich, the states have the ability to make their own laws, and Colorado has "done more to control marijuana than just about any other state". The Supreme Court clearly recognized that the case didn't have enough merit, and Colorado would've most likely won.
ReplyDelete2. Nebraska and Oklahoma's standing was that the legalization of marijuana in Colorado had a destabilizing effect on their states, due to the increased spending and effort it takes to enforce the federal marijuana ban. They believe Colorado has not done enough to prevent marijuana from exiting the state, resulting in extra stress on their criminal justice system.
ReplyDelete-Olivia
Delete2. Nebraska and Oklahoma argued that Colorado's law allowing for recreational use of marijuana has caused strain on their criminal justice system. They felt that the law was a "destabilizing force" in their states and that they have already been struggling with enforcing the federal ban on marijuana so the law only worsened their situation. These neighboring states do not want to have to deal with more people in possession of marijuana within their borders due to Colorado's lack of effort in keeping pot from leaving the state. Nebraska's Attorney General felt that the law was "unconstitutional" and he did not agree with the court's decision to deny their complaints.
ReplyDelete2. Nebraska and Oklahoma claimed that Colorado's legalization of marijuana was affecting their own state laws. They argued that Colorado increase of selling has put a strain on the criminal justice systems in neighboring states who are trying to "enforce the federal ban on marijuana" and that they weren't doing enough to keep it in the state. However the Supreme Court denied their complaint without an explanation and many people, including Doug Peterson, Nebraska's Attorney General, believed the the states should have been allowed to proceed with their argument.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteIf the case had ran through the state courts, then Colorado might’ve won; However, if it were brought up to the Supreme Court, Oklahoma and Nebraska could’ve won. One could say that other states have to respect every other state's laws because of the full faith and credit clause, but marijuana is illegal in some states and legalizing weed has resulted in other “legal systems... struggling to enforce the federal ban on marijuana”. If this becomes a huge problem, then the Supreme Court could ban the legalization of marijuana through the commerce clause. It is also illegal on the federal level, which could overrule state laws according to the Supremacy Clause.
2. Nebraska and Oklahoma essentially believed that Colorado was opening the possibility of citizens leaving the state with Marijuana and bringing it to other states illegally. Nebraska and Oklahoma were concerned because pot was still illegal and they wanted to maintain this state law, claiming that Colorado was interfering with their right to establish individual state laws. As Colorado passed this law, Nebraska and Oklahoma felt powerless in that they didn't have control over citizens in COlorado bringing illegal drugs to their states, thus, "significant harms to their sovereign interests". After the Supreme Court decided to deny these accusations of their concerns, people such as national attorney Doug Peterson became "disappointed" and concerned with the results.
ReplyDelete2. Nebraska and Oklahoma argued that Colorado's marijuana laws are "a destabilizing force in their states" because they are struggling to enforce the federal government's ban on the substance. They claimed that marijuana is placing a burden on their criminal justice systems and that Nebraska taxpayers unjustly "bear the cost." They also argued that Colorado was not taken proactive enough measures to prevent marijuana from leaving the state, and even if Colorado were to do so, it'd be violating the federal ban. Nebraska and Oklahoma believe that the Supreme Court should strike down Colorado's marijuana laws as "unconstitutional."
ReplyDelete- Danielle J.
DeleteBoth Nbraska and Oklahoma believe that the legalization of Marijuana in Colorado is making it even harder for local law enforcement to enforce the federal ban on Marijuana. Nebraskas’s Attorney General Doug Petreson made his point when he revealed the steps he plans to take in order to ensure laws restricting the distribution of marijuanna become clearer, and more punishable across the board. Nebraska and Oklahma as well as other surrounding states, have seen the negative effects this legalization has had on their criminal justice system and believe Colorado needs to step up to prevent Marijuana from widening its out of state influence.
ReplyDelete-Alana Howley
1) Nebraska and Oklahoma claim that Colorado's laws puts pressure on their criminal justice systems because the marijuana that they are selling for recreational use is crossing boarders. This could lead to crime in other states which Nebraska and Oklahoma are blaming on Colorado's laws. Colorado on the other hand has stated that they thoroughly regulate marijuana and that it is not their fault that other states are not doing a good job upholding and regulating their prohibition. Many people will argue that the legalization of marijuana is positive because they would like to use, but it also decriminalizes marijuana, so that there are less illegal sales and less crime in general. On the other hand, this can lead to illegal sales among states, which is what Nebraska and Oklahoma are trying to prevent.
ReplyDelete-Monique
Delete2) Nebraska and Oklahoma claimed that Colorado's new law had carry-over effects on their states and put strain on their criminal justice system. They claim that Colorado is not doing enough to prevent marijuana from leaving, which causes a struggle in neighboring states to enforce the ban on marijuana.
ReplyDeleteIf the Supreme Court did not dismiss the case, they would have ruled in favor of the State of Colorado. The Justices would have referred to the 10th amendment which affirms the powers, in this case marijuana, not delegated to the federal government are reserved for the states and people. The states have the rights to make their own laws and act in the interests of their citizens. Though the the growth and sale of marijuana is permited in Colorado, Colorado argued they have also attempted to control the passage of marijuana between neighboring states.
ReplyDeleteI think that because the states are so close together geographically it's hard for them to have different state laws because it makes it harder to enforce.I don't see the federal government ever-changing that law, and if they did it would be to ban marijuana in all states.If the case had gone through State Court I think Colorado would most likely have won. But in the end the Supreme Court Wood use the Constitution to say that they would have to respect state law.
ReplyDelete2. Nebraska and Oklahoma's standing was that the state law that legalized marijuana caused stressed and issues to arise in the neighboring states. They believe that Colorado was doing nothing to enforce the transport of the marijuana and it was coming to the states in increased numbers since the law. This has caused Nebraska and Oklahoma to focus more time and effort in to issues such as their criminal justice system and parts of their economy.-Erik
ReplyDelete3. If the Supreme Court had ruled on this case, I believe they would have ruled in favor of Colorado. This is because of the 10th Amendment, which reserves powers for the states that are not explicitly stated in the Constitution (like control of marijuana). Also, based on the Commerce Clause, there may have been a ruling that the flow of marijuana into other states needs to be better-controlled by Colorado.
ReplyDelete