Something, something, states rights and hypocrisy... Yes, let's use the argument Chicago likes to use regarding guns entering Chicago from surrounding states.
But guns are protected by the Second Amendment of the US Constitution, whereas marijuana violates federal law. Thus the supremacy argument.
Ah. The ol' "it's against the law in my state to do X, therefore neighboring states also must outlaw X so my state law can succeed" bit. This is also known as "statism only works if its universal."
Too bad Tom Lehrer's not writing any more. Maybe Weird Al can do a Paul Simon parody: "Fifty Random Little Fiefdoms."
The argument is not without merit, but do states have standing in this regard? Wouldn't it be a matter for the Federal government to make this argument? Of course, prosecutorial discretion allows the Fedgov to not do so....
Oy vey. Colorado is certainly free to have its own marijuana law and, while one can argue about whether the federal government can demand that Colorado help enforce federal marijuana law, by no stretch of the imagination can Oklahoma and Nebraska demand that Colorado enforce Federal law when the Federal government doesn't want Colorado to do so.
They perhaps can. Perhaps the best analogy would be a dry state suing a wet state, citing problems with boot legging and drunk driving. That would obviously fail in court - except that the more analogous situation is a dry state suing a wet state during Prohibition in a hypothetical situation in which a state had tried to flaunt the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Hmm... I'm just brainstorming, but there could be a wrinkle. Extradition. Now, there's no way a state is going to extradite for simple possession. The warrant probably wouldn't even be entered statewide, must less nationwide. But, it is something I've never thought of before. If Oklahoma wants to extradite someone on a Charge of X, but X is legal in Colorado, does Colorado turn the person over? Could make for an interesting argument because there is historical precedent.
And yet if you asked all of the Oklahoma and Nebraska politicians pushing this if they're in favor of "freedom and limited government," they'd say yes.
What? Politicians, and people in general, are inconsistent and stick to their principles only insofar as said principles support their personal agendas? That's absurd!
I thought a state had to more-or-less honor extradition requests from other states even if the warrant is for an act that is legal in that state. Or am I completely wrong?
I don't really know that much about that side of it. I was thinking about several northern states refusing to return escaped slaves to southern states even after the Feds passed the Fugitive Slave Act. So, there is precedent.
The obvious: That all government is, or has ever been, is the big dumb thug with the stick who makes sure Joe Average does what Jack Busybody says. Left to Right, "Progressive" to Neocon, that's all government is. All it's ever been. The fist at the end of the long arm of the nannies.
Well, certainly there is a question about this sort of thing that needs to be brought up. I do not think that it will go the way nebraska and oklahoma want, but we are obviously entering a time of change and we need some new legislation on these substances to set some precedent. IMO if you are going to ban something it is up to you to face the fiscal responsibility of securing your borders from that product. If you do not like paying the money to keep something not dangerous out of the hands of people who want it merely because you put some odd moral value on not having it, then do not do it. Let the people have their own morals and let the substance be sold.
That is not all it is. I will agree it does that when you do not limit it, but there is a lot in this country our government has done that is pretty awesome. Our government does some good things when providing us with utility. There are even some nanny changes that have actually made differences like seatbelt laws, and drunk driving punishment. The problem is stopping the nanny before she goes too far and removes freedoms we should have. A seatbelt should be an operational necessity for a car. You should be sober while driving a car. Those are choices we should make like having brakes on our car. But then the nanny state goes way too far because they start equating the lives saved by measures like that with estimated lives saved by things like not drinking as much soda. Or they start pretending they are saving lives by stopping abortion or birth control. Or they say they are saving lives by stopping gays from being gay. Then they start telling us we have to ban guns entirely. I agree with you about the nanny moral state that comes from both sides, but libertarians rely too much on the goodness of others when they know all too well you cannot rely on people to make the right decision. We do need a government for certain things. There are also other things which a centralized single source which everyone contributes to does better than a capitalism based system, and vise versa.
Oklahoma Republicans realize they look like tools and ask for the lawsuit to be killed. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6418534
