Marijuana

Oklahoma and Nebraska Try to Force Pot Prohibition on Colorado

|

Jacob Sullum

Today Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado, arguing that marijuana legalization there is having spillover effects on neighboring states and should be reversed because it violates federal law. The two states are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to declare that Amendment 64, the legalization measure that Colorado voters approved in 2012, is "unconstitutional and unenforceable under the Supremacy Clause" because it conflicts with the Controlled Substances Act.

Prohibitionists have been pushing this argument for years, but it will not get them what they want. As Deputy Attorney General James Cole explained to the Senate Judiciary Committee last year, the Justice Department decided against trying to block marijuana legalization in Colorado and Washington after concluding that there was no viable legal strategy to stuff the buds back into the jar. It is well established that Congress cannot compel states to punish activities they decide should not be treated as crimes. Although the federal government might have more success in challenging a state's licensing, regulation, and taxation of marijuana businesses, Cole said, the upshot of such a victory would be a legal but completely unregulated market. Given the way the Supreme Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause with reference to the ban on marijuana, the feds might force Colorado and Washington to scrap their rules for growing and distributing marijuana. But they cannot constitutionally force Colorado and Washington to arrest, prosecute, and imprison marijuana growers and distributors.

If the Justice Department could not roll back legalization, what hope do Nebraska and Oklahoma have? They complain that Colorado has not taken adequate precautions to prevent interstate smuggling of marijuana, although it did impose a quarter-ounce limit on purchases by visitors in an attempt to address that concern. But if Nebraska and Oklahoma manage to overturn Colorado's regulations, there will be no restrictions at all. And even if they could force Colorado to recriminalize marijuana cultivation and distribution (which they can't), drug warriors have never been up to the task of preventing contraband from flowing to people who want it. Why would that reality suddenly change if Colorado rejoined the prohibitionist fold? 

"Since the implementation of Amendment 64 in Colorado, Plaintiff States have dealt with a significant influx of Colorado-sourced marijuana," the complaint says. "The detrimental economic impacts of Colorado Amendment 64 on the Plaintiff States, especially in regard to the increased costs for the apprehension, incarceration, and prosecution of suspected and convicted felons, are substantial." Oklahoma, which was dry until 1959, could have made a similar complaint about states that dared to allow trafficking in booze, but that would not have given it the right to impose its prohibitionist policy outside its borders. The problem that Nebraska and Oklahoma face is not that Colorado has decided to let people get high; it's that Nebraska and Oklahoma insist on trying to stop them.

NEXT: Elf on the Shelf Isn't Just Creepy, It's Teaching Kids to Accept Surveillance State

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Today Nebraska and Oklahoma sued Colorado, arguing that marijuana legalization there is having spillover effects on neighboring states and should be reversed because it violates federal law.

    Isn’t that why Chicago claims its gun crime is so high? Because its neighbors won’t play ball?

  2. Hello Nebraska and Oklahoma Republican (and Democrat) drug warriors – now please go fuck yourselves.

    Or does that mean we can sue to make sure that their brand of stupid is contained within their state lines?

  3. Is this a type of reefer madness?

  4. Excess corn consumption has adverse health effects. We need to make Nebraska stop exporting their poison.

    SEE HUSKERS? TWO CAN PLAY THAT GAME.

    Also, how do they know the increased weed is coming from Colorado?

    1. “THE GREAT STATE OF VERMONT DOES NOT APOLOGIZE FOR ITS CHEESE!”

  5. Federalism, how does it work?

  6. But they cannot constitutionally force Colorado and Washington to arrest, prosecute, and imprison marijuana growers and distributors.

    Sure they can. What’s to stop them? The text of the Constitution? Are you kidding me? That ship sailed a long time ago. There is nothing to stop these fucks from writing an opinion that says “We find that the language, ‘Congress shall make no law’ means that Congress can make any law that can….” What are you going to do, appeal to logic?

    Look, your Constitution is a dead letter. Just fucking accept that and obey and maybe you won’t get shot today.

    1. If it were a dead letter you’d have almost no gun rights and Citizens United would not have happened. For God’s sake please have perspective.

      1. You mean like those awesome gun rights in the state of New York?

        1. You would not even have those. Nice move there, ignoring the places in America with much better gun rights. Nice and dishonest.

          1. So you are saying that it is a material misrepresentation to say that New York’s guns laws suck ass?

            1. No I’m saying it’s stupid to say that NY obviates all the gains seen for gun rights thanks to the 2A. Perhaps you should read Reason’s archives on the matter.

              1. Cyto’s absolutely right in regards to gun rights. Were it not for the Second Amendment guns would currently be completely banned in multiple left-wing states and cities.

                1. You are absolutely correct. My left wing friends regularly try to tell me how much more difficult it is to get a driver’s license than to buy a gun. I simply point out to them that the “right to own and drive an automobile” is not protected in the Bill of Rights, and that were it not for the 2nd Amendment they would’ve rounded up all the guns long, long ago.

        2. Technically, the 2nd Amendment only prevents the federal government from restricting the right to keep and bear arms. Passing that prohibition on to the states and cities comes from incorporation, and the language governing that is much less clear cut.

      2. And if Citizen’s United is your best case for showing a judiciary’s williness to uphold the Bill of Rights against the federal leviathan….well, then I think you made my point for me.

        Corporations have free speech…. Whoa, slow down there SCOTUS. Way to stand up to the man.

        1. Individuals have pretty good speech protections. Citizens United put groups of people on the same footing. There is still too much regulation of commercial and electioneering speech, but it was a move in the right direction and a good interpretation of the constitution. I think you are a bit too pessimistic. There is some reason for hope that at least some of the worse state gun laws will be pushed back.

          1. Sh. He’s doom-sturbating.

          2. I’m all for corporations having free speech rights. But if this is the best that can be said re: SCOTUS upholidng the constitution, then we’re fucked. If Kelo, Raich, or the ACA decision, or any other number of cases, then I might believe that SCOTUS was upholding the constitution. But they are not. They are no different than any other political hacks. And nothing has stopped them from torturing the plain words of the constitution with bold faced illogic to seek their ends. Jesus, if a SCOTUS is going to uphold convictions based on allowing the pigs to get the law wrong, what is the fucking point of having a constitution?

            1. And through much shuffling and speaking, TMGB has shifted the goal posts.

        2. You know what my fantasy is? My fantasy is to go back in time to when Eric Holder was participating in sit-ins and civil disobedience and whisper in his ear, repeatedly, “You will be The Man”

          1. Yeah? And what were you planning to do with the boner that induced?

          2. And what would that do but encourage him?

          3. You are a better man than I am Paul.

          4. A revolutionary is just one coup short of a dictator.

          5. All of this has happened before.

    2. Even this lawsuit acknowledges that a state can repeal its own criminal laws prohibiting marijuana. Which means that, yes, should the suit succeed, it would mean Colo. can simply have no law on the subject, but cannot have a licensure scheme.

      1. That would…actually be a vast improvement.

  7. The thing is, there is no way in hell any state that “fully” legalizes will go back. Because people got to feel how it feels to have your weed and not always have at least a glimmer of fear about it. It’s just not going to happen. The sky hasn’t fallen, and people can get high without the possibility of getting fucked for it always looming over them.

    The only thing they could do is try and force it and the feds have already decided that they can’t really pull that off.

  8. Nebraska’s GOP Attorney General Jon Bruning and Oklahoma’s GOP Attorney General Scott Pruitt, bringing the small government/federalism!

    1. They’re trying to reduce the number of laws in Colorado… that counts, right?

    2. Your pony really needs a second trick.

      1. Fuck off Tulpa you lying piece of shit. What are you doing back here anyway? You should be too fucking embarrassed to show your miserable lying face here.

        ANYONE DOUBT TULPA IS A LYING PIG?

        1. It’s not Tulpa, it’s someone that somehow stole his name. The other day he came in here and started yelling racist shit about black people, which real Tulpa wouldn’t have done.

          1. Really?

            Take a look at my link:

            Tulpa (LAOL-VA) (that’s copy pasta’d)

            I thought these handles were registered? There is no difference. How is that possible?

            1. I think if you change your name someone can steal the one you had before. That’s what Warty seemed to be implying the other day when New Tulpa came in with his bizarre racist nonsense.

              1. Huh.

                Another reason to not change handles. Helps the trolls.

  9. Is there anything good about Oklahoma?

    1. Seeing it in your rear view mirror on highway 287 into colorado.

      Damn Okalahoma, you win the Sony 2015 Pussy Award considered your small footprint with Colorado as compared with other states.

      1. After which you have to scrape all of the damned insects from your windshield/bumper. Oklahoma seems to have lots of insects, literal and figurative.

    2. It’s like Manitoba. But with corn.

    3. Thunder.

      (The atmospheric phenomena, not the NBA team.)

    4. “Is there anything good about Oklahoma?”

      They claim it’s OK.

    5. They didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor?

    1. Jesus. But not as creepy as this Michelle Obama calender I saw at a toy and game shop at the mall last weekend.

      I can’t understand who would buy something like that.

      1. Please tell me you were on hallucinogenic drugs and didn’t actually see that.

      2. Have you been to Washington, DC?

    2. “Just sign it and you can go.”
      “Fine. There.” *mutters under breath, “But the earth does orbit the sun.”

    3. I found it funny rather than creepy. Just imagine the OFA saps, after spending the past few years berating and cajoling their families over holiday dinners, now sullenly listening to the cheerful banter as their loved ones smugly and pointedly refuse to bring up the midterm shellacking.

    4. Everything he does is creepy. He is the king of creep. There are countless examples of his creepiness.

      For some reason it just popped in my head the time he tried to convince everyone that his nickname was ‘The Gipper’.

      “No Barry. Just no. Nicknames are names given not to oneself but given by others. You can’t convince others that they gave you a nickname that they didn’t, you creepy bastard.”

  10. What about the other states that border Colorado? I’m shocked Utah didn’t join in, at least…

    New Mexico probably just laughed…

  11. Colorado should sue Oklahoma every time its stupid Drug War spills over into Colorado.

    There were 40 times the number of meth lab busts in Oklahoma as there were Colorado.

    http://io9.com/5989152/a-map-o…..-take-away

    …but I’m sure the worm’s about to turn on that Drug War any day now.

    1. Well as the Controlled Substances Act is clearly unconstitutional, I think CO and WA should counter sue.

  12. Actual line from Oklahoma’s and Nebraska’s complaint in this case:
    “Between Colorado and Plaintiff States, Colorado’s actions amount to what would be casus belli if the states were fully sovereign nations.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..a-lawsuit/

    1. I guess we should prepare for the Canucks to invade Washington then. The Battle of Bellingham may be bloody.

      1. Can we put you on the front lines?

    2. Really, a justification for war?! I hope this little line comes back to bite them in the ass when this reaches SCOTUS.

    3. Wow. The drug warriors are like rabid dogs. I guess they would burn the world down and slaughter all of humanity just to make certain no one was getting stoned.

    4. “Between Colorado and Plaintiff States, Colorado’s actions amount to what would be casus belli if the states were fully sovereign nations.”

      By this logic, America is currently at war with Mexico because Mexico’s inability to control drug cartels is resulting in drugs coming into America.

      This is so fucking stupid I can hardly stand it.

      1. Do you mean we AREN”T at war with Mexico? Who new?

      2. By the same logic Saudi Arabia would be justified in attacking neighboring nations for having legal alcohol.

  13. OT: Irish controversy over brain dead pregnant woman

    “Irish media reported Thursday that relatives want to turn off the woman’s life support systems but doctors are refusing because the law requires them to defend the right to life of her 16-week-old fetus. Fetuses typically cannot survive outside the womb until around 24 weeks.”

    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/w…..n-27688117

    1. Heather Has Zero Mommies

      Heather Has a Zombie Mommy

      1. B-

        At least make use of the fact that the Brits call their moms “Mummy”.

        1. Tulpa is a namby-pamby mammy-fecker.

          Better?

        2. Irish are Brits? Woulda been news to my ancestors…

          1. They’re all a bunch of mongrols whether they want to admit it or not.

            1. The limeys saw to that as they continuously raped Ireland for 400+ years.

              And now we’re supposed to fawn over their Welfare Queen and the special baby that was given authority over a nation by the act of being squeezed out of a special vagina. But I repeat myself.

          2. Irish are West Britons.

            [goes into hiding]

            1. Only Dubliners.

    2. So you’re saying that a woman’s choice to carry a baby to term should be overridden by her relatives’ wishes? This is where the pro-choicers are shown to be truly pro-abortioners.

      1. Nothing wrong with that. The women has no wishes because she is dead.

        1. Nothing wrong with that. The women has no wishes because she is dead.

          I guess you also don’t believe in wills then, huh? I mean, if someone is dead why do they have the right to decide what they do with their money?

          Plus, if the woman is dead anyway, then why does allowing the baby to come to term in any way harm her? You can’t have it both ways and argue that she’s dead and therefore her wishes don’t matter but at the same time it’s wrong to keep her on life support in order to try and save her child.

          1. If she made it clear in her will that she wants that thing to live, then okay.

            1. You do always seem to lean toward killing people until proven otherwise, Cyto.

        2. Which means she hasn’t made the choice to kill her offspring, which you supposedly “pro choice” people hold so dear.

          I guess it’s a woman’s right to choose, unless she doesn’t choose an abortion, in which case the choice passes to the nearest relative who wants to abort. Yep, pro-abortion it is.

    3. This seems reasonable. Can we assume that she intended to carry the child to term? Then we could assume that she would want the doctors to preserve the child’s life.

      1. I suppose it depends on who’s paying for the indirect life support.

        Even the Catholic Church accepts that refusing to take extraordinary measures to keep someone alive is not in itself murder.

      1. What on earth is your problem?

        1. You and all of your sockpuppets.

          1. Would you mind specifying which sockpuppets I have?

              1. As I suspected.

          2. You do realize that your various “fuck you ____” accounts are all sockpuppets themselves, right? Created for the express purpose of concealing your identity while insulting someone. So not only are you a hypocrite, but you’re a cowardly one.

    4. How, exactly, is the woman suffering by carrying the child?

        1. I was think of registering as “fuck you fuck you tulpa” and post “It’s fuck you all the way down.” But then I realized that it wasn’t worth the effort for a single laugh line.

          Carry on with your fine work.

  14. Does the Geneva Convention not protect me from shitty irish balleds or Conway Twitty on the jukebox? If not, what good is it?

  15. Something should be done. For the children.

  16. Sounds like some serious business to me dude.

    http://www.TheAnonBay.tk

  17. If the ‘spillover effects’ are troublesome to neighboring states pure mayhem must rule in Colorado. Right?

    1. According to the article, the spillover effect is that Nebraska and OK are “forced” to spend more money and resources doubling down on the enforcement of their anti-dope laws.

      So I guess Colorado may not have the same problem.

      1. Of course they have to double down. If they don’t then mayhem will rule in Okiebraska.

        Or…they could legalize and tax….never mind, that is crazy talk. What was I thinking?

        1. “arrests, the impoundment of vehicles, the seizure of contraband, the transfer of prisoners, and other problems *associated with marijuana*” [emphasis added]

          So Colorado has those problems, too?

          1. It’s all BS. I live in eastern NE and there was a story a few months back about how sheriffs in western counties were going broke because of all the people they were locking up. They argued that they HAD to stop cars speeding on I80, and when the smelled marijuana they HAD to search and arrest.

            Which, of course is bullshit on so many levels. I doubt most people going to CO to buy weed are going light up in their car. Furthermore, the only reason sheriffs are stopping speeders on I80 is for revenue – that’s really the HP’s job.

            The one encouraging thing was that most of the NE residents who commented on line were ripping the sheriffs not the drug users.

  18. Greetings, Okiyokee and Nebrasker.

    May twin F7 twisters wipe your shitface worthless asses off the planet, soon.

    And fuck all prohibitionist in the ass with a obsidian embedded thorn tree. That is all.

  19. I smellz Tulpa. It smells like shit.

  20. “The lawsuit says the states have suffered increased costs from arrests, the impoundment of vehicles, the seizure of contraband, the transfer of prisoners, and other problems associated with marijuana ? which is strictly illegal in the two states ? flowing into Nebraska and Oklahoma. The states say the problems amount to “irreparable injury.”…

    “…the police chief in Sydney, Neb., told a television station this year that half of his department’s traffic stops now result in a marijuana arrest. He said the department burned through its yearly overtime budget in six months, mostly paying officers overtime to go to court to testify in marijuana prosecutions.””

    Here, let me commiserate with you:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxauqa7rJgI

    1. You know, where alcohol was concerned, when dry states were angry at the wet states for keeping the saloons open, they (dry states) resorted to a *constitutional amendment* which they rammed down the wet states’ throats.

      And come to think of it, the 18th Amendment was never applied to *force* states like NY to adopt prohibitionist laws – the federal laws were (more than) enough.

    2. I wonder if Chief Fuckstick of Sydney, Nebraska is elected or appointed by someone who is elected?

    3. That guy looks like a pothead.

  21. This sounds like Kentucky complaining to Ohio that Ohio won’t help capture Kentucky’s slaves.

    Why can’t states help each other out in enforcing their retarded, oppressive laws?

      1. OK, thank you for that.

  22. I have an idea on how to ban hipster beards:

    Have one state – just one – ban these beards, and then sue all the other 49 states for allowing these beards to remain legal, thus requiring the lone state to focus so much energy on enforcing the ban.

    Soon these beards will be illegal all over the country!

    1. My right to be unshaven shall not be infringed! Laziness is not unconstitutional!

  23. My hard earned tax dollars at work. Got to fucking love it. If this was gay marriage, the same AG was screaming states rights.

    1. Can’t federalism apply in *both* cases?

  24. Shit. Just read the headline. Oklahoma and Nebraska are bitchez.

  25. Shit. Just read the headline. Oklahoma and Nebraska are bitchez.

    1. I think I’m going to interview Nebraska and Oklahoma and in the middle of the interview I’m going to assassinate them.

  26. Part of Jackie’s catfishing e-mail was plagiarized from Dawson’s Creek. If “Randall” were more naive and/or horny he’d be in a hole somewhere putting the lotion on his skin.

  27. It is well established that Congress cannot compel states to punish activities they decide should not be treated as crimes.

    I would not be so sure about that. For the direct action, they still have the power to send in Federal agents. They can arrest anyone, including local state agents. But more likely, they would take the indirect route of withholding Federal funding. And states are compelled to use the Fed’s dollars.

    1. ^ by which I mean legal tender laws. They can’t mint gold/silver coins or circulate their own money (see Bernard von NotHaus’ case)

    2. Also, the commerce clause is there to cover exactly this type of activity. So that provides a possible route of legal compulsion.

      Article 1 section 8 does not define a minarchist government btw. And there is some historical evidence that points to the original intention of the commerce clause as an intervention mechanism for states to bitch about people trading freely across their borders instead of preventing tariffs between states as originally though (and those tariffs are still there in the form of use taxes).

  28. So, two small government, GOP, Red States…suing for moar government.

    Oh, those principled Republicans.

    Fuck any Republican who complains about progs hating liberty. Fucking hypocrites.

    1. Oh, those principled Republicans.

      Sez the guy who supports Obama’s Immigration Order.

      1. Yes, I do.

        It’s simply a prioritization of those to deport. If your funding is insufficient to do the job, it makes sense to prioritize. Since it would take trillions of dollars to round up and deport 12m people, I really don’t have a problem with him spending his “limited” funding on the worst illegals.

        For all the blatant constitutional infractions committed by the Obama administration, the stupid party is going to hang their hat on the one that’s, at least somewhat, justifiable.

        And here’s the deal. If you think the executive can’t choose which laws to enforce, you must also agree they need to be enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in WA and CO.

        1. The Imperial Presidency is bad except when POTUS is doing something you like Just like the Republicans and Democrats. Except what you like is better than the Democrats and Republicans. How unprincipled.

          For all the blatant constitutional infractions committed by the Obama administration, the stupid party is going to hang their hat on the one that’s, at least somewhat, justifiable.

          Ah, the whole “law is dead so why not further ignore it?” defense. Worked well in Weimar Germany and Rome not to mention Napoleon used that line to justify his coup.

          And here’s the deal. If you think the executive can’t choose which laws to enforce, you must also agree they need to be enforcing the Controlled Substances Act in WA and CO.

          The solution is to amend the Controlled Substances act or better yet get rid of it. Or have SCOTUS say that the feds can’t control substances like that.

          And do you think the President can decline to enforce laws he doesn’t like? Doesn’t that mean you are hypocritical for attacking the IRS, NSA, and the CIA?

          1. The Imperial Presidency is bad except when POTUS is doing something you like

            Has nothing to do with what I like. It’s a legitimate argument. If you lack sufficient funding, you do less. Without legislative direction, the executive chooses what doesn’t get done. It happens all the time in government funded programs.

            The stupid party will fight this. The administration will make the exact same argument I just made, and the SCOTUS will side with the administration. The stupid party will look even more stupid.

            The President went to war without congressional approval, in violation of the Constitution (and the War Powers Resolution). The stupid party could kick the President’s ass up one side and down the other on this “real” issue. (The problem being that the principled stupid party really wants to be at war) Instead, they are going to engage on an issue they will most likely lose with.

            Fuck the stupid party. I will relish the libertarian take-over.

            1. Instead, they are going to engage on an issue they will most likely lose with.

              When did libertarians have a problem with a losing issue?

              The stupid party will fight this. The administration will make the exact same argument I just made, and the SCOTUS will side with the administration. The stupid party will look even more stupid.

              So you support Obamacare then?

              Fuck the stupid party. I will relish the libertarian take-over.

              Yes by supporting an increasingly lawless presidency the libertarians will take over. Not a Democrat or Republican using that power to make himself a dictator.

              1. So you support Obamacare then?

                Nonsequitur.

                1. No it isn’t. That phrase I quoted can easily be applied to Obamacare which SCOTUS approved of.

                  1. No it can’t. I made no argument about the funding of ACA. It’s a completely different issue.

                    ACA is unconstitutional under 10A.

                    Immigration is clearly the purview of the federal government under A1S8:

                    To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

                    No one is arguing the law or the constitutionality of the law. His argument is since he isn’t funded to comply with the law, he’s choosing which to focus on.

                    1. ACA is unconstitutional under 10A.

                      Except John Roberts said otherwise.

                    2. John Roberts is a political hack and a moron. Forcing me to buy shit, is not a tax. Penalizing me for not buying shit, is not a tax.

              2. Yes by supporting an increasingly lawless presidency

                He isn’t breaking any law WRT immigration. Why can’t you see this? He’s prioritizing what parts to comply with as he isn’t funded to comply with all of it. He’s telling his executive underlings to focus on certain parts, which is the prerogative of the executive when funds are lacking and without being given a legislative priority.

                The stupid party can feel free to give a prioritized list of whom to deport, taking away executive latitude in the matter. You can start with families and children if you wish. (That would go over well, but it’d be about par for the party of stupid.) Or they can fully fund the current laws, doubling the budget. Go for it.

                This is what the stupid party doesn’t get. Resolving the immigration “issue” WILL involve amnesty. Period. Simply because the cost of rounding up and deporting 12m people would double the size of government. But, they wouldn’t be the stupid party if they dealt with reality instead of unicorn farts.

                1. Simply because the cost of rounding up and deporting 12m people would double the size of government.

                  Like that would perturb the GOP.

                  And the GOP leadership is pro-Amnesty. They want use the issue for political gain (duh) and try to keep the anti-immigration faction in line.

                  1. ITT, FDA whoops Winston; Winston whines and resorts to non-sequitors.

                2. Let’s try a variation on that argument:

                  He isn’t breaking any law WRT immigration prosecuting torture or police brutality. Why can’t you see this? He’s prioritizing what parts to comply with as he isn’t funded to comply with all of it. He’s telling his executive underlings to focus on certain parts, which is the prerogative of the executive when funds are lacking and without being given a legislative priority.

                  Doesn’t look like something you’d read at Reason, does it?

                  Also, remember when Arizona tried to help the supposedly cash-strapped administration enforce the law? King Barry sued to keep them from doing it.

                  Gee, looks like he might, possibly, perhaps, have other motives aside from conserving prosecutorial resources.

        2. the stupid party is going to hang their hat on the one

          I’m not sure about that. There does not seem to be that much enthusiasm in the GOP for this fight. The enthusiasm for this fight is in our stupid, stunted unter-mensch: conservatives. They really believe there’s gonna be a huge uprising over this. John and the other nativist twats have deluded themselves into believing the rest of America shares their neuroses.

          1. unter-mensch

            Disgusting.

            1. Yeah. I like uber-mensch better.

    2. Fuck any Republican who complains about progs hating liberty. Fucking hypocrites.

      So since Rand and Ron are Republicans they support this and also hate Liberty? Are you really as obtuse as you appear online?

      1. I don’t know, are Rand and Ron in favor of forcing states to comply with unconstitutional federal regulation against the will of the people?

        1. unconstitutional federal regulation

          Why do you care about the constitution when the feds can ignore any laws that inconvenience them, like the constitution?

          1. Tell me, which law is he ignoring? He’s deported more people than Bush did. He’s not ignoring it. He’s selectively enforcing it based on funding. Prioritizing the funds towards deporting those with criminal records rather than families.

            The stupid party will not win this one. His argument is sound, although disingenuous.

            The Constitution isn’t legislation and it costs nothing to comply with it’s limitations, therefore a similar argument may not be made WRT compliance.

            1. The stupid party will not win this one. His argument is sound, although disingenuous.

              Such a principled attack on the Republicans.

              1. You lost the debate, shut up.

                1. Who made you debate moderator?

                  1. I did shut up.

                    1. Cytotoxic|12.19.14 @ 1:28AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

                      I did shut up.

                      I wish you would.

                2. Presumably all sub-humans should up eh Cyto?

  29. Looking forward to 100 years of libertarians bitching about marijuana laws…

    1. What does this even mean?

  30. I think Anthony Fisher’s next article should be on the “Wheels on the Bus go Round and Round” is pro-torture propaganda for the kiddies.

  31. Kennedy, why did you destroy this poor boy’s life?

    For the first couple of days after the publication of my essay criticizing military worship, “You Don’t Protect My Freedom,” I certainly felt like my head was resting in the guillotine. On the day of publication I woke up to check my email and found thousands of messages, ranging from the mild (“I hope you die and burn in hell”) to the touching (“If I ever see you on the street, I will kill you.”)

    WAAAAAAAAH! WAAAAAAAAH! People are being mean to me on twitter! *Runs off crying*

    Why are progressives such unbelievable cowards? Conservatives and libertarians get shit like this all the time, and in my experience they mock the person or laugh it off. Why do progs always dissolve into weepy masses of impotent sadness when people are mean to them on the internet?

    1. Probably has to with them being in a bubble. Being a conservative or libertarian means that your views are dismissed by the mainstream so you have to get thicker skin and try to argue with the progressives.

      That and their belief in feelings and tolerance and safe space leaves them in a position that is not catered to rebutting opposing views.

    2. As annoying and priggish he is, and as wrong as he is about other issues, he is right about the military not always “protecting our freedom”.

      Obviously without a military we would not have any freedom. If you doubt that, look at the rest of the damn world. For that reason, I have a ton of respect for people who volunteer for the military until proven otherwise. They don’t get to pick and choose the missions they’re sent on. It’s the asswipes in the civilian command that deserve our scorn for our idiotic foreign policy.

      However, stating that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans were “protecting our freedom” is disingenuous and wrong because it legitimizes stupid missions that had nothing to do with protecting us. Presumably they wanted to, and were willing to protect our freedom, but the choices of their superiors kept them from doing anything of the sort.

    3. I fervishly hope that Kennedy interrupted him.

  32. So I do find the arguments that ending the American embargo on Cuba will undermine the Castro regime rather dubious. The Gulags continued after FDR recognized Stalin and the Purges and the Cold War followed later. What undermined Stalin’s regime was him dying and Khrushchev’s Destalinization.

    Same with China. The reason why China is better than under Mao is that Mao died and his successors were better.

    Cuba gets lots of tourists and foreign capital and the Castros are unchallenged. What will really change Cuba is the Castro brothers dying and hopefully more reformist replacements. Maybe trade with the US will encourage the reformists, I don’t know.

    1. I’m guessing ending the embargo prolly will cause a change to the better for Cuban freedom, but I’m not really concerned with that.
      If and when it ends (and Obo hasn’t done anything about that), it will allow US citizens more freedom.

    2. I’m just glad that they’re turning down the retarded level slightly. The policy toward Cuba has always been a petulant reaction to the Castros, and it hasn’t done jack shit except giving the Cuban government something to blame.

      Plus it will piss off Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, and that’s funny.

  33. Kelly `s st0rry is great, on thursday I got a top of the range Fiat Multipla from having made $5941 thiss month and-more than, 10k lass-month . it’s definitly my favourite work I’ve ever had . I started this three months/ago and pretty much immediately started bringin home minimum $70 per hour .
    hop over to here ========== http://www.jobsfish.com

    1. A Fiat! They’re still in business?

      1. I’m sure Yellen drives one.

  34. So I’m waiting for Kim Jong-Un to clean up at Oscar time. He’ll get the Thalberg, the Hersholt and Win Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay, etc. for his epic -50 golf game.

  35. Paul Schrader’s facebook page:

    THE INTERVIEW. Take a step back. There is no such thing as Free Speech. Never has been. There has always been an ill defined red line between what is permissible and what is not. Somewhere between “Do not yell ‘Fire’ in a crowded theater” and Don’t Insult the Queen’s Wardrobe. It constantly fluctuates. Scorsese and I did not believe we’d crossed the red line on “Last Temptation of Christ” but we had. That film was censored as surely as The Interview but only after terrorist injuries and deaths. Every studio knows that blasphemy against the Prophet or incitation to racial violence are beyond the red line. Now they know making a joke out of assassinating the head of a hostile head of state is across the red line. Labeling The Interview confrontation as a Freedom of Speech issue simplifies a more complex argument.

    1. (Raises hand)

      “I know the answer! I know!”

      “Yes?”

      “Fuck Paul Schrader”

      “Correct!”

  36. “It is well established that Congress cannot compel states to punish activities they decide should not be treated as crimes.”

    Like selling alcohol to people under 21?

    1. Congress can do shit like that.

      The courts cannot.

    2. In SCOTUS’s view, Congress didn’t “compel” raising the drinking age. Congress merely told the states that their cut of federal highway dollars would be reduced unless they raised the drinking age and the states fell over like a house of cards. Congress, however, generally cannot actually force the states to enact particular laws.

  37. The photo is making my eyes red.

    1. “Dave’s not here”

  38. “especially in regard to the increased costs for the apprehension, incarceration, and prosecution of suspected and convicted felons, are substantial”

    Umm, make it legal, problem solved.

  39. There is a story out today about homeless people in Denver. Apparently the prohibitionist policies of neighboring states are having a spill-over affect and homeless people are flowing into Colorado to escape prohibition and to try to find a niche in Colorado’s post-relegalization economic boom.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.