Marijuana

Anti-Legalization Lawsuit Shows Conservative Constitutionalists Have Marijuana-Related Memory Loss

Forsaking federalism, Oklahoma and Nebraska demand that Colorado stop regulating the cannabis industry.

|

Office of Scott Pruitt

Last month the Obama administration urged the Supreme Court not to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska's lawsuit challenging marijuana legalization in Colorado, saying their complaints about cannabis coming over the border do not constitute a genuine interstate controversy. Last week Oklahoma and Nebraska responded, likening legal marijuana to state-authorized air pollution that ineluctably wafts onto their territory. In my latest Forbes column, I explain why the two pot-phobic states are wrong in thinking they have a right to impose their policy preferences on their neighbor:

Last week, two days before Mexican authorities recaptured Joaquín Guzmán Loera, a.k.a. El Chapo, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt pointed to another drug lord, this one hiding in plain sight: John Hickenlooper, a.k.a. the governor of Colorado. "The State of Colorado authorizes, oversees, protects, and profits from a sprawling $100-million-per-month marijuana growing, processing, and retailing organization that exported thousands of pounds of marijuana to some 36 States in 2014," Pruitt writes in a Supreme Court brief joined by Nebraska Attorney General Douglas Peterson. "If this entity were based south of our border, the federal government would prosecute it as a drug cartel."

Hickenlooper actually was a drug dealer of sorts before he got into politics, having cofounded Wynkoop Brewing Company, a Denver brewpub, in 1988. But he ended up running the drug trafficking organization described in Pruitt's brief by accident. He was elected governor two years before Colorado voters decided, against his advice, to legalize marijuana. Pruitt and Peterson are trying to overturn that result, claiming that it hurt Oklahoma and Nebraska by encouraging an influx of Colorado cannabis. Their argument shows how readily some conservative Republicans let their anti-pot prejudices override their federalist principles.

Read the whole thing.

NEXT: Friday Funnies: Obama's State of the Union

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. Is that a real picture or Alfred E. Neuman?

    1. Nah, not as attractive.

  2. Federalism doesn’t count when druggies are involved. It’s not like they’re people.

    1. Well no, but the all-purpose excuse for ignoring Federalism is teh childrenz, surely

    2. Haven’t you heard? We’re at war! With drugs!

      We can’t be bothered with stupid things like federalism.

      I’ve never understood why it isn’t called anti-federalism, though.

      1. But we’re winning the war on drugs!!!

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wVkk6fH2u0Y

  3. Doesn’t the Federal government take its marching orders from the DuPont when it comes to hemp/marijuana legalization anyway?

    I saw it in a video.

    Just like the Morgan and Bush clans and war profits.

    1. I’ll bet the Koch brothers are in on it. I have it on good authority that they are probably hiding under your bed right now!

    2. I don’t think it’s disputed that Dupont lobbied for marijuana restrictions back in the day. But I doubt they tilted the scales much…

  4. Last month the Obama administration urged the Supreme Court not to hear Oklahoma and Nebraska’s lawsuit challenging marijuana legalization in Colorado, saying their complaints about cannabis coming over the border do not constitute a genuine interstate controversy.

    Does this apply to wheat too? Is he going to encourage them to overturn Wickard next? One can only hope…

  5. Are Oklahoma and Nebraska also suing the CIA?

  6. Last week Oklahoma and Nebraska responded, likening legal marijuana to state-authorized air pollution that ineluctably wafts onto their territory.
    That’s the same argument Ron Bailey, Science Libertarian, uses to justify holding everyone down and injecting them with whatever the government says is best for the collective.

    1. That’s the same argument Ron Bailey, Science Libertarian, uses to justify holding everyone down and injecting them with whatever the government says is best for the collective.

      Bailey’s for forced immunization? Not just as a mandatory requirement for using certain public services (schools)? You sure about that?

      1. Danger: vaccine commenter bait.

          1. I am, but it’s not my fault y’all wanted to get between Ron and I. You let me twit him! I’m allowed!

            1. Link.
              Ron Bailey|7.8.15 @ 9:46AM|#

              HoD: As people are required to prevent noxious vapors and liquids emanating from their property from harming their neighbors, don’t they have a similar responsibility to control their own noxious microbes. Other people own their bodies, too.

              I suggested quarantine as an alternative to universal mandates, and he found that insufficient.

      2. Oh, we’re not allowed sarcasm or hyperbole any more? You should get the government to pass a law preventing it.

        Yes. He used exactly that argument.

        Requiring it for schools when schools themselves are required isn’t quite the bastion of freedom you’re implying, but I’m sure you already knew that. Go on, give me another disingenuous hand-wave.

        1. Thanks for the citation above. I missed that comment and I honestly did not realize Bailey felt that way. I wasn’t being disingenuous. Not even with the schools comment, since both private and home schools meet the requirement. Naturally the question of mandatory vaccination would be solved if there were no public property.

  7. *edits*

    Last week Oklahoma and Nebraska responded, likening legal marijuana to state-authorized air pollution that ineluctably wafts onto their territory.

    That’s the same argument Ron Bailey, Science Libertarian, uses to justify holding everyone down and injecting them with whatever the government says is best for the collective.

    I’ll be over here, mainlining coffee.

  8. It’s never about just pot. Medical, recreational who cares? Are you a slave or a magnificent creation of millions of years of top grade evolution capable of choosing what you ingest?

    1. Why wont you think of the children?

  9. I’m not sure why anybody thinks voting for the R half of our duopoly actually means “smaller government”. Yes, the Rs are generally less into (certain types of) business regulations but they love expanding the penal codes to criminalize actions that don’t otherwise harm people but damage “our society” or something (I’m generalizing here, I know a few Rs are principles when it comes to “small government”).

    Our political duopoly is the problem with this country (along with its media enablers), not either side of it.

    1. The Nolan chart has the two axes, personal freedom and economic freedom. The premise that there are different kinds of liberty is baked into chart. I think that illustrates that people are very good at compartmentalizing issues and then being inconsistent.

  10. I blame Harry Anslinger. We still live with the propaganda of the 1930’s.

    1. My favorite Anslinger quote –

      If Frankenstein’s Monster ever met the demon-weed Marihuana, he would drop dead of fright!

  11. all paid for with your tax dollars citizens. i imagine this type of suit is very expensive and time consuming…

  12. Dry states could have sued Wer states with as much or little cause. Ditto counties.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.