Sheriffs sue Colorado over legal marijuana

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
DENVER — Sheriffs from Colorado and neighboring states Kansas and Nebraska say in a lawsuit to be filed Thursday that Colorado's marijuana law creates a "crisis of conscience" by pitting the state law against the Constitution and puts an economic burden on other states.

The lawsuit asks a federal court in Denver to strike down Colorado's Amendment 64 that legalized the sale of recreational marijuana and to close the state's more than 330 licensed marijuana stores.

Lead plaintiff, Larimer County, Colo., Sheriff Justin Smith, calls the case a "constitutional showdown." Each day, he says, he must decide whether to violate the Colorado Constitution or the U.S. Constitution. Colorado legalized recreational marijuana sales Jan. 1, 2014, but marijuana remains illegal at the federal level.

Colorado is "asking every peace officer to violate their oath," Smith said. "What we're being forced to do ... makes me ineligible for office. Which constitution are we supposed to uphold?"

The out-of-state sheriffs say the flow of Colorado's legal marijuana across the border has increased drug arrests, overburdened police and courts and cost them money in overtime.

Felony drug arrests in the town of Chappell in Deuel County, Neb., 7 miles north of the Colorado border, jumped 400% over three years, a USA TODAY report tracking the flow of marijuana from Colorado into small towns across Nebraska found. Deuel County Sheriff Adam Hayward is one of the plaintiffs.

Police officers monitoring the flow of marijuana outside Colorado say volumes have risen annually. The Colorado-based Rocky Mountain High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force is still compiling 2014 numbers but expects to see the trend continue, director Tom Gorman said. He said non-residents often strike backdoor deals with legal growers to buy more than they are allowed, then illegally drive, fly or mail the marijuana across state lines.

The lawsuit invokes the federal government's right to regulate drugs and interstate commerce and argues that Colorado's decision to legalize marijuana hurt communities on the other side of the state lines. Attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma filed a similar lawsuit late last year.

Colorado has not responded to the suit from the attorneys general, and Gov. John Hickenlooper, the defendant in the sheriffs' lawsuit, has not been served. Hickenlooper has said he respects the will of Colorado's voters. He has sought guidance from the federal government.

The Justice Department said it would largely take a hands-off approach in states that have legalized marijuana as long as regulations seek to keep the drugs away from children and criminals. Smith, the sheriff from Larimer, said that guidance amounts to instructing people "how to violate federal law but not get prosecuted."

Supporters of legalization criticize such lawsuits as last-ditch attempts by conservative politicians to derail states' movement toward marijuana legalization.

Speaking about the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit in December, Mason Tvert of the Marijuana Policy Project said police should focus their attention on serious crimes and leave alone people who choose to use marijuana.

"These guys are on the wrong side of history," Tvert said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/05/sheriffs-from-three-states-sue-colorado-over-marijuana/24385401/


Does it even stand a chance?
JUSTIN SMITH IS THE SHERIFF OF MY COUNTY!!!

Did that fucking idiot totally forget his high school civics class, where he read the constitution and saw that THE LAST MAN BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE PEOPLE IS... THE SHERIFF?!?!

That Motherfucker ran unopposed last election cycle, and now he thinks HE is supposed to enforce Federal law?

Hey, asshole, let me spell it out for you; THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB!

Goddammit, what in the Fuck is wrong with Republicans these days?!?!
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
I agree with that, how can I make you understand I think money in politics is evil too. I just don't know what it has to do with the meaning of the word activist?

Seriously, look up the definition, it's starting to be painfully obvious you don't believe Webster, so look elsewhere.
Complete meltdown.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Yes, I know you really want me to leave you alone and stop picking on you, poor guy.
Meltdown!!!

It's not that at all, it's that I've tried to converse with you when you are like this and there really is no point. You are in one of those angry troll poo flinging moods. I see no point unless you are going to post funny pics.

I'm basing this on posts you've made tonight to others before you even started flinging poo in my direction.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
[
Yes we can all be activists of something.. until we put money in? You calling someone else stupid and make that argument at the same time? Wow, that's ballsy.

BTW, I am against money in politics but my method to decrease it is not suitable to you govangelicals. Limit the power of politicians and their value goes down.

You made a claim that I cheer for the likes of Koch. Cite it.
Time to call you out on your shit LF. I like you, but you can't just drop lies like that and not get called out.
This whole conversation you defending Koch brothers as JUST activist. You are a walking contradiction. Koch brothers are ruining this country with the heavy influence of money.
 

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Meltdown!!!

It's not that at all, it's that I've tried to converse with you when you are like this and there really is no point. You are in one of those angry troll poo flinging moods. I see no point unless you are going to post funny pics.
It is just too hard to converse with me when you say retarded shit, then I can't take you seriously so you just have a meltdown like we saw. You can try to make it seem like something else but it's all plain to see.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
[

This whole conversation you defending Koch brothers as JUST activist. You are a walking contradiction. Koch brothers are ruining this country with the heavy influence of money.
dafuck?

AC says they are not activists, I say they are, you came to his defense. Now you are saying I was saying they are JUST activists and you knew all along they fit the definition after first saying they couldn't because of money?

Come on dude.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
It is just too hard to converse with me when you say retarded shit, then I can't take you seriously so you just have a meltdown like we saw. You can try to make it seem like something else but it's all plain to see.
So if I politely ask for a definition of activists again and you fling poo again and I say OK then, nevermind, will you keep getting the butthurt while accusing MELTDOWN!!!?
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
If that sheriff is having a hard time doing his job everyday maybe its time to hang it up, spark one up and shut the fuck up. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em. It's time Kansas and Nebraska realize its not 1937 anymore.
Pot was legal in 1937
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
Yes, the 1% compleatly dominate the other 99% with their vote.
Well the rich have always had an inordinate amount of influence on politics but it's not like it's new. Heinz, Vanderbilts, Rockefellars, Fords, Carnegie. The names change, the game doesn't. We keep ceding more and more power to central authorities so it's much more a point of contention now.
 

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
http://www.commoncause.org/issues/money-in-politics/corporate-power/koch-brothers/

This is a great site about the power of money in politics, they rake the Kochs over the coals which is why it surprised me when LF said this meant I support them when I posted it earlier. It's bizzaro world tonight.
I guess so. I posted above that Plaintiff/Sheriff Justin Smith is completely forsaking his constitutional obligations and...

everyone else goes on with their silly non-argument over semantics?

Well the rich have always had an inordinate amount of influence on politics but it's not like it's new. Heinz, Vanderbilts, Rockefellars, Fords, Carnegie. The names change, the game doesn't. We keep ceding more and more power to central authorities so it's much more a point of contention now.
The difference is the extreme to which it's gone. Income has never been this unequal before in the history of this nation. The last time it was this unequal was the Roman Empire during the reign of Caligula. That didn't turn out so well.
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
If you had a choice between Scott Walker or Rand Paul who is your choice.
Easy, Rand Paul. I'm not really a Walker fan.

The most impressive politician to me right now is Mike Duggan the Mayor of Detroit. He's not running though but maybe someday. I liked Corey Booker before DC. I hope they don't ruin him.

The MI governor is a unique guy. He's managed to piss off everyone on both sides of the aisle, so to me that means he's doing something right. Snyder is his name.

Condy Rice and Dr. Ben Carson is my dream ticket that will never happen. Duggan is a Dem so he wouldn't be on a ticket with either of those.

Who does it for you?
 

ginwilly

Well-Known Member
The difference is the extreme to which it's gone. Income has never been this unequal before in the history of this nation. The last time it was this unequal was the Roman Empire during the reign of Caligula. That didn't turn out so well.
Ah, but the Richy Rich were even richer, there was just less of them. If you adjusted for inflation Carnegie would be worth 280Billion and Cornelius Vanderbilt 168Billion. That's more than Gates and Buffett combined. John D Rockefellar would be worth a staggering 300Billion. That's just sick.

http://www.dailywealth.com/457/a-man-richer-than-buffett-and-gates-combined


And yes, their money influenced politics too.
 
Top