7 ms·

U.S. Supreme Court Declines to Referee State Disputes Over Marijuana

72 points by tnuc 10y ago

rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
This was a great decision. Such a monumental shift in drug policy should be enshrined in federal legislation, and not dictated by the courts.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  I think that the Supreme Court is just tired of sorting out the Congress' (and state governments) mess caused by action or inaction. My uneducated guess is that we will see a lot narrower decisions from the SCOTUS and probably some form of lesser engagement in the next couple of years.
  - supergeek133 10y ago
    It's literally not their job, if the Supreme Court got involved now... they'd have to tell the states they are not allowed to legalize pot, right?
    - gozur88 10y ago
      That is exactly what they did in Gonzales v Raich - reasserted the legality and primacy of federal drug laws. Wrongly, IMO, but that's the ruling.
- gizmo686 10y ago
  The complaint is that that Colorado is acting in violation of federal law. If you feel that changes in drug policy should be pursued through federal legislation, then you should be in favor of the Supreme Court upholding existing federal law. Having said that, I agree with Colorado's assesment that the currect target of prosecution is the federal government for failing to enforce its laws (unless there is a specific provision compelling states to act in a certain way).
  - Alex3917 10y ago
    > If you feel that changes in drug policy should be pursued through federal legislation, then you should be in favor of the Supreme Court upholding existing federal law. Personal possession of weed is already completely legal under federal law via the equal protection clause. Once they passed the law saying that it's legal in DC, that means that it's now legal everywhere, even if they haven't yet taken the time to strike the old language from the books. The only time federal charges are still pursued is if there is a firearm involved.
    - alloyed 10y ago
      Have a source for that? That one's novel to me.
      - Alex3917 10y ago
        Sorry for the lack of a more credible source, but for what it's worth: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_marijuana_everywhere_with_dc.php http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_ma...
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Can this be used as the basis for motions to dismiss in any state court outside of DC?
        Alex3917 10y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice so few people are getting charged with personal possession under federal laws that a challenge is unlikely to happen before marijuana gets rescheduled.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Thank you for the reply!
- gozur88 10y ago
  It wasn't a decision, per se. The court has simply refused to hear the case, which is what it does with most cases. They can always decide to hear a similar case later, or even change their minds about this one. I wish they would have heard the case and explicitly found for Colorado. Under the plaintiff's logic, states would have a veto on anything their neighbors decided to do.
matt_wulfeck 10y ago
> Nebraska and Oklahoma said Colorado's decriminalization has "increased the flow of marijuana over their borders," forcing them to expend greater "law enforcement, judicial system, and penal system resources," thereby harming the welfare of their residents. And what about all of the resources you spend prosecuting people for recreation drug use? If you want to save money in that arena then Colorado and Washington have a great idea they can tell you about.
- beachstartup 10y ago
  this is my main gripe with republican, as opposed to libertarian views. they believe in personal freedom and limited government... except where they don't.
  - atom-morgan 10y ago
    The same with Democrats (personal freedom).
    - r00fus 10y ago
      Different spins on Oligarchy/Corporatocracy. The Sanders wing of the Democratic party seems like the only one challenging.
      - djsumdog 10y ago
        It's all the same. I hate that people think there is this "left/right" gap when there isn't. Sanders and Hillary both back Obamas official lines including increased wars, creating/arming ISIL/ISIS (yes, that was created by the US, directly. Don't kid yourself. In 30 years it will come out of a declassified document, just like Cointelpro, Bay of Pigs and the 1973 cope in Chile). In regards to legalization, I don't think the US federal government will take a stance either way, unless Canada gets full legalization passed first. The biggest reason that it simply can't be legal at a federal level involves international treaties (which is why it's not even technically legal in The Netherlands, even though there are laws governing growing, sale and taxation .. even though it's still not legal to sell.. it's just 'tolerated' and taxed ...and regulated).
ChuckMcM 10y ago
Sometimes I wonder about how the country evolves its view on things. And living through the evolution of gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana gives you some nice concrete data points. Watching the will of the people being expressed in these ways is kind of like watching a family dealing with a grumpy relative who slowly changes the way everyone else thinks about things. It isn't "fun" but it is fascinating. I also know that in my parent's case it is their primary evidence that the country is going downhill fast even while I see it as a hopeful sign that the country can move forward. Not surprisingly, that dissonance is being tapped rather effectively at times by the political process. It is strange to see 'change' as the fuel that is used by others to either accelerate or stop further change.
- sliverstorm 10y ago
  If your parents are of the "liberals are ruining the country" flavor in particular, you can always point out that Colorado is quite purple.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  "Progress occurs one obituary at a time". Religious beliefs by age group: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/religious-tradition/by/age-distribution/ http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/re... Millennials have overtaken Baby Boomers: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-millennials-will-overtake-baby-boomers/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-mi... Shifting Marijuana Beliefs: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/6-facts-about-marijuana/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/6-facts-abou... Changing attitudes on same sex marriage: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changi... The decline of marriage (somewhat attributable to economic causes IMHO): http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-am...
drawkbox 10y ago
Nebraska and Oklahoma continue to fund cartels south of the border when they could start funding their schools and help their budget shortfalls, not to mention contribute to personal freedom, just by ending prohibition. Just another day in 'states rights' focused states that aren't adult enough to understand what that means. People voted this in en masse, does NE and OK hate freedom? Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, DC are all asking the country when we are going to stop funding the black market and cartels. States continuing to fight a losing and unneeded prohibition battle, will continue to send hundreds of millions and probably billions south to cartels that are quite rich while states budgets are poor. It is time that it ends across the board and quickly. What a waste of time and money prohibition has been. The moralistic laws from last century making non-violent personal acts into crimes needs to end. It is too costly and the result is a black market with cartels awash in billions and billions.
fiatmoney 10y ago
It was a little bit of an odd case to begin with. The idea is kind of that there's a cause of action around state policy creating an inter-state "nuisance" in arguable violation of federal law, but there's no real precedent for that kind of thing in common law, and certainly not in statutory law. If one were to establish such a cause of action, it would have major implications around things like differing environmental regulations, firearms laws, labor laws, tax policy, welfare, heck even fireworks sales. I'm not surprised the SC didn't want to leap into that giant legal cluster headache.
Animats 10y ago
This is a technical thing. The court decided that Nebraska and Oklahoma can sue the Federal government for failure to enforce Federal law, but cannot sue another state.
- ImTalking 10y ago
  And that's a good thing as it might get Congress to get off their asses and de-schedule cannabis.
- bradleyjg 10y ago
  No that's not it. The whole majority decision is one line long: "The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied." That's it. No four justices voted to take the case. That decision sets no precedent and they declined to provide any reasoning which could even be persuasive in terms of trying to predict how they will react to future leave-to-file motions. We can speculate as to why they decided not to take it, but we can't know for sure because they didn't say.

72 points by tnuc 10y ago

This was a great decision. Such a monumental shift in drug policy should be enshrined in federal legislation, and not dictated by the courts.

venomsnake 10y ago
I think that the Supreme Court is just tired of sorting out the Congress' (and state governments) mess caused by action or inaction. My uneducated guess is that we will see a lot narrower decisions from the SCOTUS and probably some form of lesser engagement in the next couple of years.
- supergeek133 10y ago
  It's literally not their job, if the Supreme Court got involved now... they'd have to tell the states they are not allowed to legalize pot, right?
  - gozur88 10y ago
    That is exactly what they did in Gonzales v Raich - reasserted the legality and primacy of federal drug laws. Wrongly, IMO, but that's the ruling.
gizmo686 10y ago
The complaint is that that Colorado is acting in violation of federal law. If you feel that changes in drug policy should be pursued through federal legislation, then you should be in favor of the Supreme Court upholding existing federal law. Having said that, I agree with Colorado's assesment that the currect target of prosecution is the federal government for failing to enforce its laws (unless there is a specific provision compelling states to act in a certain way).
- Alex3917 10y ago
  > If you feel that changes in drug policy should be pursued through federal legislation, then you should be in favor of the Supreme Court upholding existing federal law. Personal possession of weed is already completely legal under federal law via the equal protection clause. Once they passed the law saying that it's legal in DC, that means that it's now legal everywhere, even if they haven't yet taken the time to strike the old language from the books. The only time federal charges are still pursued is if there is a firearm involved.
  - alloyed 10y ago
    Have a source for that? That one's novel to me.
    - Alex3917 10y ago
      Sorry for the lack of a more credible source, but for what it's worth: http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_marijuana_everywhere_with_dc.php http://www.tokeofthetown.com/2012/02/congress_oks_medical_ma...
      - toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Can this be used as the basis for motions to dismiss in any state court outside of DC?
        Alex3917 10y ago
        In theory, yes. In practice so few people are getting charged with personal possession under federal laws that a challenge is unlikely to happen before marijuana gets rescheduled.
        toomuchtodo 10y ago
        Thank you for the reply!
gozur88 10y ago
It wasn't a decision, per se. The court has simply refused to hear the case, which is what it does with most cases. They can always decide to hear a similar case later, or even change their minds about this one. I wish they would have heard the case and explicitly found for Colorado. Under the plaintiff's logic, states would have a veto on anything their neighbors decided to do.

matt_wulfeck 10y ago

> Nebraska and Oklahoma said Colorado's decriminalization has "increased the flow of marijuana over their borders," forcing them to expend greater "law enforcement, judicial system, and penal system resources," thereby harming the welfare of their residents. And what about all of the resources you spend prosecuting people for recreation drug use? If you want to save money in that arena then Colorado and Washington have a great idea they can tell you about.

beachstartup 10y ago
this is my main gripe with republican, as opposed to libertarian views. they believe in personal freedom and limited government... except where they don't.
- atom-morgan 10y ago
  The same with Democrats (personal freedom).
  - r00fus 10y ago
    Different spins on Oligarchy/Corporatocracy. The Sanders wing of the Democratic party seems like the only one challenging.
    - djsumdog 10y ago
      It's all the same. I hate that people think there is this "left/right" gap when there isn't. Sanders and Hillary both back Obamas official lines including increased wars, creating/arming ISIL/ISIS (yes, that was created by the US, directly. Don't kid yourself. In 30 years it will come out of a declassified document, just like Cointelpro, Bay of Pigs and the 1973 cope in Chile). In regards to legalization, I don't think the US federal government will take a stance either way, unless Canada gets full legalization passed first. The biggest reason that it simply can't be legal at a federal level involves international treaties (which is why it's not even technically legal in The Netherlands, even though there are laws governing growing, sale and taxation .. even though it's still not legal to sell.. it's just 'tolerated' and taxed ...and regulated).

ChuckMcM 10y ago

Sometimes I wonder about how the country evolves its view on things. And living through the evolution of gay marriage, and legalization of marijuana gives you some nice concrete data points. Watching the will of the people being expressed in these ways is kind of like watching a family dealing with a grumpy relative who slowly changes the way everyone else thinks about things. It isn't "fun" but it is fascinating. I also know that in my parent's case it is their primary evidence that the country is going downhill fast even while I see it as a hopeful sign that the country can move forward. Not surprisingly, that dissonance is being tapped rather effectively at times by the political process. It is strange to see 'change' as the fuel that is used by others to either accelerate or stop further change.

sliverstorm 10y ago
If your parents are of the "liberals are ruining the country" flavor in particular, you can always point out that Colorado is quite purple.
toomuchtodo 10y ago
"Progress occurs one obituary at a time". Religious beliefs by age group: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/religious-tradition/by/age-distribution/ http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/compare/re... Millennials have overtaken Baby Boomers: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-millennials-will-overtake-baby-boomers/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/16/this-year-mi... Shifting Marijuana Beliefs: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/6-facts-about-marijuana/ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/14/6-facts-abou... Changing attitudes on same sex marriage: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/ http://www.pewforum.org/2015/07/29/graphics-slideshow-changi... The decline of marriage (somewhat attributable to economic causes IMHO): http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-americans-have-never-married/ http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2014/09/24/record-share-of-am...

drawkbox 10y ago

Nebraska and Oklahoma continue to fund cartels south of the border when they could start funding their schools and help their budget shortfalls, not to mention contribute to personal freedom, just by ending prohibition. Just another day in 'states rights' focused states that aren't adult enough to understand what that means. People voted this in en masse, does NE and OK hate freedom? Colorado, Washington, Alaska, Oregon, DC are all asking the country when we are going to stop funding the black market and cartels. States continuing to fight a losing and unneeded prohibition battle, will continue to send hundreds of millions and probably billions south to cartels that are quite rich while states budgets are poor. It is time that it ends across the board and quickly. What a waste of time and money prohibition has been. The moralistic laws from last century making non-violent personal acts into crimes needs to end. It is too costly and the result is a black market with cartels awash in billions and billions.

fiatmoney 10y ago

It was a little bit of an odd case to begin with. The idea is kind of that there's a cause of action around state policy creating an inter-state "nuisance" in arguable violation of federal law, but there's no real precedent for that kind of thing in common law, and certainly not in statutory law. If one were to establish such a cause of action, it would have major implications around things like differing environmental regulations, firearms laws, labor laws, tax policy, welfare, heck even fireworks sales. I'm not surprised the SC didn't want to leap into that giant legal cluster headache.

Animats 10y ago

This is a technical thing. The court decided that Nebraska and Oklahoma can sue the Federal government for failure to enforce Federal law, but cannot sue another state.

ImTalking 10y ago
And that's a good thing as it might get Congress to get off their asses and de-schedule cannabis.
bradleyjg 10y ago
No that's not it. The whole majority decision is one line long: "The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied." That's it. No four justices voted to take the case. That decision sets no precedent and they declined to provide any reasoning which could even be persuasive in terms of trying to predict how they will react to future leave-to-file motions. We can speculate as to why they decided not to take it, but we can't know for sure because they didn't say.