SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Excellent News' for Legal Pot as Supreme Court Rejects Colorado Lawsuit
'If Nebraska and Oklahoma had the good sense to legalize and regulate marijuana too, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.'
Mar 21, 2016
By declining to hear a case brought by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado over its pot legalization law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected what one advocacy group described as "misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana."
The lawsuit, filed in 2014 by the attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana is still outlawed, charged that Colorado--where a state-regulated recreational pot program has been up and running for more than two years--has "created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system."
"Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," the lawsuit claimed.
Had it gone forward, said Tom Angell, chairman of the drug policy reform group Marijuana Majority, the case "had the potential to roll back many of the gains our movement has achieved to date."
By a 6-2 majority, the Supreme Court declined (pdf) to hear the case, without comment.
According to the Denver Post: "Because the Supreme Court has passed on the case, Nebraska and Oklahoma could now take it to a federal district court if they choose to, law experts say. The states have not yet said how or if they will move forward with a similar suit in another court."
But, reporter Christopher Ingraham wrote at the Washington Post, "They're facing an increasingly steep uphill battle."
In addition to Colorado, three states and the District of Columbia have all legalized marijuana for adult use. Twenty-three states and D.C. have also legalized some form of access to medical marijuana.
In August 2013, the Department of Justice released a memorandum indicating they would no longer interfere in states that choose to regulate marijuana as long as common sense measures are taken to prevent organized crime within the legal businesses and prevent youth access to marijuana, among other reasonable goals.
Polls show an increasing majority of Americans say marijuana use should be legal in the United States.
And as Drug Policy Alliance director of legal affairs Tamar Todd pointed out on Monday, "the Federal government itself filed a brief with the high court asking that it not hear this case."
Of course, "if Nebraska and Oklahoma had the good sense to legalize and regulate marijuana too, we wouldn't even be having this conversation," said Maj. Neill Franklin (Ret.), executive director for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a criminal justice group working to end the War on Drugs. "What a monumental waste of time to ask our highest court to solve a problem that could be fixed with a well-written piece of legislation or a ballot initiative."
To that end, Angell said, "the notion of the Supreme Court standing in the way could have cast a dark shadow on the marijuana ballot measures voters will consider this November."
But now, Todd declared: "The Supreme Court's rejection of this misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana is excellent news for the many other states looking to adopt similar reforms in 2016 and beyond."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
By declining to hear a case brought by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado over its pot legalization law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected what one advocacy group described as "misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana."
The lawsuit, filed in 2014 by the attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana is still outlawed, charged that Colorado--where a state-regulated recreational pot program has been up and running for more than two years--has "created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system."
"Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," the lawsuit claimed.
Had it gone forward, said Tom Angell, chairman of the drug policy reform group Marijuana Majority, the case "had the potential to roll back many of the gains our movement has achieved to date."
By a 6-2 majority, the Supreme Court declined (pdf) to hear the case, without comment.
According to the Denver Post: "Because the Supreme Court has passed on the case, Nebraska and Oklahoma could now take it to a federal district court if they choose to, law experts say. The states have not yet said how or if they will move forward with a similar suit in another court."
But, reporter Christopher Ingraham wrote at the Washington Post, "They're facing an increasingly steep uphill battle."
In addition to Colorado, three states and the District of Columbia have all legalized marijuana for adult use. Twenty-three states and D.C. have also legalized some form of access to medical marijuana.
In August 2013, the Department of Justice released a memorandum indicating they would no longer interfere in states that choose to regulate marijuana as long as common sense measures are taken to prevent organized crime within the legal businesses and prevent youth access to marijuana, among other reasonable goals.
Polls show an increasing majority of Americans say marijuana use should be legal in the United States.
And as Drug Policy Alliance director of legal affairs Tamar Todd pointed out on Monday, "the Federal government itself filed a brief with the high court asking that it not hear this case."
Of course, "if Nebraska and Oklahoma had the good sense to legalize and regulate marijuana too, we wouldn't even be having this conversation," said Maj. Neill Franklin (Ret.), executive director for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a criminal justice group working to end the War on Drugs. "What a monumental waste of time to ask our highest court to solve a problem that could be fixed with a well-written piece of legislation or a ballot initiative."
To that end, Angell said, "the notion of the Supreme Court standing in the way could have cast a dark shadow on the marijuana ballot measures voters will consider this November."
But now, Todd declared: "The Supreme Court's rejection of this misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana is excellent news for the many other states looking to adopt similar reforms in 2016 and beyond."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
By declining to hear a case brought by Nebraska and Oklahoma against Colorado over its pot legalization law, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected what one advocacy group described as "misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana."
The lawsuit, filed in 2014 by the attorneys general of Nebraska and Oklahoma, where marijuana is still outlawed, charged that Colorado--where a state-regulated recreational pot program has been up and running for more than two years--has "created a dangerous gap in the federal drug control system."
"Marijuana flows from this gap into neighboring states, undermining Plaintiff States' own marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing stress on their criminal justice systems," the lawsuit claimed.
Had it gone forward, said Tom Angell, chairman of the drug policy reform group Marijuana Majority, the case "had the potential to roll back many of the gains our movement has achieved to date."
By a 6-2 majority, the Supreme Court declined (pdf) to hear the case, without comment.
According to the Denver Post: "Because the Supreme Court has passed on the case, Nebraska and Oklahoma could now take it to a federal district court if they choose to, law experts say. The states have not yet said how or if they will move forward with a similar suit in another court."
But, reporter Christopher Ingraham wrote at the Washington Post, "They're facing an increasingly steep uphill battle."
In addition to Colorado, three states and the District of Columbia have all legalized marijuana for adult use. Twenty-three states and D.C. have also legalized some form of access to medical marijuana.
In August 2013, the Department of Justice released a memorandum indicating they would no longer interfere in states that choose to regulate marijuana as long as common sense measures are taken to prevent organized crime within the legal businesses and prevent youth access to marijuana, among other reasonable goals.
Polls show an increasing majority of Americans say marijuana use should be legal in the United States.
And as Drug Policy Alliance director of legal affairs Tamar Todd pointed out on Monday, "the Federal government itself filed a brief with the high court asking that it not hear this case."
Of course, "if Nebraska and Oklahoma had the good sense to legalize and regulate marijuana too, we wouldn't even be having this conversation," said Maj. Neill Franklin (Ret.), executive director for Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP), a criminal justice group working to end the War on Drugs. "What a monumental waste of time to ask our highest court to solve a problem that could be fixed with a well-written piece of legislation or a ballot initiative."
To that end, Angell said, "the notion of the Supreme Court standing in the way could have cast a dark shadow on the marijuana ballot measures voters will consider this November."
But now, Todd declared: "The Supreme Court's rejection of this misguided effort to undo cautious and effective state-level regulation of marijuana is excellent news for the many other states looking to adopt similar reforms in 2016 and beyond."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.