"Legal" Pot Taxing CO Law Enforcement

This_person

Well-Known Member
CNN Highlights Marijuana Legalization 'Straining' Police in Colorado

The CNN host found that, instead of undermining the black market for marijuana as promised, illegal growers have been taking advantage of legalization to illegally export pot to other states -- "straining" the state's law enforcement.

Cabrera recalled some of the illegal marijuana seized by police:

Illegal cannabis cultivations busted by law enforcement in Colorado. These are images from inside alleged criminal enterprises hiding in plain site under the guise of the state's legal pot laws which regulate who, where and how much pot people can grow.

She was then seen riding with Arapahoe County Sheriff David Walcher as he explained the problems legalization has caused his department:

CABRERA: Do you find people are coming here with the intent to create a marijuana or pot trafficking ring?

DAVID WALCHER, ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF: There's no doubt in my mind.

CABRERA: Arapahoe County Sheriff David Walcher says it's a growing concern. Just last year, his narcotics team alone seized more than $3 million worth of illegal pot products.

WALCHER: It's everywhere, and it can be in any neighborhood, any neighborhood. We see them everywhere.

The conversation soon continued: (Link, including video)
 

Merlin99

Visualize whirled peas
PREMO Member
CNN Highlights Marijuana Legalization 'Straining' Police in Colorado

The CNN host found that, instead of undermining the black market for marijuana as promised, illegal growers have been taking advantage of legalization to illegally export pot to other states -- "straining" the state's law enforcement.

Cabrera recalled some of the illegal marijuana seized by police:

Illegal cannabis cultivations busted by law enforcement in Colorado. These are images from inside alleged criminal enterprises hiding in plain site under the guise of the state's legal pot laws which regulate who, where and how much pot people can grow.

She was then seen riding with Arapahoe County Sheriff David Walcher as he explained the problems legalization has caused his department:

CABRERA: Do you find people are coming here with the intent to create a marijuana or pot trafficking ring?

DAVID WALCHER, ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF: There's no doubt in my mind.

CABRERA: Arapahoe County Sheriff David Walcher says it's a growing concern. Just last year, his narcotics team alone seized more than $3 million worth of illegal pot products.

WALCHER: It's everywhere, and it can be in any neighborhood, any neighborhood. We see them everywhere.

The conversation soon continued: (Link, including video)

I don't think I have a problem with this, but then again I don't think it should have ever been illegal.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Yup. If it's legal, say, beer or making oxy, it's new jobs and growth. If it's weed, it's a trafficking ring.

According to the federal government it is not legal. That does not seem to be an area of dispute (whether is should be or not is in huge dispute, but whether it is illegal or not is only in dispute to the Obama Administration, which is no longer in authority).

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but when I read:
US Constitution said:
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.
it doesn't seem very difficult to comprehend that it is illegal in CO, too. The sooner Sessions acts on this, the better.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Considering the state of Colorado made so much money from taxing it that they had to write a check to each resident, it seems they can afford extra law enforcement.

It's too bad we have an AG willing to promote a failed drug war and potentially get in the way of states that have legalized it.

I imagine one day we'll look back at this and compare it to the prohibition era.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
According to the federal government it is not legal. That does not seem to be an area of dispute (whether is should be or not is in huge dispute, but whether it is illegal or not is only in dispute to the Obama Administration, which is no longer in authority).

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but when I read:
it doesn't seem very difficult to comprehend that it is illegal in CO, too. The sooner Sessions acts on this, the better.

And now we have the right wing espousing federal supremacy over states rights. Will the wonders never end? :lol:
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Considering the state of Colorado made so much money from taxing it that they had to write a check to each resident, it seems they can afford extra law enforcement.

It's too bad we have an AG willing to promote a failed drug war and potentially get in the way of states that have legalized it.

I imagine one day we'll look back at this and compare it to the prohibition era.

I have no argument with the potential we'll consider it similar to the Prohibition Era. It's certainly possible.

But, it's pretty clear the states don't have the authority to legalize it. They can take the authority, via 3/4 of them agreeing to a change to the constitution, but as of today they do not have the authority to pick and choose what federal laws they like or don't. Since the 17th amendment was passed, they gave up their republican role in the federal government (contrary to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution). So, the discussion of whether it is legal or not is moot.

Meanwhile, the job of the AG is represent the United States in terms of law and law enforcement. I would rather he do his job than not.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
And now we have the right wing espousing federal supremacy over states rights. Will the wonders never end? :lol:

Absolutely not, Larry. As I said, whether or not it SHOULD be law is in great dispute. Because the 17th amendment took the states out of the equation in terms of representation in the federal lawmaking, they voluntarily gave up their right to argue state vs. federal in laws - it's clear as day in the constitution which laws take precedence. The whole POINT of the senators coming from the states and not the people was for the states to be represented in making federal law.

States have the rights to everything not given the federal government in the constitution. By enacting the 17th, and the states not repealing the 17th, everything the federal government does in law is superior to the state law.
 

Larry Gude

Strung Out
Absolutely not, Larry. As I said, whether or not it SHOULD be law is in great dispute. Because the 17th amendment took the states out of the equation in terms of representation in the federal lawmaking, they voluntarily gave up their right to argue state vs. federal in laws - it's clear as day in the constitution which laws take precedence. The whole POINT of the senators coming from the states and not the people was for the states to be represented in making federal law.

States have the rights to everything not given the federal government in the constitution. By enacting the 17th, and the states not repealing the 17th, everything the federal government does in law is superior to the state law.

If the right still supports states rights it should be cheering the states re-asserting themselves. However, that all started to turn with the first gay marriage states. Then, the right started becoming federalists.

So, we have an opportunity for those who want education to leave DC, transportation and anything else the right USED to complain was better left to the states. Couple the issues, piggy back those on the weed. :buddies:
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I have no argument with the potential we'll consider it similar to the Prohibition Era. It's certainly possible.

But, it's pretty clear the states don't have the authority to legalize it. They can take the authority, via 3/4 of them agreeing to a change to the constitution, but as of today they do not have the authority to pick and choose what federal laws they like or don't. Since the 17th amendment was passed, they gave up their republican role in the federal government (contrary to Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution). So, the discussion of whether it is legal or not is moot.

Meanwhile, the job of the AG is represent the United States in terms of law and law enforcement. I would rather he do his job than not.

Like most laws, it's a bit tricky.

This report by the Congressional Research Service specifically dives into federal issues regarding marijuana legalization by states. It specifically mentions Article IV as well.

Although the federal government may use its power of the purse to encourage states to adopt certain criminal laws, the federal government is limited in its ability to directly influence state policy by the Tenth Amendment, which prevents the federal government from directing states to enact specific legislation, or requiring state officials to enforce federal law. As such, the fact that the federal government has criminalized conduct does not mean that the state, in turn, must also criminalize or prosecute that same conduct.

...under both Tenth Amendment and preemption principles, federal and state courts have previously held that a state’s decision to simply permit what the federal government prohibits does not create a 'positive conflict' with federal law

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
If the right still supports states rights it should be cheering the states re-asserting themselves. However, that all started to turn with the first gay marriage states. Then, the right started becoming federalists.

So, we have an opportunity for those who want education to leave DC, transportation and anything else the right USED to complain was better left to the states. Couple the issues, piggy back those on the weed. :buddies:

Federalism started before the Constitution was ratified, but getting the states out of the federal government ####ed the states pretty hard. And, they took it. They can still take it back.

But, nullification through a change in laws in the state contrary to the Constitution is not the way to do it. That's been done with 2A for decades, and wasn't right then. It's not right with drugs, either. States HAVE the authority to change this, to reassert their authority and dominance - they didn't give up Article V yet - but they need to do it that way, not by being impudent teenagers about it.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Like most laws, it's a bit tricky.

This report by the Congressional Research Service specifically dives into federal issues regarding marijuana legalization by states. It specifically mentions Article IV as well.





http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43034.pdf

Which is why I suggest the federal government must enforce the federal laws. I'm not suggesting Sherriff Joe Johnson of Bumfukegypt, CO start enforcing federal law because he knows it is supreme to state law, I'm saying the feds have to do what the feds say is law.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
Which is why I suggest the federal government must enforce the federal laws. I'm not suggesting Sherriff Joe Johnson of Bumfukegypt, CO start enforcing federal law because he knows it is supreme to state law, I'm saying the feds have to do what the feds say is law.

The report above leads me to believe there isn't a conflict with federal law. :shrug:
 

stgislander

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
And MD was nicknamed The Free State why???? (Hint... It had nothing to do with religious tolerance.)
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
The report above leads me to believe there isn't a conflict with federal law. :shrug:

I think it means state law enforcement is not held to the requirement of upholding federal law if state law is different. But, federal law enforcement can still enforce federal law.
 

Chris0nllyn

Well-Known Member
I think it means state law enforcement is not held to the requirement of upholding federal law if state law is different. But, federal law enforcement can still enforce federal law.

Again, the report I linked discusses the DOJ's options.

Via prosecutorial discretion, the DOJ has issued 3 memos outlining their stance on the issue begining in 2009.
In 2009, Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden provided guidance to federal prosecutors in states that have authorized the use of medical marijuana. Citing a desire to make “efficient and rational use of its limited investigative and prosecutorial resources,” the memorandum stated that while the “prosecution of significant traffickers of illegal drugs, including marijuana … continues to be a core priority,” federal prosecutors “should not focus federal resources on individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana.” The memorandum made clear, however, that “this guidance [does not] preclude investigation or prosecution, even where there is clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state law, in particular circumstances where investigation or prosecution otherwise serves important federal interests.”

In 2011,
The Ogden (2009 memo) memorandum was never intended to shield such activities from federal enforcement action and prosecution, even where those activities purport to comply with state law. Persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of the [CSA] regardless of state law. Consistent with resource constraints and the discretion you may exercise in your district, such persons are subject to federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution.

In 2013,
The Obama Administration’s official response to the Colorado and Washington initiatives was provided on August 29, 2013, when Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole sent a memorandum to all U.S. Attorneys intended to guide the “exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion”...The
memorandum expresses DOJ’s position that, although marijuana is a dangerous drug that remains illegal under federal law, the federal government will not pursue legal challenges against jurisdictions that authorize marijuana in some fashion, assuming those state and local governments maintain strict regulatory and enforcement controls on marijuana cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession that limit the risks to “public safety, public health, and other law enforcement interests.”

The report also offers examples of ways the DOJ can respond. i.e. criminal prosecutions, forefiture, civil lawsuit, and denying firearms to users.
 
Top