Nebraska, Oklahoma sue!!!!

I like started to write a letter to my donutman, but then the paper like, got up and walked away while I was writing!

Okay. So then I was like going to send an email to my Centaur, but the screen like started to like melt into a like three D vortex, you know, like in that movie.

So like, I finally called my buritto, and like 30 seconds later it called back!! So I like opened the phoneoven and there he was!!!! All steamy and like really bronzy. And he smelled soooooooooooooooooooo good, so I guess I ate him although I don't remember that part cuz I was writing a letter to my centaur about the bad dudes trying to kill my buzz, and like it wasn't raining but it WAS!!

Their stance DOES support my beliefs. My brother was killed in a head on in 1997 just north of Tulsa. The other driver was positive for thc (no alcohol detected), and crossed over the middle of the road. It destroyed our family. There's your happy story for the day.

Okla Sooner wrote:

Their stance DOES support my beliefs. My brother was killed in a head on in 1997 just north of Tulsa. The other driver was positive for thc (no alcohol detected), and crossed over the middle of the road. It destroyed our family. There's your happy story for the day.

I'm sorry for your loss.

Do you also advocate for the prohibition of alcohol? It accounts for many more fatal traffic accidents than marijuana.

2.5 million annual alcohol related deaths in the world.

https://ncadd.org/in-the-news/155-25-million-alcohol-related-deaths-worldwide-annually

Okla Sooner wrote:

Their stance DOES support my beliefs. My brother was killed in a head on in 1997 just north of Tulsa. The other driver was positive for thc (no alcohol detected), and crossed over the middle of the road. It destroyed our family. There's your happy story for the day.

That is tragic and I can understand your emotional response, but blaming MJ for your brother's death is missing the mark. The truth is there are a lot of people high on MJ pretty much anywhere you go and few of them cause accidents or commit crimes compared to users of any other drug. For example, it would not be an exaggeration to say that most adults in the U.S. are high on Caffeine during the day. You could make a case that Caffeine causes more aggressive behavior and therefore an increased tendency to cause an accident or commit a crime, but I do not see anyone trying to prohibit Caffeine because everyone in our society is on it.

Don't worry OP there is no way Nebraska and Oklahoma can win this one. All Colorado did was repeal it's own law making marijuana illegal and replaced it with a law regulating its production and distribution. This doesn't affect federal law in Colorado, it just means Colorado's local and state police can't arrest you for growing, selling, or using pot unless you are violating a regulation. It doesn't stop the feds from enforcing federal law in Colorado.

So if Nebraska and Oklahoma win their suit it would only invalidate the laws regulating marijuana use, but it wouldn't make marijuana illegal under state law because there isn't a state law addressing the legality of pot to begin with. Thus marijuana would continue to be legal in Colorado and it would become completely unregulated.

Personally I hope they win their suit because most of the current restrictions are stupid.

And to the guy who wants to continue imprisoning and killing people for growing or smoking a plant because his brother was killed by someone driving under the influence - it wasn't a plant that killed your brother, it was an irresponsible a**hole. Making a plant illegal doesn't stop irresponsible a**holes from being Irresponsible a**holes.

Algebraist wrote:

Do you also advocate for the prohibition of alcohol? It accounts for many more fatal traffic accidents than marijuana.

I do. Alcohol is single-handedly the most damaging substance in the world. No good comes from it, only harm comes from it, and no one needs it.

Our society couldn't abide its prohibition in the 1920s, but surely we are more advanced as a civilization in 2014.

It is idiotic to make alcohol the golden standard to which mind-altering drugs are compared.

neanderthal dream wrote:

I do. I BELIEVE Alcohol is single-handedly the most damaging substance in the world. I BELIEVE No good comes from it, I BELIEVE only harm comes from it, and I BELIEVE no one needs it.

^FIXED

Fermented Kool-Aid wrote:

neanderthal dream wrote:

I do. I BELIEVE Alcohol is single-handedly the most damaging substance in the world. I BELIEVE No good comes from it, I BELIEVE only harm comes from it, and I BELIEVE no one needs it.

^FIXED

Oooh hit a nerve, did I? There is plenty of evidence to back up my statement, like studies published by the CDC:

The CDC reported:

1) Excessive alcohol use is a leading cause of preventable death.

2) Alcohol accounted for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20–64 years.

3) The impact of these deaths affects the nation's economy and the sustainability of families.

4) Excessive drinking cost the United States about $224 billion in 2006.

5) About 40% of these costs were paid by government.

I would agree that alcohol consumption (particularly excessive consumption) can have some disastrous consequences, but I would dispute the claim that no good comes from it. There are millions (probably billions) of people who enjoy consuming alcohol, in the form of wine, beer, or whatever their preference may be, most of whom are responsible and consume it in moderation. That can't be dismissed.

I also don't think that our society is really any better equipped to deal with prohibition today than it was 100 years ago. The fact that there's a huge black market for illegal substances seems to bear that out.

Algebraist wrote:

I would agree that unrestricted gun ownership can have some disastrous consequences, but I would dispute the claim that no good comes from it. There are millions (probably billions) of people who enjoy handguns, assault-style weapons, or whatever their preference may be, most of whom are responsible. That can't be dismissed.

Do you still agree with the statement when another subject is inserted?

I would argue that enjoyment isn't sufficient to make it okay. Especially when it comes at such a high cost. Even worse is using alcohol as some sort of standard to judge other costly substances.

I understand your responses. I really do. Ask yourselves, why do you feel like you need to get high? I mean, this hurt, guys. It really, really hurt. As I said, it completely destroyed our family. Absolutely splintered it. If keeping it illegal has the potential to save even one single life, then it is a good thing. Though I respect your responses and opinions, I can assure you that your replies and thoughts on this would be drastically different were this your brother, sister, dad, mom, or child.

neanderthal dream wrote:

I would argue that enjoyment isn't sufficient to make it okay.

Lets grab a cold one and have that argument.

Okla Sooner wrote:

If keeping it illegal has the potential to save even one single life, then it is a good thing. .

You could say this about countless items.

Drain cleaner. Motorcycles. Jet skis. Ski resorts. Sleds.

Sorry about the loss but the argument you make has absolutely no merit.

The legality of marijuana is irrelevant to your brothers death. First, I'm guessing that it was illegal in the state your brother died in at the time, and second, it is illegal to drive under the influence of MJ. I live in Colorado and one thing that I have noticed? People who didn't smoke pot before it was legal didn't all of a sudden start smoking pot.

Algebraist wrote:

I would agree that unrestricted gun ownership can have some disastrous consequences, but I would dispute the claim that no good comes from it. There are millions (probably billions) of people who enjoy handguns, assault-style weapons, or whatever their preference may be, most of whom are responsible. That can't be dismissed.

I understand the point you're trying to make here, and personally I think gun ownership is kind of silly, especially if we're talking about weapons that were originally intended for military purposes. There are some people who really enjoy them though, and if they're enjoyed safely and responsibly, then it's fine by me.

I am opposed to "unrestricted" gun ownership, just like I'm against "unrestricted" alcohol and drugs. But alcohol is not "unrestricted" in this country. The production, distribution, sale and consumption of alcohol is regulated. It's illegal to drink and drive. Public intoxication is illegal. I wouldn't advocate for zero regulations on marijuana either.

By swapping out alcohol for guns, you're also conflating something that was created for the sole purpose of destroying things/people with something that was not.

The argument that "if it would even save one life it's worth it" is a slippery slope. As someone else already said, you could make that argument about pretty much anything.

Out of curiosity, from a legal standpoint (for attorneys on the board) how do Nebraska and Oklahoma have standing to sue for this? Is this lawsuit going to get thrown out because they don't have the right to sue Colorado?

The two states will probably argue that their residents can crossover to Colorado and get doped up. The residents might return to their home state with their stashes hidden away from the "proper" authorities.

Standing??? wrote:

Out of curiosity, from a legal standpoint (for attorneys on the board) how do Nebraska and Oklahoma have standing to sue for this? Is this lawsuit going to get thrown out because they don't have the right to sue Colorado?

It is in the original link.

"Marijuana flows from this gap into

[Nebraska and Oklahoma], undermining [Nebraska's and Oklahoma’s] own

marijuana bans, draining their treasuries, and placing

stress on their criminal justice systems."

Basically, they are saying that they should have the right to dictate Colorado's behavior because it hurts them.

So much for that supposed anti-regulation libertarian streak that runs through the rugged individuals of the American Midwest. They are just a bunch of whiners who can't make it on their own.