Mar­i­juana suit doesn’t hold up

Los Angeles Times - - SUNDAY OPINION -

Re “The case against Colorado’s pot law,” Opin­ion, June 25

It is rel­a­tively easy to grow cannabis any­where, in­clud­ing Ne­braska and Ok­la­homa, both of which are su­ing Colorado. In ad­di­tion, the crim­i­nal data­bases in both those states show that mar­i­juana cul­ti­va­tion, pos­ses­sion and dis­tri­bu­tion ex­isted there long be­fore Colorado le­gal­ized mar­i­juana for med­i­cal or recre­ational use.

So for them to now sud­denly claim that “mar­i­juana is flow­ing across their borders and bur­den­ing their crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tems” is sim­ply not cred­i­ble. In le­gal terms it doesn’t pass the “le­gal stand­ing” test.

What is the le­gal stand­ing test in this case? If Colorado were to sud­denly make both med­i­cal and recre­ational mar­i­juana illegal again, mar­i­juana would still be avail­able in Ne­braska and Ok­la­homa, just as it has al­ways been avail­able there. Eric Geis­ter­fer

San Pe­dro

Pres­i­dent Richard Nixon signed the Con­trolled Sub­stances Act in 1970. In 2015, mar­i­juana is still con­sid­ered a Sched­ule I drug de­spite the fact that sev­eral states have le­gal­ized recre­ational or medic­i­nal use.

In his op-ed ar­ti­cle, Zachary Bolitho points out that fed­eral law trumps state law when it comes to the pend­ing court case pit­ting Ne­braska and Ok­la­homa against Colorado.

There is a sim­ple so­lu­tion: Pe­ti­tion Congress to re­move mar­i­juana from the Sched­ule I list and al­low in­di­vid­ual states to leg­is­late their own po­si­tions on mar­i­juana. Ne­braska and Ok­la­homa could then ben­e­fit from agri­cul­tural pro­duc­tion of hemp (the best botan­i­cal for bio­fuel pro­duc­tion) and Colorado from boosted tax rev­enue.

Craig Sim­mons


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.