[T]wo days before Mexican authorities recaptured Joaquín Guzmán Loera, a.k.a. El Chapo, Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt pointed to another drug lord, this one hiding in plain sight: John Hickenlooper, a.k.a. the governor of Colorado. “The State of Colorado authorizes, oversees, protects, and profits from a sprawling $100-million-per-month marijuana growing, processing, and retailing organization that exported thousands of pounds of marijuana to some 36 States in 2014,” Pruitt writes in a Supreme Court brief joined by Nebraska Attorney General Douglas Peterson. “If this entity were based south of our border, the federal government would prosecute it as a drug cartel.”…. Hickenlooper actually was a drug dealer of sorts before he got into politics, having cofounded Wynkoop Brewing Company, a Denver brewpub, in 1988. But he ended up running the drug trafficking organization described in Pruitt’s brief by accident. He was elected governor two years before Colorado voters decided, against his advice, to legalize marijuana.
One of the more entertaining questions regarding the controversy over legalizing marijuana is what happens to states next door to one that’s legalized the devil’s weed? How do the good, God-fearing Conservative Christians of states like Oklahoma and Nebraska prevent all manner of licentiousness and wickedness from infiltrating and polluting their godly Paradise? Those states are currently suing Colorado in the Supreme Court, alleging that residents of their states might bring cannabis products back home. The key word here is “might;” neither state can offer proof of actual harm done, and the question remains: Can another state claim injury from potential behavior due to the more permissive laws of a neighboring state?
This issue in play here, while easily ridiculed, is also one worthy of examination. Since when does one state have a right to file suit because one state’s laws might make it more likely that third parties will violate federal law in another state? If I’m on a diet and have a double serving of tiramisu at my desk, do you have a right to claim potential injury since your desk is adjacent to mine? Is the risk that you might succumb to temptation enough for you to claim that, because you MIGHT lose the battle with temptation, I should be prevented from enjoying my tiramisu? Of course not. If you could claim a documented ACTUAL harm done to you, there might be a credible argument to make. The fact that you can only claim potential harm, that you MIGHT succumb to temptation, makes your argument petty and self-absorbed.
Dear Oklahoma and Nebraska,
You are cordially invited to go take a flying fuck through a rolling doughnut.
Sincerely,
A competently governed state
The above quote comes courtesy of a Facebook friend in Colorado. Yes, he’s a strong supporter of legalization, but he makes a very good point. Colorado has decided that, rather than demonizing and criminalizing something people are likely to do anyway (and with far less potential harm than alcohol), they’d get on top of it. By regulating and taxing marijuana, as is done with alcohol, Colorado is able to exercise a high degree of control and- best of all- add a tidy sum to their tax base. The income generated by entreprenurs looking to profit off aspects of legalized marijuana has created jobs, in many cases good paying ones. Tourism has increased, local and state tax bases have benefitted, and best of all no one has died from a marijuana overdose…something that can’t be said for alcohol.
Whether Oklahoma and Nebraska are proceeding with their case against Colorado out of sincere moral outrage or simple jealousy, the fact is that they’re on the wrong side of history. The “reefer madness” mentality is no longer legally, medically, or socially justifiable. Americans are increasingly sanguine about the idea of legalized marijuana, and Oklahoma and Nebraska are simply denying themselves the same sorts of opportunities Colorado is pursuing.
Here in America, you don’t get to keep your neighbor from doing something because you fear what impact it MIGHT have in your yard. You can’t claim potential harm in general, unspecific terms simply because you don’t approve of your neighbors actions. In the case of Oklahoma and Nebraska, they can get over themselves and get on board…or they can continue weeping and gnashing their teeth as Colorado (and its residents) cash in.
Oh, and it might be nice if you dropped the pretense of caring about potential harm when you tax and regulate alcohol, a drug that does far more harm to individuals and society than marijuana could ever hope to approach. Just a thought.
