Another idiotic lawsuit against Colorado

Safe Streets: Our Lawsuit to Block the Legalization of Marajuana

Yep, that’s how they spelled it.

Safe Streets Lawsuit to Block the Legalization of Marajuana

Together with several of its members and others who have been injured by the commercial marijuana industry in Colorado, Safe Streets filed suit in federal court to vindicate the federal marijuana laws. The suit alleges that state and local officials in Colorado are violating federal law by promoting the commercialization of marijuana. Safe Streets is asking the federal courts to order Colorado officials to comply with federal law and stop issuing state licenses to deal illegal drugs.

In addition to suing Colorado officials for giving comfort to the marijuana industry, Safe Streets and the other plaintiffs are also directly suing several prominent participants in the industry itself. Federal racketeering laws give private plaintiffs injured by the operations of a commercial drug conspiracy the right to an injunction, treble damages, and attorney’s fees. In addition to shutting down the operations targeted in its suit, Safe Streets hopes that its use of the federal racketeering laws will serve as a model for other business and property owners who have been injured by the rise of the commercial marijuana industry.

What are they doing? Suing on behalf of the Mexican drug-trafficking-organizations? Seems to me that they (and others who profit from prohibition) are the only ones being harmed by legalization.

And, of course, love the beginning:

“America is Committed to Being Drug Free”

and the side-bar

“Commitment to Drug Free Youth”

Um, no. America has never been drug free, and never will be drug free. That’s just a nonsensical proposition, like saying that America is Committed to Being Sugar Free, or Bug Free, or Oxygen Free, or Clothes Free.

In fact, American is pretty firmly committed to drugs – lots of them. We buy a third of a trillion dollars worth of legal prescription drugs each year. (yes, that’s with a “T”), over 100 billion on alcohol, and over 80 billion on tobacco. And, while the numbers for the next fact are from 2007-2008, one out of every five children reported using at least one prescription drug in the month prior to being surveyed.

So peddle your drug-free somewhere else. It’s not welcome here.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

63 Responses to Another idiotic lawsuit against Colorado

  1. David says:

    You sound like a moron. You should “swing” by Colorado and stop in any one of the schools to see just what the legalization of marijuana has done for our fine state. Your genius is right, kids no longer have to hunt it down from a “Mexican drug-trafficking-organization” (watch TV much?), they can get it anywhere including their parents, friends, family or even find it on the street. Ask the local police about the change in the drug problems.

    But what do you care, right? As long as you get yours.

    • strayan says:

      Are these ‘schools’ you’re talking about the ones being funded and built with the tax revenue raised from marijuana sales?

      Duncan’s working theory about what goes on in the vacuum of the prohibitionist mind is looking more solid by the day.

      • kaptinemo says:

        The vacuum of a prohib’s mind is deadly.

        And yes, they’re an infantile bunch, so it is appropriate.

      • Duncan20903 says:


        strayan, I hate to say it but it is premature to presume that money is actually going to be used for Colorado schools. We’ve stepped into a major bureaucratic clusterfuck that Colorado law calls the “taxpayers’ bill of rights” or “TABOR”. It’s the same political landmine which sent the taxes authorized by A-64 to a popular vote in 2013 because evidently a goddamn Amendment to the State Constitution doesn’t have the power to authorize a new tax, at least an ancillary tax, without being subject to a vote. I say ancillary because I’m hard pressed to believe that if all A-64 had done was to mandate that every Colorado resident had to pay $100 which would then be used for education/whatever that it would have required a second vote.

        So now it appears that this particular part of the controversy is going to turn on the understanding of the fungibility of tax revenue by Colorado’s elected authorities. That doesn’t make me optimistic because elected authorities just don’t understand the word fungible.

        Fungibility is the property of a good or a commodity whose individual units are capable of mutual substitution. That is, it is the property of essences or goods which are “capable of being substituted in place of one another.”[1] For example, since one ounce of gold is equivalent to any other ounce of gold, gold is fungible. Other fungible commodities include sweet crude oil, company shares, bonds, precious metals, and currencies. Fungibility refers only to the equivalence of each unit of a commodity with other units of the same commodity. Fungibility does not relate to the exchange of one commodity for another different commodity.

        TABOR does not differentiate between sources of gross revenues collected by the State. It’s just previous (last fiscal year?) gross revenues increased by the rate of inflation and adjusted for population changes. The point is that my understanding of TABOR won’t let the Legislature avoid the requirement that the A-64 generated revenue go to education.

        Another part is what the 2013 ballot initiative actually said in the fine print. I never bothered to read that initiative because I saw it as pro forma with little point in arguing about the details. Proposition AA was approved by voters by almost 2 to 1 so I was right that there was little point in arguing against it during the campaign. What I didn’t consider is TABOR. TABOR is unique to Colorado State law so I’ll forgive myself for that oversight. I’m not so magnanimous with my fellow cannabis law reform advocates from Colorado. They should have picked up on the fact that TABOR was going to be such a significant part of the process in Colorado.

        But cheer up people, from my point of view our biggest pain in the ass in the controversy between State and Federal law has been the Feds refusal to address the issue. Does everyone recall that it was Angel Raich and Diane Monson who were the original petitioners in the case that produced the ruling in Gozales v. Raich, 525 U.S.1 (2005)? Unless I’ve missed something the last time the Feds initiated an action in this controversy that actually ended with a ruling by a Federal Court of Appeals was in Conant v Walters 309 F.3d 629 (9th Cir 2002) (cert denied Oct. 14, 2003) The Feds know that they don’t have a leg to stand on so they’ve been milking the ignorance of the general public in order to maintain their power base. That ignorance of the general public being milked is on display in neon lights in David’s post above.

        These lawsuits force the Fed’s hand and if decided as I expect with the only result possible (IMO) the prohibitionists arguments will be eviscerated.

    • What truth really looks like: says:

      The CDC report shows:

      • Youth marijuana use in Colorado went down 2.8 percent from 2009 (24.8 percent) to 2011 (22 percent).

      • Youth marijuana use nationally went up 2.3 percent from 2009 (20.8 percent) to 2011 (23.1 percent).

      • In 2011, youth marijuana usage in Colorado fell below the national average — 22 percent in Colorado, 23.1 percent in the U.S.

      • Availability of drugs on school grounds in Colorado went down 5 percent from 2009 (22.7 percent) to 2011 (17.2 percent).

      • Nationally, illegal drugs offered, sold or given on school property was up 3.1 percent from 2009 (22.7 percent) to 2011 (25.6 percent).

      • Availability of illegal drugs on school grounds in Colorado is below the national average by 8.4 percent — 17.2 percent in Colorado, 25.6 percent in the U.S.

      Past Month Colorado High School Pot Use
      2009: 25%
      2011: 22%
      2013: 20%

      Past Month National High School Pot Use
      2009: 20.8%
      2011: 23.1%
      2013: 23.4%

      “Pot Use Among Colorado Teens Appears to Drop After Legalization”
      —usnews . Com, Aug 7, 2014

    • Freeman says:

      Hi David, nice of you to drop by.

      Around here, we like to deal with facts. And citations. Because a lot of times we’ll find someone showing up with nothing more than gratuitous insults to back up their unfounded assertions.

      So, you got any of those facts and citation thingies? ‘Cause if not, well we all just laugh at the irony of some people calling other people morons.

    • darkcycle says:

      Where to start? Well, I would like to point out that to buy marijuana legally in Colorado, you must be an adult. Second, where, exactly, did you think kids in Colorado were getting their pot through before? Your middle schooler has never needed to find some kingpin named Carlos. It has always come from some intermediary who was willing to BREAK THE LAW to sell to them. Same thing now, but that intermediary now has an additional hurdle to clear. Now, they need to be adults themselves, so now the high schoolers won’t be able to come down at lunch and sell it to your little Pubert.
      Youth consumption is down in Colorado. Traffic deaths are down in Colorado. Crime is down in Colorado.
      And good luck finding standing…for a civil suit you must prove you have been substantially harmed.

    • “they can get it anywhere including their parents, friends, family”

      Are you even listening to yourself Dave? After the parents, friends, and family are in jail and the kids are finally housed by child protective services, where does that leave you Dave? Are you part of the establishment that cares for us all? I see you already covered the other criminal bases of parents, friends and family so I assume you are not a member of one of these local gangs.

      • Plant Down Babylon says:


        I nominate this as one of the ‘posts of the year’.

        Good one, TC. I’m falling off my chair laughing.


  2. DdC says:

    What do these drug worrier germs fight so hard for? The sheer audacity of something so low in the scale of human evolution as to sue someone for stopping a Child’s Severe Seizures. Seriously, how do you even categorize such a dysfunctional deed? So far outside of private prisons and plea bargain rehabilitation profits. Who can possibly consume their time trying to increase the 23,000,000 arrested so far. Ruined lives because of gossip and the lust for profits. Dumbed down cops by administrational code giving advice on policy, and at the end of the day. They get to keep their Forfeiture $quads. So for decades these tax wasting murderers selfishly lie and hinder research finding Compounds in Cannabis Fight Leukemia, Kill Cancer Cells. How can that even be considered? Does some worm sit around thinking of these things? They seem to have no moral compass. No ethics, just greed and the never ending end that justifies any means. Including political profiteers letting sick kids have 300 seizures knowing cannabis can reduce them to a couple. These are enemies of the people fighting a one sided war on lesser beings in their mindsets. Sound familiar, its repeated enough. Only there are way more profits in prohibition than slavery or genocide. The question none of the self appointed moralists and experts can answer is how is it possible for Doctors to be an expert on something never taught in Med School?

    “We have been terribly and systematically misled for nearly 70 years in the United States, and I apologize for my own role in that. I didn’t look hard enough, until now. I didn’t look far enough. … I was too dismissive of the loud chorus of legitimate patients whose symptoms improved on cannabis. Tolerance is a real problem in existing medications: People are likely to overdose from a prescription drug every 19 minutes, but I couldn’t come across one case of a marijuana overdose. I mistakenly believed the Drug Enforcement Agency listed marijuana as a schedule 1 substance [a category of dangerous drugs] because of sound scientific proof. They didn’t have the science to support that claim, and I now know that when it comes to marijuana neither of those things are true,”
    ~ Sanjay Gupta

  3. kaptinemo says:

    Textbook example of the Themes in Chemical Prohibition

    1. The drug is associated with a hated subgroup of the society or a foreign enemy.

    2. The drug is identified as solely responsible for many problems in the culture, i.e., crime, violence, and insanity.

    3. The survival of the culture is pictured as being dependent on the prohibition of the drug.

    4. The concept of “controlled” usage is destroyed and replaced by a “domino theory” of chemical progression.

    5. The drug is associated with the corruption of young children, particularly their sexual corruption.

    6. Both the user and supplier of the drug are defined as fiends, always in search of new victims; usage of the drug is considered “contagious.”

    7. Policy options are presented as total prohibition or total access.

    8. Anyone questioning any of the above assumptions is bitterly attacked and characterized as part of the problem that needs to be eliminated. (Emphasis mine – k.)

    Always the same tired old tactics, as the number of tricks the prohibitionist pony has is severely limited.

    And as to ‘getting yours’, the prohibitionists have been showing no reluctance to feed from the taxpayer’s revenue trough for decades, and now that that trough is in danger of suffering a reduced flow, courtesy of the majority of Americans wanting cannabis legal again, said prohibs have, like the definition of a fanatic, redoubled their efforts while forgetting their aim – which was and is always mercenary. While the rest of the country is seeing their aim all too clearly…and doesn’t want to pay for this farce, anymore.

    Compared fiscally, the prohibs are like a hugely obese man with lobes of fat dangling from every appendage, pointing to the monetarily anorexic drug law reformer and declares the walking skeleton needs to go on a diet. What’s worse, the obese man got that way from the reformer’s tax revenues, and has hired PR firms with the reformer’s money to stay that way, despite that being against the law (see Hatch Act). They were able to get away with it for as long as the targets of the attack – the much vaunted Children – couldn’t defend themselves politically due to their young age. Now that they’ve grown up, those ‘Children’ are changing the laws. Which has to be especially galling for those who thought they had programmed an entire generation into being the replacement marks in their multi-generational con-game.

    The more they lose, the nuttier the prohibs will get, and the more desperate their tactics will become – like this latest idiotic lawsuit, and daring to come here when few prohibs had the stones to, before. Another symptom of Fuhrerbunker syndrome, prohib-style. Prohib Meltdown in progress, please stand back, as slag is radiating raw hate as well as other toxic substances.

  4. jean valjean says:

    “Together with several of its members and others who have been injured by the commercial marijuana industry in Colorado…..”
    Let me guess… the “others” are the alcohol industry, Big Pharma, police and prison guards unions, private prison shareholders like Barbara Bush, treatment centers, piss tasters and the manufacturers of military grade weapons and vehicles. Anyone I’ve left out from this shameless list of those wanting to overturn the popular vote purely financial reasons?

  5. kaptinemo says:

    Noticed something lately? Look at the terminology of the first lawsuit:

    ““Colorado’s actions amount to what would be casus belli if the states were fully sovereign nations.”

    Casus belli? As in “Act of war?”

    And now, the terminology used in the latest lawsuit:

    “…giving comfort …”

    As in Giving aid and comfort to the enemy’? The Constitutional description of treason?

    They’ve taken this ‘War on Drugs’ crap too seriously, and it’s infected their thinking so deeply they’ve internalized it. It’s subconscious, now. And they don’t have the slightest hint of how dangerously weird that makes them look and sound. Until Fergusons happen. Then the average citizen learns of the danger of militarizing police, both physically and mentally, to ‘fight’ a ‘war’.

  6. Atrocity says:

    You know what David? Most of what you’re spewing is complete crap, but you’re right about one thing: I don’t care whether or not your precious children are exposed to marijuana. I’ve seen what happens when an entire society loses every last scrap of its sanity and decency in a futile attempt to keep it away from them. A few kids getting giggly (or surviving horrific epilepsy) is a small price to pay for not having a nation of terrorized political prisoners.

    Also, fuck you.

  7. Frank W. says:

    The Colorado thing reminds me of what’s been making the rounds lately with the TV news. The Oregon Liquor Control Commission is on a statewide “tour” taking feedback on how to best regulate cannabis. ActionNewsTeam has been so loud and attentive about this it seems they might be banging the gong to call outside attention to it (“Kevin! Save us!”) Yes, I’m paranoid, but July is a lonnng way until legalization and times are crazy enough I wouldn’t be surprised at some last minute “federal moratorium”.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      There is no way possible to call Tom Burns a foaming at the mouth prohibitionist. The man is the antithesis of The Professor.

      Tom Burns, director of marijuana programs for Oregon, talks about road ahead; Q&A

      On his perceptions of the medical marijuana industry:

      “I expected to see long-haired hippies coming out of the woods wearing tie-dyed T-shirts. That is not the face of the marijuana business community. The business community are young, bright, articulate, educated business people who want to make lots of money in this business and they are working like mad to do that and they are willing to work inside a legal system and to protect the investment they have made from the potential of a law enforcement action.”

      Have you read the 2011 ruling of the Oregon Supreme Court in Willis v. Winters?

      Justia Opinion Summary

      The Sheriffs of Jackson and Washington Counties withheld concealed handgun licenses from persons who met all of the statutory conditions for the issuance of such licenses, but admitted to being regular users of medical marijuana. When the sheriffs’ actions were challenged in court, the sheriffs responded that the state’s handgun licensing scheme does not take medical marijuana use into consideration. The reason why the sheriffs denied the handgun licenses was because the state law is preempted by the federal prohibition on the possession of firearms by persons who are “unlawful users of controlled substances.” Both the trial and appellate courts rejected the preemption argument, and held that the concealed handgun licenses were wrongfully withheld. The sheriffs appealed. The Supreme Court held that the Federal Gun Control Act did not preempt the state’s concealed handgun licensing statute, and accordingly, the Court ordered the sheriffs issue or renew the requested licenses.

  8. Nunavut Tripper says:

    Seems the “brains” behind Safe Streets is a James Wooton whom I’ve never heard of but he hails from the Reagan crowd.

    James Wootton, Chairman

    James Wootton is a nationally recognized expert in law and public policy. He has helped create and grow a number of national organizations and has had leadership positions in government and non-profit organizations dealing with legal policy.

    Wootton is currently chairman of the Partnership for America, a non-partisan public policy organization which promotes healthcare and legal reform and president of the Access to Courts Initiative. Wootton is a former partner of Mayer Brown LLP where he led the “Better Way” project to develop an alternative compensation system for prescription drug injuries.

    Wootton joined the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform in 1998 and was the Chamber’s lead negotiator of the Y2K Liability Act of 1999.

    As president of Safe Streets, Mr. Wootton was principal drafter and advocate for the truth-in-sentencing provisions of the 1994 Crime Bill. In the following three years 37 states adopted truth-in-sentencing laws.

    As a political appointee in the Reagan Justice Department Wootton helped create numerous national programs including: the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children; FBI’s National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime; National Court Appointed Special Advocates; National Child Safety Center; Child Safety Partnership; National Partnership to Prevent Drug and Alcohol Abuse and Serious Habitual Offender Comprehensive Action Program.

    • kaptinemo says:

      The more the prohibs lose their ‘tall grass’ political cover (afforded them by ignorant voters demanding their pols ‘do something’ about drugs to ‘save the children’), the more people get to see what was actually growing in it.

      What was growing in that ‘tall grass’ was a con-game, and a ruinously expensive one. And as that cover thins, the prohibs are desperately trying to re-camouflage their scam.

      The problem is, there’s no new ‘tall grass’ growing to replace what was shielding their grifting; the DARE Generation intended to fulfill that function has declined to; they’ve heard and seen all their lies before and are not convinced.

      All voting records and election day after-vote polls show that support for re-legalization is rock-solid in the 18-35 age group, the one most needed to replace the prohib’s greatest suckers, er, I mean, supporters

      And, most importantly of all, this new electorate has no intention of continuing to allow for its tax dollars to pay for a gun leveled at its head due to choice of intoxicant.

      A point which reformers will make over and over again to pols seeking re/election this year and next. And since reform-minded people now comprise the political majority, it’s long past time that that majority ruled.

  9. Nunavut Tripper says:

    The Wootton crowd is also behind the Nebraska Oklahoma lawsuit against Colorado legalization.

  10. Servetus says:

    It’s too bad a copy of the Safe Streets lawsuit isn’t available on the web, otherwise we would know how the plaintiffs were supposedly “injured” by legalized marijuana. For instance, how do the plaintiffs know it was legal marijuana, and not illegal marijuana that caused their alleged problems? I suspect the judge will find that the plaintiffs have no standing in the case.

    I also suspect this to be a SLAPP lawsuit, a “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” in which individuals or community groups are sued for exercising their constitutional rights, usually involving free speech. The idea is to place a legal burden upon ordinary citizens involved in political activism, to wear them down, or bankrupt them with legal fees.

    SLAPPs are largely unsuccessful in court, but ultimately act to chill free speech, or in this case discourage a state-legal activity.

    • Duncan20903 says:


      The respondent in a SLAPP is supposed to have limited to no resources to pursue vindication. For unknown reasons I don’t think a State government qualifies. Well, unless the State is West Virginia.

      • Servetus says:

        I was thinking of any small business startups they might target, ones that have no extra resources for litigation, and if incorporated could be legally defined as a person, or as a business co-op could be designated a community group.

        • darkcycle says:

          The cannabusinesses? They are all startups as far as that is concerned. None of them could survive a dedicated legal assault at this point.

  11. Tony Aroma says:

    There’s a link to the complaint, so you can read it for yourself.

    It’s a meaningless and frivolous lawsuit. The plaintiffs go to great lengths to describe all the many ways federal laws are being violated, but that’s about it. They say they’ve been “injured” by this vast marijuana conspiracy, but never actually say how. The closest they get is suggesting that their property values MAY go down, or prospective buyers MAY not want to live there. Basically these people are saying, “we don’t like weed, and we want the federal government to overrule the voters of CO.” The same as the NE and OK lawsuits – no specific damages, just a dislike for weed and states rights

    • Tony Aroma says:

      Just thinking, since you need to show actual harm to have standing for a lawsuit, they need to find a co-plaintiff who has suffered actual harm. I think their best bet is a representative of a cartel or other black market dealer.

  12. damm says:

    Another person from the Reagan Era trying to push Reagan policies still.

    We will have more of these idiots line up for photo’s before we are close to the finish line.

  13. Frank W. says:

    I see that poor David schlub was stoned to death by the mob: “Hidden due to low comment rating” This whole thumbs up/down feature is kind of silly, like in “Monty Python’s Life of Brian”: NO ONE IS TO STONE ANYONE UNTIL I BLOW THIS WHISTLE, EVEN, AND I WANNA MAKE THIS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, EVEN IF THEY DO SAY ‘ANSLINGER’!
    and don’t forget to lick me on facebook!

    • Pete says:

      Hmm… I didn’t even realize the plug-in had a setting that would hide the comment. I don’t think we’ve gotten that low before. I’ll proably turn that part off.

      • kaptinemo says:

        No, Pete, please, leave it on. It’s like a neon sign flashing “Got an @$$-whupping”.

        It serves to demonstrate to their camp how much hostility they’ve created amongst their intended audience…and how much hostility they’ve earned from that audience in creating it.

        An audience that holds their future purse strings, budget-wise. It’s never wise to piss off the paymasters. But one would have to be (ahem) ‘developmentally challenged’ to believe that drug prohibition could ever work, anyway, hence their continued insistence on insulting our intelligence with long-refuted propaganda.

        The prohibs are fond of saying that “This isn’t your father’s marijuana” Well, they don’t seem to understand that it’s not our fathers they are dealing with, but us, and we know vastly more than any previous generation ever did about this amazing substance. Not a boast, but a fact. And we don’t like being lectured to by those whose ignorance is matched by their arrogance in purveying that ignorance shamelessly…and doing so on our dime and our time.

        So, please, leave the butt-whuppin’ sign up, as a portent of things to come. Mebbe even come up with a gif that has a pulsing red backside and spanking hand to go with it. Seeing as that’s where most prohibs keep their brains, repeated @$$-whuppings are bound to cause their already-tiny cortexes to suffer concussions. We can hope, anyway…

        • allan says:

          and if he hadn’t waded in like a poop flinging monkey he would’ve rec’d due respect. But if there’s poop to be flung here, well, it needs to be really good poop, not the standard septic muck that David spewed.

  14. primus says:

    I won’t lick you on Facebook, in front of the library, or any place else.

  15. Ned says:

    This is the Counsel of Record of this lawsuit.

    These guys are pros and not cheap. Someone has got some deep pockets to pay for this the defendants are going to need the same.

    This looks to be a pretty serious attempt at genuine legal action to disrupt CO’s legalization. The suit is worded about as strongly as one can imagine such a suit could be and it relies on well established Federal laws.

    It seems to me that the disconnect between what is (still) on the Federal law books and the discretionary restraint being practiced by the Justice Dept. on this is going to create problems for the defendants. They’re going to need good representation. Is the State of CO going to defend their public servants on this? Seems like they have to.

    They are really trying to push the concept of preemption to mean not only that the Federal Government can enforce its laws in the a State, but that preemption includes the power to vacate and thus alter CO’s State Constitution. I thought CO can have its Constitution and law, it just can’t prevent Federal enforcement actions in its borders. That is, the Feds can’t make the State mirror its criminal codes. Isn’t Federal power regarding a State Constitution limited to “Constitutionality” and not lesser things like aligning with Federal Laws?

    This could get pretty complicated if the presiding judge decides in favor of the plaintiffs simply because of the laws on the books being just that. The laws on the books. This highlights the real problem with the Obama Justice Dept.’s choice to change nothing but their actions. That choice left open the opportunity for just such a lawsuit.

    I’m not sure exactly what the plaintiffs claim their injuries are or how they expect to prove them, (but in Civil court standards are lower) I didn’t see them specified in the suit. I also don’t know if the court can compel the Justice Dept. to take enforcement actions on this or if the AG could simply say we choose to exercise our prosecutorial discretion and decline to take any actions?

    I don’t really see how the judge rules against the plaintiffs, UNLESS his view of CO’s States rights is broad enough to go beyond technicality. The defendants have probably done everything they’re alleged to have done. Whether that has resulted in actual injuries to the plaintiffs I suppose will be argued. Maybe a successful argument by the defendants on that wins. But all those acts have been treated by Federal courts as criminal ones for many years.

    I don’t see how this doesn’t get messy. Based on decades of law and precedent, the plaintiffs have a case. However, it isn’t entirely clear how far “preemption” goes in favor of Federal power. Is it just that they can enforce their laws in the State, OR that they can force the State to change it’s laws. If they lose at this level will either or both sides keep appealing? All the way to the Supreme Court? Will injunctions be issued ordering CO to stop it’s legal regulated marketplace till a final SCOTUS decision?

    • DdC says:

      My bet it’s tossed out as frivolous. Nothing has changed since Nixon as far as “the law” lumping cannabis as a controlled substance. Feds haven’t permitted any state to grow and continue to bust people. All Obama has done is nothing. He has lowered the priority to focus limited funds on more important issues. Not reefer madness hobgoblins. So pour all that Addlebrain money into bastardizing the democratic process of letting voters decide. At the end of the day all of these demonizers whack acts are just making a hardship on little girls with seizures and putting their parents in cages.

      23,000,000 arrested x $1,000’s/y cage rental, human storage fees, slave labor and remedy rehabilitation & random whizquiz profits. Cops Xmas Confiscations and retirement Forfeitures. Fat Pharma sponsored DARE cults for Youth SWAT recruitment and Indoctrination into the world of Hate. The Ganjawar only proves you can fool most of the people all of the time, if profits are involved.

    • Servetus says:

      Serious attempts are one thing, results are another. Wooton is very low key. However, he just succeeded in adding his name to the idiot list that includes all drug war criminals.

      In his net-bio, he’s credited with once running an NGO that criticized overzealous litigation lawyers for being a pain in the collective corporate posterior. Interesting that he’s come around and is now using every dirty trick gleaned in his years of criticizing trial lawyers to make a buck off the legal system by supporting the last vestiges of the drug war.

    • Tony Aroma says:

      I think many people are looking at this lawsuit, and the ones filed by OK and NE, in the wrong way. If they win, the state of CO would be forbidden from licensing or in any way regulating their legal marijuana industry. Since a state can’t be required to enforce federal law, or even in any way align their laws with federal law, that’s about it. The feds can’t force any state to criminalize mj.

      So a win could just turn out to be a serious blow to prohibition. It would then be entirely up to the feds to enforce their laws in the 30+ states that have some form of legalized cannabis. Which they’ve already made clear they really don’t want to do. It would be the “wild west” that so many prohibitionists fear. Might just be the impetus needed to force the feds’s hand. They’d HAVE to reschedule mj so it could be regulated by the states. Or just let it continue legal and unregulated. What’s the downside?

    • Duncan20903 says:

      Neither Colorado nor its local or State employees have broken any laws.

      Section 885(d) of the Controlled Substances Act specifically immunizes them.

      (d) Immunity of Federal, State, local and other officials

      Except as provided in sections 2234 and 2235 of title 18, no civil or criminal liability shall be imposed by virtue of this subchapter upon any duly authorized Federal officer lawfully engaged in the enforcement of this subchapter, or upon any duly authorized officer of any State, territory, political subdivision thereof, the District of Columbia, or any possession of the United States, who shall be lawfully engaged in the enforcement of any law or municipal ordinance relating to controlled substances.

      (Pub. L. 91–513, title II, §515, Oct. 27, 1970, 84 Stat. 1279.)

      There are people that think that it’s illegal to verbally promote the repeal of cannabis laws because it’s illegal. All that means is that they’re blistering idiots. Their opinions are irrelevant. I’m still waiting for one of the fans of preemption to ‘splain why none of the States, the District of Columbia, the Territories or Protectorates have not criminalized the evasion of Federal income tax.

      These lawsuits don’t have even the proverbial snowball’s chance of being adjudicated in favor of the enemies of essential liberty.

  16. Pingback: SECOND PROPERTY TAX IRELAND 2015 News

  17. DdC says:

    Safe Streets? Do they fill potholes?

  18. n.t. greene says:

    …people do realize that the “think about the children” argument became stale once we started feeding them amphetamines for ADD and SSRIs for depression, right?

    It could be argued that we need more drugs. Or better ones. Or it could be argued that it might be time to grow the hell up and deal with the reality of drugs.

  19. Duncan20903 says:


    Oh no! We’d better call Saul!

    Also, could someone give me a call when the Denver Police finally get one of the licensed retail cannabis vendors to sell cannabis to one of their underage undercover agents? TIA!

  20. claygooding says:

    Most of the couchers consider a thumbs down as a victory sign,,we hit someones tender spot.

  21. jean valjean says:

    Finally got round to a rare thumbs down for “David” only to find that I’d hit Up instead. David, I take it back.

  22. EvenSteven says:

    Here’s their contact information; tell these parasites how you feel or jam their fax with black faxes:

    Holiday Inn Summit County-Frisco
    1129 North Summit Boulevard, Frisco, Colorado 80443
    Phone: 970-668-5000 | Fax: 970-668-0958
    Email: m

  23. If you are going anywhere on a trip, don’t stay at the Holiday Inn.

    “One of the nation’s largest marijuana policy reform groups is calling for a nationwide boycott of Holiday Inn after a hotel management company that owns a Holiday Inn in Colorado filed a federal lawsuit Thursday aiming to shut down the state’s legal and regulated marijuana program.

    Marijuana Policy Project urged a boycott of the hotel brand after New Vision Hotels Two, LLC filed a lawsuit claiming that they have already lost business at their Holiday Inn location in Frisco, Colorado, and fear that the brand could be damaged due to a nearby state-legal retail marijuana shop and grow operation that hasn’t opened yet.”

    • Plant Down Babylon says:

      Damn, i REGULARLY smoke weed in EVERY holiday inn, i’m in.

      Just can’t remember the last time I was in one (musta been good kron).

  24. Mr_Alex says:

    This Lawsuit must fail, Prohibitionists maybe I should use you for projectile testing aboard a battleship, fair game we put you on USS Iowa’s 16 inch gun and shoot them out of it and see how long they survive

    • DdC says:

      or get them stoned…

      • kaptinemo says:

        “Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” – HL Mencken

        Just forcing them to sit in close proximity to someone having a laughing jag thanks to good weed and hilarious NSFW YouTube videos (turn volume down just before 1:10) would be enough cause for them to expire from terminal apoplexy, due to being unable to make their seatmate miserable.

        The prohibs are a joyless lot; control freaks usually are. They’re never happier than when they can make others suffer in the name of their principles.

        CS Lewis had them pegged long ago:

        “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

        We’ve had enough of them, taking lives and destroying families, stealing homes and other property, and generally aiming their taxpayer-supplied weapons at their paymasters, all for a policy that never had a hotdog’s chance in Hades of ever being slightly feasible; time, long past time, for this to end. If only to get these modern-day Mr. Drys out of our lives.

Comments are closed.