The Court won't be tossing out Colorado's pot law next year. As the article explains, actions brought by one state against another are "original actions" not appeals. They have to go through the equivalent of a trial before they are decided. Historically, such cases take years and years before they are resolved.

Why am I not surprised that you got this wrong?

while you're just doing your usual act: spouting nonsense. It sometimes was amusing the first five or so years, but its mostly become tiresome.

I don't know of a significant (and this would be significant) original jurisdiction case that has been decided on the merits in the 20th or 21st centuries that didn't take several years to move from motion to special master to full court consideration.

10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects Colorado.

Neither Oklahoma or Nebraska have legal standing.

Plus, there is the pending ruling on marijuana before the federal court to determine if the scheduling of cannabis is to be removed.

If the court agrees it should be removed, then Oklahoma and Nebraska has no further standing (and they still don't have standing due to the states' rights clause of the 10th Amendment)

Oklahoma and Nebraska should be fined millions of dollars for wasting Colorado's time defending their legal law.

Both states have major meth problems. They should take care of it before bothering other state's legal pot.

simple, just require enough consumer protections, purity standards, etc., that homegrown stuff couldn't pass, and ordinary people couldn't afford the equipment needed to make it of legal quality.

or, hell, just make a license to produce and/or sell cost a lot of money.

"legal" still covers a lot of ground.

You're terrible at it. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5887010

That would require Democrats to elect a majority to the House and Senate, and have a President who would sign the bill.

And in so doing create the absolute opposite extreme from prohibition.

I don't think they want that.

The only way out that I see would be Congress take pot off the illegal list or a constitutional amendment repealing pot restrictions.

Courts can't rule the repeal of a ban unconstitutional. It would mean literally writing laws from the bench, and no one would respect such an attempt. All the courts can do is strike down the regulatory and tax regimen, but they can't force states to arrest marijuana users. I don't think conservatives want "marijuanarchy."

Pot is a pretty great painkiller for slight or moderate pain, that threatens Big Pharma's obscene profits on painkillers.

But then again if we have Pot, why do we need to go anywhere?

Bryant

Specialty stores will be overwhelmed by the manufacturing and distribution capability of a giant company.

Don't get me wrong, some specialty shops will remain, but they'll be niche shops, for people that want to get a special high for a special occasion.

No violations as 10th Amendment is respected. Oklahoma and Nebraska will end up PAYING Colorado millions of dollars, after Colorado countersues them for this waste of an idea.

Both Nebraska and Oklahoma AG's have horrible records of suing people for no reason.

The Colorado AG, while Republican, is prepared to defend Amendment 64 to death as it is a part of the state Constitution.