Pot, Taxes & Those Pesky Banks: Oopsies! State Lawmakers Culpable?

[theDoctorisIn]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Sessions hasn't done it because the tide of public opinion has changed, and even this administration doesn't want to deal with the optics of arresting grandmothers and community leaders for a crime that the majority of Americans believe should be legal.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

I can see the fed staying out of it as long as the trade is contained within the state that "legalized" it. But when as in recent weeks, California exports its excess to New York, where it is illegal still, then the fed should step in and start bitch-slapping the states responsible for exporting to other states.

This is where the problem is: The states that have "legalized" the still-illegal narcotic pot, are planning on letting BigTobacco come in and mass produce for exports. So unless these five or six states plan to export recreational weed to each other only, and can prove they'll limit it to that, we have on our hands about five or six Mexicos within US borders who intend to export illegally to other states where it's banned.

It's just like a rat's nest of legal and illegal regulations all colliding with each other. And we still fund eradication of pot in Mexico????? Why? Mexico's response to its old benign trade being mass produced in the US and driving the prices down was to up its exports of heroin. They're going to make their money one way or the other. By legalizing weed we essentially stimulated a boon in the heroin epidemic in the US.

We're kinda smart huh?

Some States around CO have sued them for their product crossing State lines. That's the neat little thing about putting markers in the pot so it can be proven that it was taxed, it can also be tracked.


.

You're a little behind.

Supreme Court denies Oklahoma and Nebraska challenge to Colorado pot – The Denver Post

 

[OKTexas]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Sessions hasn't done it because the tide of public opinion has changed, and even this administration doesn't want to deal with the optics of arresting grandmothers and community leaders for a crime that the majority of Americans believe should be legal.

No the cartel is the State who licenses the growers and sellers and collects their portion of the profits, it's organized crime at the highest level.


.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Sessions hasn't done it because the tide of public opinion has changed, and even this administration doesn't want to deal with the optics of arresting grandmothers and community leaders for a crime that the majority of Americans believe should be legal.

No the cartel is the State who licenses the growers and sellers and collects their portion of the profits, it's organized crime at the highest level.


.

No, that's regulated capitalism.

You must realize that you guys have already lost this fight.

Right?

 

[Silhouette]

No, that's regulated capitalism.

You must realize that you guys have already lost this fight.

Right?

So when California sells/exports pot to New York it's 'regulated capitalism'. But when Mexico sells pot to New York it's "illicit trafficking"; complete with a hefty budget to man the borders and do eradication in Mexico with the cooperation of their authorities?

When do we open the borders to Mexico to import pot to compete with California, Colorado and all the rest?

 

[OKTexas]

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

I can see the fed staying out of it as long as the trade is contained within the state that "legalized" it. But when as in recent weeks, California exports its excess to New York, where it is illegal still, then the fed should step in and start bitch-slapping the states responsible for exporting to other states.

This is where the problem is: The states that have "legalized" the still-illegal narcotic pot, are planning on letting BigTobacco come in and mass produce for exports. So unless these five or six states plan to export recreational weed to each other only, and can prove they'll limit it to that, we have on our hands about five or six Mexicos within US borders who intend to export illegally to other states where it's banned.

It's just like a rat's nest of legal and illegal regulations all colliding with each other. And we still fund eradication of pot in Mexico????? Why? Mexico's response to its old benign trade being mass produced in the US and driving the prices down was to up its exports of heroin. They're going to make their money one way or the other. By legalizing weed we essentially stimulated a boon in the heroin epidemic in the US.

We're kinda smart huh?

Some States around CO have sued them for their product crossing State lines. That's the neat little thing about putting markers in the pot so it can be proven that it was taxed, it can also be tracked.


.

You're a little behind.

Supreme Court denies Oklahoma and Nebraska challenge to Colorado pot – The Denver Post

Not hearing it without explanation isn't denying it, it just means they have to go through the lower courts first, they will wind up hearing it. They should have done it in the first place, they have primary jurisdiction.


.

 

[OKTexas]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Sessions hasn't done it because the tide of public opinion has changed, and even this administration doesn't want to deal with the optics of arresting grandmothers and community leaders for a crime that the majority of Americans believe should be legal.

No the cartel is the State who licenses the growers and sellers and collects their portion of the profits, it's organized crime at the highest level.


.

No, that's regulated capitalism.

You must realize that you guys have already lost this fight.

Right?

The Supremacy Clause is one of the regressives bedrock defenses of federally mandated change, it's hilarious how quickly you can become stone hypocrites when it suits you. LMAO It must be nice to have no moral compass.


.

 

[BluesLegend]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Our local pot store went out of business, folded up like a cheap lawn chair. But then we are a church community and we let them know we didn't want their kind in our community.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The fed may look silly but they control the banks. So maybe the states are looking silly now?

By the way, the pot out there today is nothing but a narcotic. Eat a brownie & go for a drive. See how that works out for you.

No, Silly. Words actually mean things, and not simply what you declare they mean. "Narcotic" has a specific definition...and pot, no matter how loudly you shriek to the heavens, is NOT a narcotic!

 

[Jarlaxle]

A friend recently got into some chocolate while house sitting. Didn't know it was pot chocolates. Went on a little three day spiritual journey. Lucky he didn't die.

He said he did battles with a demon army & rolled around on the floor puking too. Yep...not a narcotic. Umm hmmm

How the hell would he die?

And if he was rolling around the floor and puking- it wasn't the pot- it was something else the brownies- pot actually inhibits the urge to puke.

Don't bother...Silly is most likely just lying, as usual.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Go ahead. Eat a couple of pot brownies & go for a drive. Tell it to the judge when the cop that pulls you over sees that you are obviously narcotically intoxicated.

It's already becoming a problem new dui in recreational states. Drinking & driving is banned already.

A poster claimed pot isn't a narcotic. That's just a flat out lie.

No, actually...you claiming it IS a narcotic is a flat-out lie. Words mean things, Silly. Pot is not, never was, and never will be a narcotic.

 

[Jarlaxle]

A friend recently got into some chocolate while house sitting. Didn't know it was pot chocolates. Went on a little three day spiritual journey. Lucky he didn't die.

He said he did battles with a demon army & rolled around on the floor puking too. Yep...not a narcotic. Umm hmmm

"Narcotic" is defined as a drug that induces sleep.

It is biologically impossible to "die" from eating a cannabis edible.

Vomiting is not a side effect of any sort of cannabis, either. Nor do the effects of edibles last for "3 days".

That's odd. Pets die from eating pot. But little kids & frail adults can't? Learn something new every day.

I have not found any instances in which pets have died from eating cannabis, although it appears that the veterinary consensus is that a dose of 3-4 grams of THC per kg. of the dogs weight is toxic.

That is equivalent to approximately $250 of cannabis flowers per kilogram of dog.

Either way, the human body does not process these chemicals the same way as dogs do - even children and "frail adults". A few grams of chocolate will kill a 100lb dog - but won't have any negative effects for children or "frail adults"

People have been consuming cannabis in various forms for thousands of years. No one has ever died from doing so.

I heard of ONE instance of a dog that died from eating cannabis: a terrier of some kind ate two pot brownies. Of course...it was not the cannabis that killed the dog...not that Silly cares about anything as trivial as a fact!

 

[Jarlaxle]

The war on drugs is unconstitutional in many ways.


It is fascism

So heroin should be legal according to you?

Yes, next question.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Sessions hasn't done it because the tide of public opinion has changed, and even this administration doesn't want to deal with the optics of arresting grandmothers and community leaders for a crime that the majority of Americans believe should be legal.

No the cartel is the State who licenses the growers and sellers and collects their portion of the profits, it's organized crime at the highest level.

No, that's regulated capitalism.

You must realize that you guys have already lost this fight.

Right?

Naah...it is a protection racket.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Our local pot store went out of business, folded up like a cheap lawn chair. But then we are a church community and we let them know we didn't want their kind in our community.

I figure you prefer cheap booze and Oxys, then?

 

[danielpalos]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

Californians need their own, central bank.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

A friend recently got into some chocolate while house sitting. Didn't know it was pot chocolates. Went on a little three day spiritual journey. Lucky he didn't die.

He said he did battles with a demon army & rolled around on the floor puking too. Yep...not a narcotic. Umm hmmm

"Narcotic" is defined as a drug that induces sleep.

It is biologically impossible to "die" from eating a cannabis edible.

Vomiting is not a side effect of any sort of cannabis, either. Nor do the effects of edibles last for "3 days".

That's odd. Pets die from eating pot. But little kids & frail adults can't? Learn something new every day.

I have not found any instances in which pets have died from eating cannabis, although it appears that the veterinary consensus is that a dose of 3-4 grams of THC per kg. of the dogs weight is toxic.

That is equivalent to approximately $250 of cannabis flowers per kilogram of dog.

Either way, the human body does not process these chemicals the same way as dogs do - even children and "frail adults". A few grams of chocolate will kill a 100lb dog - but won't have any negative effects for children or "frail adults"

People have been consuming cannabis in various forms for thousands of years. No one has ever died from doing so.

I heard of ONE instance of a dog that died from eating cannabis: a terrier of some kind ate two pot brownies. Of course...it was not the cannabis that killed the dog...not that Silly cares about anything as trivial as a fact!

Seeing as how it was brownies the dog ate, I would imagine that it was likely the chocolate that killed it.

The death of a dog is not something I take lightly, but blaming it on cannabis reeks of desperation.

 

[Silhouette]

So heroin should be legal according to you?

Yes, next question.

Wow you really don't think ahead well do you?

 

[Pogo]

Seems that states legalizing federally illegal substances are running into problems:

California treasurer wants the state to study a public bank option for pot businesses
along with looking into the creation of a public bank, another of the recommendations from Chiang’s group is to form a multistate group to lobby Congress to ease federal restrictions on cannabis.

“A definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without federal deregulation, Chiang said at a news conference Tuesday announcing the recommendations. “That is not an excuse for inaction.”

So CA's leadership is saying "look, we're going to break the law and the fed had better get it's act together and legalize what we've decided to illegally do" Technically, CA leaders should have never approved legalization for the ballot to even be voted on. Which was within their powers (and obligation) to deny given federal regulations. Now they're saying "we're doublin' down on being outlaws...bitches!"

In response to that hubris it seems the fed has these states by the short hairs inasmuch as their state tax forms must also match the federal ones... ...and the banks...oh yeah, the banks...

...it seems that the fed is telling banks that get FDIC coverage that doing business with federally-illegal drugs is a no-no.

Ooopsies! So now those states fallback is "let's convince the fed to pull pot off the controlled substance list"? What happens when a state wants to grow opium latex for sale? Petition the fed on that too?

This could get interesting. I mean, do you also file federal taxes for hits you did for the mob and the money they paid you? Where does the fed draw the line at revenue from what it considers crime? And if the fed takes crime money, is that legal for the fed to do?

Discuss.

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

Those "cartels" are local small businesses who contribute to the community and employ a lot of people.

Our local pot store went out of business, folded up like a cheap lawn chair. But then we are a church community and we let them know we didn't want their kind in our community.

Yep --- can't have people gettin' all spiritual in a church community. Wouldn't be kosher.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

These State drug cartels can be prosecuted under RICO and all taxes collected, profits from the growers and sellers and all property involved, purchased with or used in the growing, packaging or the flow of the profits could be seized. And all involved could be jailed. I'm just wondering why Sessions hasn't done it yet.


.

I can see the fed staying out of it as long as the trade is contained within the state that "legalized" it. But when as in recent weeks, California exports its excess to New York, where it is illegal still, then the fed should step in and start bitch-slapping the states responsible for exporting to other states.

This is where the problem is: The states that have "legalized" the still-illegal narcotic pot, are planning on letting BigTobacco come in and mass produce for exports. So unless these five or six states plan to export recreational weed to each other only, and can prove they'll limit it to that, we have on our hands about five or six Mexicos within US borders who intend to export illegally to other states where it's banned.

It's just like a rat's nest of legal and illegal regulations all colliding with each other. And we still fund eradication of pot in Mexico????? Why? Mexico's response to its old benign trade being mass produced in the US and driving the prices down was to up its exports of heroin. They're going to make their money one way or the other. By legalizing weed we essentially stimulated a boon in the heroin epidemic in the US.

We're kinda smart huh?

Some States around CO have sued them for their product crossing State lines. That's the neat little thing about putting markers in the pot so it can be proven that it was taxed, it can also be tracked.


.

You're a little behind.

Supreme Court denies Oklahoma and Nebraska challenge to Colorado pot – The Denver Post

Not hearing it without explanation isn't denying it, it just means they have to go through the lower courts first, they will wind up hearing it. They should have done it in the first place, they have primary jurisdiction.


.

Actually, lower courts have questionable jurisdiction in lawsuits between the governments of different states, which is why it was filed directly with the SCOTUS, which has original jurisdiction in cases between states - as made incredibly clear in Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution.

Their refusal to hear it now implies that they don't want to step into this particular fight - meaning that unless a significant change in the status quo develops, they are unlikely to grant certiorari, should this lawsuit be filed in a district court.