states where marijuana is legal...

BirchBarlow

I love KW 680s
#21
I would say no. Alcohol is legal and I don’t hear of many lawsuits against the state after a pedestrian is run over by a drunk. People are responsible for their own actions.
Around here HEROIN has become an epedemic..

People drive to a dealer shoot up and Overdose behind the wheel...and get "Charged" just the same as a drunk driver

Illinois is also a Medical Marijuana State meaning just by prescription from a Doctor..

Yet I've not heard of and medical marijuana people passing out behind the wheel as of yet
 

dave350

Well-Known Member
#22
Herion is big around here also. A guy I used to work with is in a rehab now. Yesterday, in a good section of town I saw a panhandler at an intersection slumped over her cart. About the time the light turned green she got upright and started to cross the street. It’s very sad to watch.
 

r3gulator3

Friendly Neighborhood Former Technician
Staff member
Supporter
#23
You know the “war on drugs” wasn’t really about drugs at all. It was the US government pissed off that Pablo Escobar’s yearly income from coke was more than the US GDP
 

oldhippietommy

Well-Known Member
#24
HEROIN has become an epedemic.

here too our small rural county led the state in overdose deaths in June of this year.
my solution,flood the streets with cheap good reefer and let em smoke it up.

pot of today is a lot stronger than in the 1970-80`s when I smoked it.Be a good idea to refrain from driving after you got wasted
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#25
but you see everyone, what i was trying to convey, is that the states KNOW, it is a drug. what effects it has on some people, what it could lead to (in much more potent drugs), and they are legalizing it.
I see where you are going with this, and I can see possible grounds for someone going after the State.

I don’t believe there is any clear way to test properly regarding being under the influence. Many questions about the safety of the decision to legalize this, yet certain states chose to do so anyway.

Yes, I could see someone going after the State in a lawsuit, and I see a potential for winning that lawsuit as well.
 

r3gulator3

Friendly Neighborhood Former Technician
Staff member
Supporter
#26
I see where you are going with this, and I can see possible grounds for someone going after the State.

I don’t believe there is any clear way to test properly regarding being under the influence. Many questions about the safety of the decision to legalize this, yet certain states chose to do so anyway.

Yes, I could see someone going after the State in a lawsuit, and I see a potential for winning that lawsuit as well.
Only if it was a Werner driver involved in ththe accident like that fiasco in Texas:
 

Mike

Well-Known Member
Staff member
#27
Only if it was a Werner driver involved in ththe accident like that fiasco in Texas:
It’s things like that which make anything possible.

If I’m in Colorado and some stoner plows into my truck, you can bet I will weigh my options at going after the State. Probably my only legit chance at compensation.
 

r3gulator3

Friendly Neighborhood Former Technician
Staff member
Supporter
#28
It’s things like that which make anything possible.

If I’m in Colorado and some stoner plows into my truck, you can bet I will weigh my options at going after the State. Probably my only legit chance at compensation.
I dunno man, just because someone smokes weed doesnt mean they ain’t got insurance or a bank account. But you can bet some ambulance chaser is going to try n prove it was your fault in court.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
#29
It’s things like that which make anything possible.

If I’m in Colorado and some stoner plows into my truck, you can bet I will weigh my options at going after the State. Probably my only legit chance at compensation.
You can't sue a state over something like that, it's called "sovereign immunity."

Sovereign Immunity...

Main article: Sovereign immunity in the United States
In United States law, state, federal and tribal governments generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits.[40] Local governments typically enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort.

U.S. sovereign immunity falls into two categories:[41]

  • Absolute immunity:[42] pursuant to which a government actor may not be sued for the allegedly wrongful act, even if that person acted maliciously or in bad faith; and
  • Qualified immunity: pursuant to which a government actor is shielded from liability only if specific conditions are met, as specified in statute or case law.[43]
In some situations, sovereign immunity may been waived by law.[44]

Federal sovereign immunityEdit
The federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued in the United States unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.[45] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[46] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it." Price v. United States, 174 U.S. 373, 375-76 (1899).

State sovereign immunityEdit
In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991), the court explained that

we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention". [Citations omitted.]​
In Alden v. Maine (1999), the Court explained that while it has

sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity"[,] [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.​
Writing for the Court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers".

However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of preratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law". Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County(2006, emphasis added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'". Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979). Nor are school districts, per Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977).

Additionally, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity when it acts pursuant to powers delegated to it by any amendments ratified after the Eleventh Amendment. The abrogation doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976), is most often implicated in cases that involve Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states.
 

GAnthony

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Thread starter #30
I see where you are going with this, and I can see possible grounds for someone going after the State.

I don’t believe there is any clear way to test properly regarding being under the influence. Many questions about the safety of the decision to legalize this, yet certain states chose to do so anyway.

Yes, I could see someone going after the State in a lawsuit, and I see a potential for winning that lawsuit as well.
thanks for "seeing" where i was going, what i was trying to say...
 

GAnthony

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Thread starter #31
You can't sue a state over something like that, it's called "sovereign immunity."

Sovereign Immunity...

Main article: Sovereign immunity in the United States
In United States law, state, federal and tribal governments generally enjoy immunity from lawsuits.[40] Local governments typically enjoy immunity from some forms of suit, particularly in tort.

U.S. sovereign immunity falls into two categories:[41]

  • Absolute immunity:[42] pursuant to which a government actor may not be sued for the allegedly wrongful act, even if that person acted maliciously or in bad faith; and
  • Qualified immunity: pursuant to which a government actor is shielded from liability only if specific conditions are met, as specified in statute or case law.[43]
In some situations, sovereign immunity may been waived by law.[44]

Federal sovereign immunityEdit
The federal government has sovereign immunity and may not be sued in the United States unless it has waived its immunity or consented to suit. The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party.[45] The United States as a sovereign is immune from suit unless it unequivocally consents to being sued.[46] The United States Supreme Court in Price v. United States observed: "It is an axiom of our jurisprudence. The government is not liable to suit unless it consents thereto, and its liability in suit cannot be extended beyond the plain language of the statute authorizing it." Price v. United States, 174 U.S. 373, 375-76 (1899).

State sovereign immunityEdit
In Hans v. Louisiana (1890), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eleventh Amendment (1795) re-affirms that states possess sovereign immunity and are therefore generally immune from being sued in federal court without their consent. In later cases, the Supreme Court has strengthened state sovereign immunity considerably. In Blatchford v. Native Village of Noatak (1991), the court explained that

we have understood the Eleventh Amendment to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms: that the States entered the federal system with their sovereignty intact; that the judicial authority in Article III is limited by this sovereignty, and that a State will therefore not be subject to suit in federal court unless it has consented to suit, either expressly or in the "plan of the convention". [Citations omitted.]​
In Alden v. Maine (1999), the Court explained that while it has

sometimes referred to the States’ immunity from suit as "Eleventh Amendment immunity"[,] [that] phrase is [a] convenient shorthand but something of a misnomer, [because] the sovereign immunity of the States neither derives from, nor is limited by, the terms of the Eleventh Amendment. Rather, as the Constitution's structure, its history, and the authoritative interpretations by this Court make clear, the States' immunity from suit is a fundamental aspect of the sovereignty which the States enjoyed before the ratification of the Constitution, and which they retain today (either literally or by virtue of their admission into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States) except as altered by the plan of the Convention or certain constitutional Amendments.​
Writing for the Court in Alden, Justice Anthony Kennedy argued that in view of this, and given the limited nature of congressional power delegated by the original unamended Constitution, the court could not "conclude that the specific Article I powers delegated to Congress necessarily include, by virtue of the Necessary and Proper Clause or otherwise, the incidental authority to subject the States to private suits as a means of achieving objectives otherwise within the scope of the enumerated powers".

However, a "consequence of [the] Court's recognition of preratification sovereignty as the source of immunity from suit is that only States and arms of the State possess immunity from suits authorized by federal law". Northern Insurance Company of New York v. Chatham County(2006, emphasis added). Thus, cities and municipalities lack sovereign immunity, Jinks v. Richland County (2003), and counties are not generally considered to have sovereign immunity, even when they "exercise a 'slice of state power'". Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1979). Nor are school districts, per Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle (1977).

Additionally, Congress can abrogate state sovereign immunity when it acts pursuant to powers delegated to it by any amendments ratified after the Eleventh Amendment. The abrogation doctrine, established by the Supreme Court in Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer (1976), is most often implicated in cases that involve Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which explicitly allows Congress to enforce its guarantees on the states.
so then, if a state worker, driving a state vehicle slams into my car i cannot sue the state?

hogwash.
 

ironpony

Professional Pot-Stirrer
Supporter
#32
so then, if a state worker, driving a state vehicle slams into my car i cannot sue the state?

hogwash.
There are limited exceptions, that's one of them. Lawsuits like that are limited By law, so the maximum damages are usually quite low.

Suing a state over legalizing marijuana? Not a chance.
 
Last edited:
Top