3 ms·

Since it's still very illegal at the federal level, the pot industry is generally very investment-averse. Financial companies don't want to get involved (alread

Since it's still very illegal at the federal level, the pot industry is generally very investment-averse. Financial companies don't want to get involved (already subject to plenty of federal regulation) and the risk of suddenly having to shut down overnight after trying something big and entirely new is another issue. Cannabis-based businesses tend to be pretty modest cash-only ventures that have learned from previous mistakes. A ghost-town-turned-themed-resort is asking for a lot of very negative attention with a business model that hasn't had to work out all the kinks of avoiding the DEA.

Overtonwindow 9y ago
Which brings up another interesting question: Why haven't states taken a hard stance against the federal government on this? What would happen if Colorado state troopers stood up to federal DEA agents and said no, you have no authority here. I seriously doubt it'd come to blows, or gunfire, but in this case I think the states need to take a solid, protective stance against federal intrusion. For once, this type of resistance is a good thing.
- merpnderp 9y ago
  The US fought it's most deadly war over that type of situation. There is zero doubt that federal law supersedes state law, regardless of how much we'd rather it not be. The DEA agents would simply arrest the state troopers for obstruction, and every judge would be okay with it.
- TallGuyShort 9y ago
  I'm very much against the federal ban on marijuana, but it doesn't even begin to make it onto the list of things that I think are worth taking up arms for, much less expecting someone else to take up arms on my behalf. (Even though, yes, I'd like them to stop taking up arms against pot heads). There's also still a lot of opposition to the current, permissive marijuana regulation in Colorado, so it's hardly the kind of thing the state is in a position to take that hard a stance on.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

Which brings up another interesting question: Why haven't states taken a hard stance against the federal government on this? What would happen if Colorado state troopers stood up to federal DEA agents and said no, you have no authority here. I seriously doubt it'd come to blows, or gunfire, but in this case I think the states need to take a solid, protective stance against federal intrusion. For once, this type of resistance is a good thing.

merpnderp 9y ago
The US fought it's most deadly war over that type of situation. There is zero doubt that federal law supersedes state law, regardless of how much we'd rather it not be. The DEA agents would simply arrest the state troopers for obstruction, and every judge would be okay with it.
TallGuyShort 9y ago
I'm very much against the federal ban on marijuana, but it doesn't even begin to make it onto the list of things that I think are worth taking up arms for, much less expecting someone else to take up arms on my behalf. (Even though, yes, I'd like them to stop taking up arms against pot heads). There's also still a lot of opposition to the current, permissive marijuana regulation in Colorado, so it's hardly the kind of thing the state is in a position to take that hard a stance on.