19 Nev. L.J. 1 (2018-2019)

handle is hein.journals/nevlj19 and id is 1 raw text is: 







       WEED WARS: WINNING THE FIGHT

  AGAINST MARIJUANA SPILLOVER FROM

                   NEIGHBORING STATES


                              Jessica Berch*

         Today, a novel social and economic experiment[ ' involving the sale, use,
    and distribution of marijuana is sweeping the nation. Despite a federal ban on
    the drug, states have begun to legalize medical and even recreational marijuana
    use. While these entrepreneurial states push forward with marijuana legalization,
    other states and the federal government remain opposed to the expansion of ma-
    rijuana use or its legalization in any form.
        Regardless of one's position on the merits of marijuana legalization, the fed-
    eralism and conflict-of-laws issues that arise from this multi-state experiment de-
    serve scholarly attention. In particular, non-legalizing states that border more
    permissive neighbors have begun to see an upsurge in marijuana use within their
    borders and an attendant increase in crime and accidents and these states
    need ways to protect themselves. In a previous Article, I proposed that non-
    legalizing states enact laws modeled on Dram Shop Acts, which create liability
    against those who sell alcohol to already intoxicated people who then injure
    third-party victims. These aptly named Gram Shop Acts  would create liability
    against out-of-state marijuana dispensaries that sell to Home State buyers who,
    while high, injure third parties in the Home State or residents of the Home State.
         Three challenges to the viability and success of this mode ofprotection arise.
    First, will the courts of the non-legalizing state have personal jurisdiction over
    the out-of-state sellers? Second, as a matter of conflict of laws, will those courts
    apply their laws, particularly the Gram Shop Act, to the dispute? Finally, would
    the non-legalizing state's use of its own laws comport with the requirements of
    the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the dormant
    Commerce Clause? This Article explores these horizontal federalism issues ema-
    nating from the legalization quagmire.

                              TABLE OF CONTENTS

IN TR O D U CTIO N   ................................................................................................  2
1.      DRAM SHOP LAWS AND GRAM SHOP LAWS ........................................ 5
       A .  M odel G ram Shop  A ct .................................................................  6

 2018, Jessica Berch. All rights reserved.
* Lecturer, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law at Arizona State University; J.D., Co-
lunbia Law School. I would like to thank the students on the Nevada Law Journal for their
assistance polishing this product. Any lingering errors are my own.
  New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262, 311 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting).
                                        1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing nearly 2,700 academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline with pricing starting as low as $29.95

Access to this content requires a subscription. Please visit the following page to request a quote or trial:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?