[USNBandit]

There is one small problem with the idea of anybody growing their own pot. The Attorney General didn't say he was going to change the law. That would take an act of Congress. He is stating policy, which can change as soon as the next Administration comes in. In essence the Attorney General is saying the federal government isn't going to enforce the laws that are in U.S. Code.

People that produce the pot, traffic the pot, sell the pot at the "dispensaries" will still be breaking federal law, they just won't have to worry about guys in raid jackets breaking down their doors, for a while. Simply put this is the drug version of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," and a complete cop out by the Administration

It will be interesting how a state like California deals with this limbo status. Are those "coffee shops" taxed specifically on dope sales or gross receipts. I'm sure California would like a bigger cut of that pie, since they already have state legislators talking about the increase in revenue from taxing pot. Can a state find itself in a legal bind trying to tax something that is effectively still a federal criminal enterprise.

Just something for the academic side of this discussion. Personally, I don't care what people do in their homes. When they peddle it on the streets, sell it to kids, and drive under the influence, I get pretty intolerant. I also reserve the right to not employ or work with anybody that does drugs. They aren't known for their peak performance anymore than alcohol abusers.

[refermech]

I agree with your take on this but I think that if a state loosens the controls for pot it will be a defacto legalization because they won’t put any resources into busting people. All in all I think it would be OK for the country as a whole.

[Mr. Blonde]

Somewhat related question, why did it take a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but not for marijuana?