6 ms·

> could easily be dropped and expose conduct to prosecution back as far as the statute of limitations. If a law is changed, there is protection from ex-post-fa

• dragonwriter 3y ago
  > If a law is changed, there is protection from ex-post-facto prosecution. The law criminalizing and punishing the conduct hasn’t been changed. Every spending bill since 2014 has just placed a temporary prohibition on DoJ spending money to prosecute certain violations while that funding authorization is in effect. So, there is no ex post facto issue: the conduct is criminal and subject to punishment under existing law, and can be prosecuted any time Congress allows DoJ to spend money for that purpose (unless barred for some other reason, like the statute of limitations.) This fact very much impacts the contours of the state-legal marijuana business, including who is willing to be involved with it, and how they do business. A policy (whether executive policy as existed under the Cole Memo, or legislative policy) against prosecution is substantially different in legal effect than actually removing conduct from the scope of criminal prohibition. If it had been legalized (even conditionally on state law), yes, ex post facto would be an issue if the policy changed. As it is, though, it is not.