3 ms·

Fair point but the point has actually been addressed. The federal government will take no direct intervention in the two states so long as the proposed state la

Fair point but the point has actually been addressed. The federal government will take no direct intervention in the two states so long as the proposed state laws are followed.

patmcc 13y ago
And that could change at the drop of a hat when a new president steps in - it's simply too risky a business proposition.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  Sounds like a good time to lay groundwork and draw up plans for investors and mabe run a test business in Colorado without burning too much money. If it then swings in your favour you are early for the rush, if not you can ditch. Everything is a risk.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> The federal government will take no direct intervention in the two states so long as the proposed state laws are followed. No such commitment has been made (not that such a commitment would be enforceable in the first place, or a useful guide to future administration's attitudes, so long as the federal statutes are on the books), what has been circulated is a non-binding memo providing guidance to US Attorney's on DoJ priorities regarding marijuana cases in those states. Note that this administration's Department of Justice previously circulated a similar memo with regard to states that had legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and US Attorneys in those states subsequently undertook enforcement actions (both criminal charges and forfeiture actions) against state-legal dispensaries, and their landlords, in those states -- note that this includes the current US Attorney in Colorado, who prosecuted state-legal dispensaries when that state had legalized marijuana only for medical purposes. And note that the guidance expressly includes it remaining a priority to prosecute marijuana offenses to the extent that prosecution is useful to prevent drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use, or where officials feel that they are being marketed (not merely sold) to minors, among other cases. This, even within the wording of the guidance, provides a pretty broad opening for prosecuting state-legal activities.

Fair point but the point has actually been addressed. The federal government will take no direct intervention in the two states so long as the proposed state laws are followed.

patmcc 13y ago

And that could change at the drop of a hat when a new president steps in - it's simply too risky a business proposition.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
Sounds like a good time to lay groundwork and draw up plans for investors and mabe run a test business in Colorado without burning too much money. If it then swings in your favour you are early for the rush, if not you can ditch. Everything is a risk.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The federal government will take no direct intervention in the two states so long as the proposed state laws are followed. No such commitment has been made (not that such a commitment would be enforceable in the first place, or a useful guide to future administration's attitudes, so long as the federal statutes are on the books), what has been circulated is a non-binding memo providing guidance to US Attorney's on DoJ priorities regarding marijuana cases in those states. Note that this administration's Department of Justice previously circulated a similar memo with regard to states that had legalized marijuana for medical purposes, and US Attorneys in those states subsequently undertook enforcement actions (both criminal charges and forfeiture actions) against state-legal dispensaries, and their landlords, in those states -- note that this includes the current US Attorney in Colorado, who prosecuted state-legal dispensaries when that state had legalized marijuana only for medical purposes. And note that the guidance expressly includes it remaining a priority to prosecute marijuana offenses to the extent that prosecution is useful to prevent drugged driving and the exacerbation of other adverse public health consequences associated with marijuana use, or where officials feel that they are being marketed (not merely sold) to minors, among other cases. This, even within the wording of the guidance, provides a pretty broad opening for prosecuting state-legal activities.