By The Economist

EVER since November 2012, when Colorado and Washington state became the first jurisdictions in the world to legalise marijuana for recreational use, the big question has been how the federal government would respond. The drug remained illegal under federal law; would Barack Obama’s administration tolerate the states’ deviation?

…

But change is afoot. On August 29th Eric Holder, the attorney-general, told the governors of Colorado and Washington that the department of justice would not seek to block their experiments—at least for now. His deputy, James Cole, issued a memo to the 93 US attorneys, who enforce federal law in the states, saying that in states that have legalised marijuana (including the medical sort, 20 states have done so: see map) they should focus their prosecutorial energies on eight priorities, including preventing the distribution of the drug to minors and its diversion to other states.

Surprisingly, that was not all. “Robust” state systems of marijuana regulation, wrote Mr Cole, could address his department’s eight priorities by replacing illegal activity with tightly run markets. This, says Ethan Nadelmann of the Drug Policy Alliance, a lobby group, suggests that the feds are trying to square the public-health aims of the Controlled Substances Act with the realities of state-legalised marijuana. This may not be acquiescence, but it looks like accommodation.

via Marijuana legalisation: Tokers’ delight | The Economist.