I don’t think he has the power to tell prosecutors and federal law enforcement to ignore the law entirely (just to “put it on the back burner” so to speak)
But he could use his pardon power to routinely pardon people arrested for marijuana offenses.
He doesn’t have any power over state law. Most people arrested for marijuana are arrested by local or state cops. Obama doesn’t have jurisdiction over them, so the situation for your average pot smoker would remain pretty much the same.
I’ve seen depictions of commercial legalized pot where the individual cigarettes in a pack are wrapped like hand-rolled joints. Would that really be the case? Why wouldn’t they look more like regular cigarettes, only shorter and/or skinnier, with no filters? Would people expect their mass-produced marijuana cigarettes to look like joints?
I would bet mass-produced marijuana would be more like you see pipe tobacco these days. That is, you’d go to the shop and by an ounce, all packaged up like Oscar Meyer or something. I doubt there would really be packs of joints and ad campaigns featuring Towelie the Towel or anything.
I don’t think you’ll ever see mass-produced, machine-rolled marijuana joints packaged like cigarettes in the USA. For one thing, people like to smoke their pot in different ways. Most people I know prefer a pipe or a bong of some sort to a joint. Joints just seem to be used mainly as because of easy concealment and portability.
If pot was legalized or decriminalized in the U.S. you can bet that where it could be used would be tightly regulated–probably it would only be allowed in private residences and specially licensed clubs. In both those places pipes and other devices would be right at hand so loose pot would be more appropriate.
In the Netherlands pot is mostly sold loosely by weight in small packets. Only in the past 10 years did I really see pre-rolled joints become more widely available in coffeeshops, and those were usually mixtures of pot and tobacco–which is now illegal to smoke inside public places.
I also don’t understand the belief some have that in the USA legalized pot would somehow be grown, processed, and marketed by some tobacco or liquor mega-corporation. I don’t think this will be the case. Rather, it might be more like Holland, where growing it for distribution is actually illegal (or at least used to be) so a corporation couldn’t “manufacture” it even if they wanted to.
On edit: to add to what Jack Batty said: I seriously doubt you’d see any advertising whatsoever for marijuana. The whole thing would be extremely low-key. It would be barely distinguishable from the way things are now–except for all the media frenzy when the law is first changed.
MOre thoughts:
I live in San Francisco. We are pretty damn close to having de-criminalized the use of–and even the sale of-- small amounts of marijuana. Right now there is a good deal more pot smoking outside on the streets here than there is in Amsterdam. That is a little misleading, however, because most civilized Dutch simply don’t find it polite to smoke pot in public, by-and-large.
Anyway-- back to SF. There are a good number of bars where outdoor pot-smoking (in an enclosed terrace or tobacco smoking area, etc.) is tolerated. Nothing is said about it, but the staff, patrons, police and neighbors all know it occurs. But because of this “truce” any selling/dealing of pot or other drugs is strictly prohibited and would most likely be dealt with more harshly (by the bar staff) than otherwise.
I am not sure, but I believe this is roughly the way pot decriminalization began in the Netherlands. Over time, a critical mass of coffeeshops tolerated pot smoking at the begininng, and eventually the government “regulated” (but didn’t make legal) the use and then even the sale of small amounts in specially licensed locations. And then… profit! (tax revenue).
It remains to be seen if or when SF and/or California will attempt to buck the Feds by tolerating sales of small amounts, and then taxing it—even though it would still be illegal. Obama has signaled that he will not make Fed. pot arrests a priority, but if SF allowed/taxed even small sales, Obama’s hand might be forced.
Maybe something like a ‘Narcotics Licence’ could be introduced.
People could pay a yearly fee (say $100 for administration purposes) to acquire the licence, enabling these people to purchase any drug (hard or soft) from a regulated seller.
I would also make it compulsory for the licence holder to undergo a psychiatric analysis (and extra $100) before a licence is granted, with this being repeated every 3 - 5 years to ensure anyone suffering some sought of dangerous mental condition/psychosis are not able to purchase from a regulated seller. I am assuming this would be a small percentage of the actual people who apply for the licence, small enough that a black market for these users would not be viable. The individuals who also fail the psychiatric examination can be targeted for appropriate ‘Mental Health’ programs.
Licensing would also enable authorities to monitor individual’s drug use and identify problem drug users (all purchases would be recorded in a national database). These people could then be targeted for appropriate ‘Problem Drug Use’ programs, without the danger of incarceration.
I think there would also be a huge amount of over-indulgence possibly to the point of irresponsibility for the first few months. A lot more driving-while-high accidents and such.
I don’t mean that would be a compelling reason not to legalize it, but I do think that would be a very public side effect for a while. A lot of people don’t smoke only because it is illegal (and the possibility of random drug tests etc.) If that hurdle were removed it might take a while for some to pace themselves. 
Almost definitely. But I think Bill O’Reilly would milk it for more than a few months (or years!)
I am not so sure about that. I think the anti’s would take a different approach and it would be treated much like cigarettes. We would have a whole slew of “new studies” showing how horrible it is for your health, how second-hand pot smoke is a killer, it kills brain cells or whatever else they decided it does. We’d see the gory “truth” commercials and mocked up babies with birth defects caused by the evil marijuana and so forth. It would still be fringe groups, but I think it would be a noisy and invasive campaign to re-criminalize it.
How is the drug test hurdle removed? Will President Obama also outlaw discrimination against marijuana smokers?
I was thinking that if it were legal then they’d stop testing for it. The employers who randomly test for drugs don’t (always) test for alcohol, so I assumed it would be similar…
But I think the trend is in the other direction, as some other posters have mentioned. There are already some workplaces (mostly hospitals, I think) which test for nicotine. Aside from health issues, employers may tend to believe that employees who smoke marijuana are less reliable, regardless of legality.
True, but although I compared it to cigarettes too, I do think that the attitudes at least after a while, would tend to be more like those of alcohol than nicotine.
Purely speculation on my part of course but even vehemently anti-pot folks tend to admit (when cornered) that it is not that different than alcohol.
Well, what about getting around the legal/moral/health problems of smoking by eating it in baked goods? Personally, while I support legalization I wouldn’t want to have to breathe someone else’s smoke; but if someone wants to eat cookies or brownies or whatever laced with the stuff that doesn’t reach out and affect me like smoke does. And they won’t be screwing up their lungs.
I’m pro-legalization (well, certainly pro decriminalization) and I’m pretty sure the long term health effects of smoking pot in moderation are worse than those of alcohol in moderation, which is actually good for you.
Whichever company sells Dorito’s and/or microwave Mac&Cheese would register record profits 