Sessions was a Senator until recently, so, yeah, still on idiots like him.
I don't consume the stuff, by the way, but it's just been a huge win for Oregon. Millions in tax revenue, and the whole industry is now above board, cutting out any actual criminal types, freeing law enforcement resources for real crimes.
Then maybe you should be lobbying your idiot Senator to introduce a federal legalization bill, rather than complaining about laws that are on the books being enforced.
The problem with laws that "aren't enforced" is that they often do wind up being enforced. Selectively. Against anyone the government doesn't like for whatever reason.
We don't need a legalization bill. Congress has given DEA full authority to reschedule drugs, and this includes removing them from the schedule altogether. Thus, the federal status of marijuana is one executive order away by the DEA director. Or a person said director is reporting to - like, say, the Attorney General.
So, as it happens, Sessions could make this whole mess go away with a stroke of his pen. Or Trump could direct him to do so. Congress could then vote to reschedule it again, of course - but I doubt they'd dare, given the polls on the issue.
Interesting if true. I am dubious about this because I know that congress has taken action about specific drugs before (notably crack) and I would be surprised if they hadn't passed legislation requiring marijuana to be restricted. I don't know how to search for this information, though, or how I would be confident that it didn't exist without being a domain expert.
Edit: Follow-up, wikipedia has an excellent article [1] about the complexities here. Either congress or the executive could easily make medicinal marijuana legal by rescheduling, but to legalize for recreational use, they would have to amend an international treaty [2], which would require congress to act. Apparently congress has not explicitly scheduled marijuana (as it has other drugs), so the executive is free to act within the constraints of the Single Convention.
> Congress has given DEA full authority to reschedule drugs, and this includes removing them from the schedule altogether.
Not if they are covered by a treaty commitment; in that case, the DEA can change the scheduling but must maintain a certain specified minimum restriction level.
Marijuana is a subject of treaty commitments, and therefore, while it could be moved from the spot on Schedule I where Congress put it when they passed the Controlled Substances Act to replace the Marijuana Tax Act, it cannot be removed from the set of schedules.
Of course, the President could abrogate the applicable treaty, but it's not a marijuana-specific treaty, but the core international narcotics control treaty that the US lobbied for and which is the underlying basis for pretty much all international cooperation on drug enforcement.
The US administration could also lobby for a global change to the treaty to take marijuana out, but the required consensus would be hard to secure even when the US had better international standing than it has today.
Enforcing all laws equally at all times is not possible. There will always be priorities and resource allocation.
Why cannabis prosecutions have now become a priority is not clear. The immediate impact and chilling effects are clear. What should state governments and businesses do while federal legislation is work-in-progress?
Selective enforcement is a recipe for tyranny.
Though I personally think that weed should be legal, I'm not going to fault Sessions here. The ball's in Congress's court.