Federal marijuana policy: A wake-up call |

Federal marijuana policy: A wake-up call

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (AP Photo)

Attorney General Jeff Sessions probably didn’t see this one coming: A task force he convened “to find the best legal strategy” for a renewal of counterproductive, “Reefer Madness”-style federal marijuana policy “is giving him no ammunition,” The Associated Press reports.

The AP, which obtained portions of a report regarding marijuana that the prosecutors and federal law enforcement officials on the task force didn’t intend for public release, reports it “largely reiterates the current Justice Department policy on marijuana” — which amounts to failed prohibition and remains based on scientifically unsound classification that equates cannabis with heroin. The report says officials “should evaluate whether to maintain, reverse or rescind” Obama-era memos that have kept the Justice Department away from state-level medical and recreational legalization, but doesn’t suggest which direction to take.

The status quo isn’t great but is preferable to the crackdown Mr. Sessions wants — and likely was counting on the task force to justify. That it apparently isn’t providing him with such crackdown justification bolsters hopes that the federal government will adopt the rational, commonsense approach with which states increasingly are succeeding: legalizing, regulating and taxing marijuana.

If nothing else, this report should help Sessions save himself from implementing a prohibition that surely would fail — and countless, otherwise law-abiding Americans from pointless prosecution.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.