in states that had abolished the death penalty. "I guess it's a question of whether they go after state accredited dispenseries for openly flouting federal law?" That's exactly what they are doing in California. "How many federal marijuana prosecutions are there really?" I'm curious about this too. The only statistics I've found so far are from 8 years ago, and they said about 25% of people in prison on marijuana charges were in federal prison. I realize that's not quite the same question. In Claifornia it isn't the actual prosecutions that are the problem; it's law-enforcement harrassment of the landlords of the pot dispensaries. In cop fashion, what they cannot stop through convictions they will stop through informal means. He can handle it in the same way Republicans handle enforcing the Voting Rights Act. Appoint people to the relevant positions who have no intention of enforcing federal drug policy in those states all while publicly claiming to do no such thing. But he doesn't appoint at that level. He just appoints the attorney general. As important as this issue is, it's very far from being the only important constraint on who would make a good attorney general, and maybe the perfect person doesn't exist. This is true, but witless chum didn't propose that the feds focus their resources better. He proposed the Obama administration appoint people whose specific intent is to undermine and not enforce federal law and then lie about it. While I fully support legalization and ending the