I don't live in the US (although I'm a citizen), I don't smoke pot, and never have. But I find this to be a completely fascinating set of circumstances, and one which is leading to confusion and a lack of standardized rule of law.<p>You basically have federal US laws outlawing anything having to do with marijuana, and many people serving jail time for having possessed, grown, or distributed it.<p>You also have states that have said it is completely legal to possess, grow, and distribute it. Right there, that strikes me as a weird combination: Don't federal laws trump state ones? (And wasn't this sort of a central part of the Civil War, that states can't just make up their own laws that contradict federal ones?)<p>The federal government is now saying, "Don't worry about those laws on our books. We won't prosecute you." They're even saying, in this article, that they won't prosecute banks. (Well, after the regulations are clarified.)<p>But that strikes me as an extremely inconsistent message, and one which can change at any point in time. If everyone believes Holder, but then Holder changes his mind a year from now... well, then there's nothing you can do, because he is doing nothing more than enforcing the laws -- laws that have been around for many years, and didn't come as a surprise to anyone.<p>Moreover, what happens when another president or attorney general comes into office, and decides to enforce these laws to the max? You'll have banks, growers, and others suddenly prosecuted for federal crimes just because someone else came into office.<p>I think that these problems are likely to continue, until and unless marijuana use is decriminalized at the federal level. Which, given the state of US politics right now, doesn't strike me as very likely.