Okay, put aside your stance on state law vs federal law on this matter, also your personal preferences with regard to decriminalizing pot or other drugs, arguments as to whether the feds can constitutionally regulate drug sales/use within a state at all, and issues of enforcement priorities.
Isn't this a bad precedent? There are federal drug laws on the books. Obama is the chief executive and Holder is the point man on federal law enforcement. Shouldn't they be enforcing the federal laws as written and intended? I realize that there are priorities that have to be set and all that, but lets apply this "we aren't going to enforce this law" stance to some other things.
How about border illegal immigration enforcement? Interior illegal immigration enforcement? Isn't this of the same general class of so-called "victimless" crimes where some city and state laws and enforcement policies are in direct contravention of federal laws and policies?
What if a state, say New York, decides to impose tariffs on all international imported goods. This would potentially be welcomed by a large number of union workers, various employment activist groups, and some domestic manufacturers. Yet it would be a direct contravention of federal treaties and law and ultimately the constitution. If Holder and the Commerce secretary decided to let it go, how would that be okay?
If we want to decriminalize pot at a federal level, either across the board or only for state medical marijuana programs, isn't it only right to do this through legislative action (or for a law suit to be brought and to find the federal law illegal)? What right under the constitution does Obama and/or Holder have to give an official pass to medical marijuana distributors?