Interestingly to me, it seems that the broader international audience on HN has absolutely no idea that individual states in the USA have fully legalized and regulated cannabis.
Colorado (where I live) has done so for 4 years, and California, Nevada, to name a few, have followed suit.
> It's similar to the non-prosecution agreement mentioned in the Netherlands above
not necessarily. in Oregon, it is tracked, taxed, and regulated. one can still grow their own and remove themselves from the tracking, but this is for personal consumption not for sale.
there is still enforcement, and cooperation with the federal levels, specifically to help curb the black market and the problems that arise due to the black market.
one example of a difference would be the airport - you can fly in Oregon with cannabis, as long as you are under the legal limit to carry and are flying within the state (not crossing any borders). if the TSA (federal employees) are concerned about how much you are carrying or that you are not old enough, they will detain you long enough for local authorities to check, then release you and whatever legal amount you have with you to fly (if you are over the limit, you are asked to dispose of it, much like having too much liquid in your carry-on).
this differs quite a bit to pre-legalization, where non-prosecution was more likely if you were white and in a larger city such as Portland.
the limits are for federal property, which falls under federal law, crossing borders, which again falls under federal law, and black market activities, which are illegal under state laws, and likely include crossing of borders or federal land (quite a lot of forests in the United States are federally owned).
The major practical difference to the average American citizen, is that the FDA is a federal organization, and so must still follow the federal ruleset when licensing drugs, even for products that will only be sold within a given state.
If an Oregon pharmaceutical company wanted to try to put THC in a pill; do a study for its positive effects against, say, anxiety; and then get it bottled and sold at drug stores—they still wouldn't be able to, because, even if the government of Oregon would love for them to do so, the Oregon state legislature isn't responsible for allowing or disallowing that to happen.
Whereas, if a Canadian pharmaceutical company now wants to attempt to get a cannabis byproduct licensed for prescription or OTC usage in Canada, they now totally can.
> Whereas, if a Canadian pharmaceutical company now wants to attempt to get a cannabis byproduct licensed for prescription or OTC usage in Canada, they now totally can.
you are absolutely correct, but I was only addressing the note that state legalization is equivalent to looking the other way in the Netherlands, which was the opinion of OP.
I very much look forward to the research that Canadian companies are able to do, specifically with other cannabinoids other than thc.
Colorado (where I live) has done so for 4 years, and California, Nevada, to name a few, have followed suit.