jaywexler

Sadly no. (though I never got into Better Call Saul--does that make me a bad person??)

On edibles, there have always been these scary articles and posts about the dangers. Sure there are some dangers of potential overconsumption (the Maureen Dowd effect) or inadvertent consumption, but I think the problem is way overstated. Nobody is giving out their expensive weed gummy bears to children on Halloween! My former student Connor Burns and I have a (verrrrrry long) article on this if you're interested: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3811846

I hope public perception evolves. It certainly has in the past decade, and I'd expect it to continue. You're right, we don't say to consumers, hey you can only buy three bottles of vodka! So why do we tell them they can only buy so much weed? Partially it's to help undermine the illicit market, but eventually we're going to have to get rid of those limits I think.

Recently I've been enjoying Sweet Tooth but I'm not a connoisseur. I tend to eat edibles.

I'm not familiar with the lawsuit specifically, but the intersection of gun rights and weed rights is fascinating. It will be interesting to see how courts decide whether the federal rule against gun ownership for marijuana users violates the second amendment. The issue makes for strange bedfellows in a sense--gun owners and weed smokers unite! But of course, both are issues of individual freedom and I would think libertarians would be pro-freedom on both issues.

Thus far, Illinois seems to have a good model, particularly with regard to equity concerns. New York looks like it's going to be good as well. Some people think Oklahoma has the best medical program because there are far fewer regulations there than in other states for some reason.

It could. Most of the federal proposals out there that have been floated have provisions for expungement of records. States that have legalized later rather than earlier also seem to understand that expungement/pardons must accompany legalization.