That’s irrelevant.

The administration claims its course complies with the treaties. You say you know of no precedent for its claim. What’s so unusual about the administration’s approach?

Here you don’t have the sort of situation the United States has faced in the past, where there was some kind of external factor that made treaty compliance difficult for the executive branch. The administration is choosing to accommodate what Washington and Colorado are doing with marijuana, provided they do it in a rigorous way. What the administration is doing is waiting to see how marijuana legalization is going to turn out, something that could butt up against the limits of enforcement discretion.

As a legal matter, what do you think of the administration’s argument that it has this kind of discretion?

It has a basis in international law—though the argument will lose a lot of force quickly, if marijuana legalization moves forward and the federal government holds back on enforcement. Considering the policy alternatives, the United States’ approach is nevertheless quite well justified under the circumstances, practically speaking.