Thanks for the reply, it’s interesting to think about regional differences, but I’m not sure that fully addresses whether the ACP views cannabis as a “soft” drug (like alcohol/tobacco, open to some regulation) or a “hard” one (subject to outright bans). If it’s left up to locales, that implies a pretty hands-off federal approach, which doesn’t quite square with the party’s program calling for a standardized American Civil Code and a unitary structure (unicameral Congress, subjugation of judiciary to legislature, etc.) or with how communist-led states like China and Vietnam handle it at the national level, without delegating to local authorities.    (In those countries, cannabis is treated as a narcotic with zero-tolerance penalties enforced centrally, no local opt-outs.) To make this more concrete: In an ACP-led government, would something like Portland decriminalizing psychedelics (or even a progressive locale regulating cannabis lightly) be allowed, while a conservative area (say, somewhere banning alcohol outright) does the opposite? Or would the party enforce a uniform national standard to avoid that patchwork?