Ultimately, however, Russ’s post shows that there is an enduring problem that can’t simply be solved by where we draw jurisdictional lines. Is adult cannabis use harmful? (No.) Is stopping adult cannabis use a worthy use of limited law enforcement resources? (No.) In the end, these questions have to be resolved as a matter of policy and competing views have to do battle on the field of democratic deliberation. So far we haven’t won that war yet.

I think the first thing is to convince people that we cannabis advocates also want to protect their children. So we might have to say something like, “instead of coming down on 26 year olds who enjoy their spare time with Bud instead of Budweiser, we want to concentrate all our efforts on increased penalties and enforcement for dealing to kids.” If we could convince people that this would be a MORE effective way to keep drugs out of kids’ hands–e.g., increased vigilance/enforcement while turning weed into something boring that adults do, like wine–then we’d be half-way to victory.

Once we convince majorities that we’ll protect kids, it’s a simple step (I’m convinced) to say that prosecuting adults for use of cannabis is just a waste of resources that actually retards, and does not advance, public safety.

Marijuana is not meth. It’s not coke. It’s not PCP.

We need a realistic, sensible, efficient marijuana policies that respects adults’ privacy and adults’ choices.

Period.

Now we are in the midst of another civil war, one without principles or reason. A civil war between individual liberty and government control of the ability to alter your mind. In the drug war the state protects the state, the state reigns supreme and individual liberty is the underdog.