>

Descheduling is the eventual outcome. You can't have half the states making bank over recreational sales and the other half throwing people in jail for getting high.
One of the barriers to getting any kind of serious legalization is the intractable dispute over homegrow being allowed or not. Big cannabis companies want to stop this at all costs. I don’t get it. It’s not like the majority of retail customers are gonna grow high quality strains. >

For real. I’m in the South so any talk of legalization is basically a non-starter BUT the only type of legislation I would support would need to have provisions for home cultivation. If cannabis is made legal for recreational consumption there is no reason why I shouldn’t be able to grow one or two plants for myself and either keep or give away what I want to.
Can you imagine if Anheuser-Busch went after every dude with a home brew setup in their garage? It would be insanity.
If we let corporations dictate to policy makers on this we’ll all end up with a shittier product at higher cost. There’s a reason why the black market is still thriving even in legal states. >


BUT the only type of legislation I would support would need to have provisions for home cultivation

So if legislation was proposed that legalized cannabis but didn't allow for homegrow you would oppose it? 
The problem is that it's never going to be perfect - every proposal will have flaws. In my state lots of people online were talking about voting down legalization because of the licensing provisions that gave preference to existing medical shops and didn't contain enough racial equity provisions. For this reason many "supporters" of legalization voted No. 
I think it's the height of privilege to vote to continue the war on drugs simply because the proposal doesn't accomplish everything you support. If the choice is continuing the war on drugs or accepting flawed legalization, which do you choose? >

Yeah I stand by that. Cannabis is a mere plant, proven safe to consume by humans for thousands of years. I will not cede the legal ability to cultivate it to corporations alone because once entrenched there may be no going back in my lifetime at least.
I also think any legalization MUST come with amnesty for those imprisoned for possession or distribution.
I totally get “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good”, but I’ve lived my whole life with “oh it’ll be federally legal in the next few years”. Time is up. Give cannabis back to the people. And magic mushrooms while we’re at it. >

Okay, glad we have that on the record. I'm trying not to put words into people's mouth. 
My problem with your attitude is that I believe it makes one morally responsible for the damage done between this proposal and whatever future (hopefully better) proposal is enacted. The minimum amount of time to get another shot at legalization is the next election (2 years). The maximum could be decades. And there's no guarantee that the future proposal will be any better than the current one. So the choice is accept a flawed legalization now or roll the dice. But think about all the people whose criminal convictions stay on their records for that time. Think about all the people during that time who get arrested for possessing a plant. Think about all the people working in a black market that could be taxed & regulated for safety. 
This isn't a hypothetical. My state just took this vote in November. I personally can't imagine how I could sleep at night knowing I voted to continue locking people up and ruining their lives over a plant. Thankfully, common sense prevailed and my state passed the legalization amendment. >

What proposal? I’m in the south. There is NO proposal because the rural controlled legislature would never entertain it.
If I had to pick between the two (personal growth or amnesty) I would 100% accept the latter, but again here in the south I just don’t see it happening that way.
I have never once in my life had the opportunity to make this choice and so I bear no moral responsibility. That onus is wholly on the rural controlled state legislature who will continue gleefully using “marijuana” as a convenient excuse to lock people up while giving control over the farcical legalized “hemp” industry to corporations and the cops for the purposes of inspection and regulation of growth.
You know what else isn’t a hypothetical? To grow hemp in my state you have to allow full access to your property to the cops at essentially any time, post signage that you’re growing hemp (while also being responsible for any trespasses due to said advertisement), AND if your hemp tests over the legal threshold for THC content your crop gets destroyed and you get nothing. At least they changed it so you don’t also get arrested for that too? Yay progress!
Does that sound free? Or good? I don’t think so. We deserve better and I don’t want to continue this charade in service of conservative politicians who decry the “harmful effects of drugs” and then bankroll delta-8 extraction operations to line their pockets. >

In Arkansas the legalization initiative was rejected largely because progressives voted against it. There's an example where I agree with /u/JeffreyElonSkilling, every progressive who voted against it is responsible for all the people who will get arrested and have their lives ruined over possession of marijuana.
Really pathetic how leftists constantly self-own over their need for ideological purity. >

I think modern conservatives are also notable for shooting themselves in the foot for ridiculous hard line policies with no frame of reference to reality but that’s not really the point.
The point is: cannabis has been used for FAR too long as both cudgel and crutch by the state to disenfranchise, demoralize, incarcerate, and murder. That time needs to end immediately. If our politicians on either side of the aisle continue to hold to the myopic view that reefer madness will be the thing that damns us all, then I personally feel they’re unfit for office. It is an irrational, petty, and archaic view to hold at this stage.
If I am to be considered needy or unreasonable for making the simple demand that we drop the failed war on cannabis-so be it. I’ll own that. But I will not be condescended to when my stance is outwardly correct. Cannabis prohibition has failed on all fronts. It is broadly popular across the nation to at least decriminalize it.
Furthermore, I don’t feel any need to give lip service to the state or their corporate owners for permission to cultivate a plant that was here before us and will be here long after us. >

None of what you said is untrue. In fact, almost everyone on this site can agree that both of these should be part of every initiative:

home grow
equity-focused legalization, i.e. those affected by prohibition should be given priority in legalization

The fact that corporations have undue influence in politics and the legalization of weed is ofc horrible, but that's not what's being discussed here.
We all know that. The question is as follows: if you're the deciding vote on an initiative that doesn't allow home grow, are you ok with voting that down, causing thousands of people to have their lives ruined, just so you get a better one 2-4 years later?
Or, you could pass the fucking thing now, and 2-4 years later pass one that allows home-grow. The only difference is, in the meantime, people who depend on marijuana won't be persecuted for it. They'll have an option.
Or more succinctly, don't let perfect be the enemy of good. >

My problem is that my state wouldn’t let either of those come to a vote until their hand is forced at the federal level. Even then they’ll probably drag their feet as much as possible. This is why I’m a staunch proponent of both personal cultivation and incarcerated people being given amnesty as part of a hypothetical federal platform for legalization.