These are nice thoughts, but you&#x27;re brutally oversimplifying a lot of things.<p>&gt; (re: advertising laws) None. Why should there be? Done.<p>Well, we have them around alcohol - and around <i>tons</i> of other things - mostly so people can&#x27;t do things like advertise cigarettes on kids&#x27; shows, etc. And there definitely should be - I&#x27;m perfectly happy that cigarettes have to have health warnings attached, and I think marijuana should too.<p>&gt; Release them. They broke the (unjust) law as it then stood, so they don&#x27;t get reparations. Done.<p>Nice thought. Completely unworkable in practice. There&#x27;s a lot of logistics involved in releasing at least six thousand prisoners [1] at once.<p>&gt; Of course it&#x27;s legal to sell. What business of the State is it if one citizen wishes to sell something to another citizen? Done.<p>Is heroin legal to sell? What about military-grade weapons technology? Customers&#x27; private data? Lots of things are illegal to sell, for good reason.<p>&gt; If a private business wishes to permit its customers to consume something on its premises, why does the State have to get involved? Done.<p>For the same reason the State has to get involved and mandate no-smoking zones (though I&#x27;ll admit those are controversial and frequently challenged).<p>&gt; This is just the intoxication question again, and again there is already a system in place. Done.<p>There&#x27;s not &#x27;already a system in place&#x27; - there are different systems for cigs, booze, T3s, Adderall, and Lord knows how many more. I get that it seems simple, but the devil is in the details, especially with this one.<p>&gt; What business of a State are another State&#x27;s laws? Why should marijuana be any different from any other intoxicating substance at all? Done.<p>Well, it doesn&#x27;t matter what each individual state&#x27;s laws are, sure - but all of them will need to <i>decide</i> on laws, which is a massive undertaking.<p>&gt; Why does the State have to grasp for every bit of power? Just let it go! Done.<p>So if something comes round that&#x27;s basically pot, but also sometimes causes instant death in people who take it, we should allow its sellers to operate under our marijuana legislation? And how do you even know if it&#x27;s &#x27;pot enough&#x27; to qualify for marijuana legislation?<p>&gt; Why should it be any different than any other seed. Done.<p>This ignores the fact that other seeds took <i>shitloads</i> of work to legislate [2]. And it&#x27;s still an active debate.<p>I mean, overall, I agree with your sentiment - we&#x27;re not helping anyone by leaving it in this gray area. But saying it&#x27;ll be easy is willfully ignorant.<p>[1]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.parl.gc.ca&#x2F;Content&#x2F;SEN&#x2F;Committee&#x2F;371&#x2F;ille&#x2F;library&#x2F;gerald1-e.htm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.parl.gc.ca&#x2F;Content&#x2F;SEN&#x2F;Committee&#x2F;371&#x2F;ille&#x2F;library...</a><p>[2]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;laws-lois.justice.gc.ca&#x2F;eng&#x2F;regulations&#x2F;C.R.C.,_c._1400&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;laws-lois.justice.gc.ca&#x2F;eng&#x2F;regulations&#x2F;C.R.C.,_c._14...</a>