All so backward - why even have the middle man. How about a sensible use policy, illegal to sell pot, but make it legal to grow your own, still illegal to grow with intent to supply. Or even cap the amount of plants you are allowed to grow. In the UK you can make your own beer, or grow your own tobacco, but there is a cap on production.

Not everything has to be a business!

Making cannabis an exception to the law of comparative advantage doesn't seem like a sensible use policy to me.

I'd not come across the term 'comparative advantage' before. Not thought of it from that angle. You want the freedom to turn pot into a commodity?

Growing the plant, a weed is pretty trivial. Anyone could do it. Which means those barriers are not in place. However, I appreciate some people might not have the time and energy - how about additionally making it okay to give to your friends?

The recreational drug I do frequently is alcohol just because it's legally and sociably acceptable - given a free choice it certainly wouldn't be my first.

Without unleashing the market upon pot, criminals could still make large amounts of money on the black market.

More to the point though - as the article says, the burden of proof is on the side advocating restriction! We don't require governments to allow us to do every little thing - the basic assumption is we can do anything we like, except for a few restrictions needed to prevent reducing others' freedoms.