If the argument is that we can’t have home growing because it won’t protect “the children” and stop organized crime, then Canada’s legalization will mean you can possess cannabis and smoke it — but only if you buy from a licensed profiteer and through a government-mandated liquor store.

Clearly, that’s not what legalization is about.

If Justin Trudeau’s Liberals insist on calling the above scenario legalization, it will be a clear example of Orwellian newspeak, where the same name applies to two different concepts.

Governments love doing that sort of thing.

If anything, the no-home-growing model just goes to show how bad prohibitionists are on economics.

Arguing that home growing increases crime (presumably because would-be criminals know there is cannabis in the area) breaks down in a legal environment.

If everyone, including would-be criminals, can grow cannabis, there is little incentive to engage in a break-and-enter only for the cannabis plant.

Allard v Queen debunked this myth by appealing to basic economics. The more cannabis there is on the market, the less demand. This is why prices fall when supply increases.

If households have a cannabis plant in their garden (indoor or out), then it makes as much sense to break-and-enter for cannabis as it does for an iPod or a laptop.

Is this an argument against the proliferation of laptops? If we listen to the prohibitionists, then, yes, this is perfectly valid. If everyone has cannabis growing on their private property, the amount of grow-rips would increase like how we’ve seen laptop thefts skyrocket since they became more accessible and affordable.

But wait, that’s right. There is no epidemic of laptop thefts, just as there will be no epidemic of grow rips if home-growing is permitted.

If home-growing remains illegal, and a criminal has good knowledge that a house has a cannabis garden, the likelihood of a break-in is higher, just like it is now.

Enforcing a no-home-growing regime will result in more grow rips including the kind where the state trespasses on private property in the name of a drug war.

But wait, what about the children? Surely the mere presence of children overrides any concern for “individual freedom” or “property rights.”

If we give the benefit of the doubt to prohibitionists (including Justin who has redefined legalization to mean what the Liberals want it to) then by following the same chain of logic, one should apply to government for a license to become a parent.

After all, the bureaucrats-in-charge know best. “We” as a society need to know that you are a sane individual, competent enough to raise children.

That may increase “public health and safety” in the eyes of the controllers, but it is obviously not compatible with a free society.

If a parent wants to grow and consume cannabis on their own property, even though they have children in the house (likely, their children), then that’s a consequence of living in a free society and prohibitionists are just going to have to accept it.

Appealing to “the children” is a logical fallacy that has no place in a rational discussion about legalization.

Canadians are free-thinking adults who are capable of making their own decisions. Some of them smoke cannabis. Some of them have children.

It’s really none of your business.