It’s about the scope. If your behavior isn’t effecting anybody it’s not the government’s business. At least not if the government is structured to be limited like ours originally was. And we see with how much we have to shred the BOR to enforce these laws exactly why the founders were for that dividing line. We’re in a situation now where if you try to buy too much sudafed the government could decide you’re cooking meth and kick your door in, and if you also have a coffee maker (ie a heat source, beaker and filtering system) by law you DO have a meth lab. They’re trying to control a black market that they forced into existence. And in so doing have made so every bank transaction is now evidence against you.
I agree it’s about the scope. Frankly, I am a little amazed by the focus on pot. I have had many discussions over the years with libertarians, and they are often focused on pot above seemingly all else. Like you wrote, government—the federal government nonetheless—is regulating virtually every aspect of life these days. There are far, far more liberties at stake here than pot.
Young women are going to line up to vote Democrat over abortion (which wasn’t even made illegal by SCOTUS) and Libertarians wouldn’t support Trump last election because he wasn’t doing enough to legalize pot. I mean, talk about cutting your own throat.