LOL! What bull! In the absence of infringement on another person's rights—via force, fraud, or negligence—people pursuing their own happiness aren't criminals simply because the State passes some piece of crap law which says so—whether that law is backed by a self-righteous mob or not. That kind of law is nothing more than majority Tyranny.
Haw haw! The kind of "law" you're supporting leaves the door to Tyranny wide open—too wide. You know, like putting someone in prison for possessing (or transferring) the wrong plant!
Such laws are arguably unconstitutional. But even if such laws weren't unconstitutional, they'd still remain pieces of Tyrannical garbage. Federal Prohibition, for example, at least required amending the Constitution, if I recall. It was an abject failure, of course, which exacerbated some of the problems, while creating new ones to boot (just like the phony Drug War). The modern Regulatory State—with the support of Big Government ideologues in both parties—has dispensed such inconvenient formalities as honoring Constitutional Rights.
It's kind of hard to be a believer in minimal government if one supports such an expansive vision of nanny-state State power. Indeed, it's the same kind of logic which the Left employs to justify their lengthy list of oppressive nanny-state legislation.
I'll take "none of the above", Alex. I'll take actual Freedom—with all of its warts, inconveniences, annoyances, and challenges—and without arbitrary and Tyrannical nanny-state shortcuts.
Education and rehabilitation—not incarceration...
Your response does sound like a teen in their first year of college paying attention to just enough of their civics classes to sound like they are all about freedom when they just want to sit around and get high.
Ah yes, the emotipnally and lawlessly disordered makes a Dubya-style cry for compassionate conservatism during the Trumpian age of law and order.
Weakness.