The first step, for me, would be to convince the public, press and politicians and judges, of the INJUSTICE of punishing people for cultivation or possession for own use in their own homes if they had not put at risk or harmed others, their Rights or their property.
That is akin to something they may understand if it was mint instead of cannabis.
But that it is for own use, the invasion of private life and practice of personal beliefs is contrary to Human Rights law (whatever the activity is) UNLESS it is illegal AND (the important word) puts at risks or harms public health, public order, national security or the Rights of others.
In other words, unless those criteria are met, the bust itself is illegal.
To get that point across we need to show that whether the plant is mint or cannabis, the criteria is the same - the risk to others is the same = none.
The JUST APPLICATION of the law is essential.
So it's not even a case of whether it is legal to grow or illegal to grow - at home, in private and for own use - that is part of PRIVATE LIFE and chosen beliefs, lifestyles.
Beyond that we move to consumption in public, sharing and supply.
l argue that for those unable to grow their own, there will be a market, either legal or illegal.
It seems obvious to me that a contained system of outlets that are licensed to protect consumer rights and health and safety with tax on profits is preferable than a free-for-all on the street where there are no age restrictions, no guarantee of quality or purity, no accurate indication of strength and possible associated with crime and other drugs.
Economically the benefit is a massive drop in cost of policing and courts, freeing up billions annually plus the VAT and tax on commercial profits
Leave the Government to start adding its own tax and no need to push for it.
In the ideal, cannabis should be available free of charge to all in need through their doctor's prescriptions - it's just a plant and its use would save the NHS many billions.