For the second time in a week, the question of legalization of marijuana in Virginia has candidate for governor Ken Cuccinelli defending his position on the matter. At a Republican Party gathering in Albemarle County featuring the attorney general, a former drug addict in the audience probed him about the issue (see video).

...the reason I'm here is to ask you about something you said last week to the Larry Sabato class about the possible legalization of marijuana. I would implore you to please never do that. And the reason is that I'm proud to be an American. When I was addicted to marijuana, smoking it every day all day long, I wasn't proud of much of anything. And it was only when I put it down and learned how to live my life without it that it came to a point that I could actually come and talk to you about it...

Cuccinelli then explained the difference between states' rights and federal laws and said we should take a wait and see approach, with Colorado and Washington being the test cases, as to any kind of future harm coming from legalizing pot. He didn't say Virginia shouldn't legalize it; he just said "I do think it's appropriate in areas where we're uncomfortable or don't agree to have states experiment."

He went on to compare the economic impact of incarcerating marijuana pushers as opposed to methamphetamine pushers saying:

...the war on drugs... has been phenomenally expensive, if we're going to put people in jail and spend $25 thousand to $30 thousand a year for a prison [inaudible] so we want it to be... those pushing marijuana or pushing meth? And I'll tell you that $30 thousand for the meth dealer is well worth the deal... it may very well be true for the marijuana pusher who finds his way to prison, but they're not the same, they're not the same. We have limits on our ability and our budgets to police this.

If Cuccinelli wants to take the discussion to cost effectiveness then he would logically have to concede recreational drug use is still drug use and the probability of increased addiction to any mood enhancing substance because of easier access can only mean higher costs to taxpayers in the long run.

But I think the candidate's response was a diversionary tactic by a constitutional lawyer. He doesn't want to get involved in the social aspect of legalizing pot-the very thing the man in the audience wanted him to address. Because if he answered to the detrimental effects of the insidious dysfunction which regular use of pot creates, then he may make waves and may not get votes. I get this -- it's political.

What I don't get is why a candidate in a state which went blue in 2012 would not pull out all the stops and tell conservatives he understands their concerns about the moral fabric of our nation being thrown aside in the name of following the narrative of the Left. Why doesn't Cuccinelli make it clear he stands against absolutely anything Obama and his backers support whether it's marijuana use, amnesty for illegal aliens or gay "marriage?" What will the attorney general gain from taking a middle-of-the-road stance?

Read more Ann Kane at Potter Williams Report