In the general election of 2012, Colorado voters approved the legalization of marijuana for recreational use. Whether that was a good idea can, of course, be debated, but there is no doubt that the voters spoke clearly. The problem – as the Herald pointed out at the time – is that regardless of what this state approves, marijuana remains illegal under federal law. And that conflict not only has the potential to cause trouble, it already is doing so.

Twenty-two other states have also legalized marijuana for medical use, as recreation or both. And with that, state and federal laws can only be on a collision course. What is needed is a national discussion as to just where this is going. Do we enforce the federal ban or change it somehow to allow states to decide? Doing neither is not going to work.

The most immediate issue is banking. Because marijuana is still classified as a Schedule I narcotic in federal law – right next to heroin – and because banking is federally regulated, any bank taking in money from marijuana sales could be charged with money laundering.

One result is that medical marijuana dispensaries and recreational pot shops cannot take credit cards or deposit checks. As such, all marijuana business is conducted in cash – and everybody knows it. That creates a dangerous situation for marijuana sellers, buyers and, potentially, for anyone nearby.

As the Herald reported Monday, banks have also been cooperating with the government and filing “suspicious-activity reports” on what may be marijuana-related transactions. That the government is holding those reports suggests that someone is at least preparing to crack down on marijuana businesses.

And that could happen. A new president or even a change in White House thinking could completely shut down the entire marijuana industry, medical and recreational. People who have been operating a perfectly legal business, at least under state law, could be summarily shut down and even face criminal charges or have their property seized.

Were that to happen, say in January 2017 with the inauguration of the next president, the state would also find itself missing the tax revenue that it might, by then, have come to expect.

It is hard to know what can or should be done to rectify the conflict between state and federal law. In part, that is because marijuana’s conflicted legal status reflects the confused nature of this country’s thinking about drugs and what to do about them. The federal drug schedules themselves show that.

The federal government divides “drugs, substances and certain chemicals used to make drugs” into five schedules. Schedule I includes those deemed the most dangerous, with no accepted medical use and the highest potential for abuse. Schedule V consist mainly of low-dose narcotic cough medicines and antidiarrheal drugs.

What constitutes more or less dangerous, however, seems to be driven by politics or perhaps hysteria. Besides heroin and marijuana, Schedule I includes LSD, ecstasy, methaqualone (Quaaludes) and peyote. Schedule II, which involves drugs said to be less dangerous or less subject to abuse, includes cocaine, methamphetamine and OxyContin.

Pot is more dangerous and more likely to be abused than coke, meth or “hillbilly heroin”? Maybe to Congress, but what parent would actually be more disturbed by finding their kid with a joint than doing meth or popping pills?

The conflict between state and federal laws concerning marijuana needs to be resolved. Without some kind of fix, law-abiding people could get hurt ­– including taxpayers who have nothing to do with pot. That will be hard, though, if we continue to classify drugs according to fear and ancient stereotypes.