[DiogenesLamp]

Some of them are, but here's one that isn't: If substance bans are to be based on the harms of the substances themselves, pot is by almost any measure less harmful than the legal drug alcohol - whose legality hasn't prevented us from thriving (although big government often has).

Legal Alcohol kills 85,000 people per year. Again, it's been accepted for several thousand years despite the misery and deaths it causes. We don't need another drug like alcohol.

And of course, every time you try to use alcohol to justify pot, i'm going to point out that your argument devolves to this.

"WAAAAAAAAAH!!!! They get Alcohol! I want my WEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDD!!!!!"

[ConservingFreedom]

Some of them are, but here's one that isn't: If substance bans are to be based on the harms of the substances themselves, pot is by almost any measure less harmful than the legal drug alcohol - whose legality hasn't prevented us from thriving (although big government often has).

Legal Alcohol kills 85,000 people per year. Again, it's been accepted for several thousand years despite the misery and deaths it causes. We don't need another drug like alcohol.

It's not "like" alcohol - it's by almost any measure less harmful than alcohol. Many things were accepted for a long time, until they no longer were - supine resignation to the harms of alcohol on the basis of long history is not a principle but a flimsy rationalization.

And of course, every time you try to use alcohol to justify pot

I've never done that - that's your dimwitted misrepresentation. But keep trotting it out ... that, and your graphics and big fonts, are a clear sign to all of the flimsiness of your position.