This seems to be the crux of what you are calling your argument. You reject the vast, documented difference in harm between weed and alcohol (ie virtually nothing, versus massive), and reject calls for fairness in assessing legalization based on harm as childish.
Of course, if you're not assessing based on harm, then what are your laws going to be based on - your personal morality? We happen to have a Constitution based on personal freedom. Does that piss you off?
Because if you're going to throw out harm as the evaluative variable, and then protect extremely harmful things, while throwing people in jail for doing demonstrably harmless things, what's all that going to be based on? What? Your determination to kill those who disagree, simply because you say so? You think you're the big daddy what's gonna whoop some ass when anyone asks too many questions - and that's it? That's all you've got?
If so, you don't deserve this country. In fact, you don't even understand what this country is about. But on the other hand, there's a billion Muslims who like the way you think - a lot.
You characterize it as harmless, but virtually every pot smoker I know is a worthless bum upon which the rest of us have to spend money to cover his room, board and medical care. And this doesn't address the ones that do stupid things which get other people hurt... and that's with the small amount of usage currently going on!
Of course, if you're not assessing based on harm, then what are your laws going to be based on - your personal morality? We happen to have a Constitution based on personal freedom. Does that piss you off?
No we don't, and no it doesn't because it's not true. It was based on then recognized concept of Natural Law and the principles of the Christian Religion. It was never intended to Indulge hedonistic drug usage or bizarre sex practices. That is a modern day misrepresentation of the ideas on which the US Constitution was founded. A Christian based Morality system was assumed as a given, not as a "take it or leave it" buffet.
Because if you're going to throw out harm as the evaluative variable...
Not at all. Am pointing out that you cannot point to one harm as justification for another.
But on the other hand, there's a billion Muslims...
Who are going to take over if you people get your way because they will be a United Force fighting against the anarchy you created. We've already seen this movie. It's Called "China, 1930". You're "Brave New World" will last until the first gentle blow from the forces of barbarism already knocking at our gates.