Okay, now I see what your objection may be: a. you are a literalist who takes "regulated like alcohol" to mean (literally) "taxed at exactly the same rate, per volume, as alcohol" (in which case the drug would be taxed at like 0.001 per spliff-based on weight) or, b. You are not being a literalist, but you are so trusting of corporations and government at all levels as to believe that they would never price or tax your drug of choice at an "unfair" rate vis a vis alcohol. Okay, accepting those two possibilities (for the sake of argument, or for the sake of ending the argument) I will CONCEDE YOUR POINT. Now, dream on, Rasta Man.
You miss the point, again. I have stated all along that "regulate like alcohol" means reasonable taxes and regulation. There is nothing I said to suggest that it had anything to do with equivalent weight or volume. I believe you are deliberately misstating my argument.
b. You are not being a literalist, but you are so trusting of corporations and government at all levels as to believe that they would never price or tax your drug of choice at an "unfair" rate vis a vis alcohol.
No that is not my position. The stated premise was "regulate like alcohol". What you described is not "regulating like alcohol".
I never claimed that the government would regulate mj reasonably, like alcohol. They may or may not. I'm leaning away from thinking you are thick headed, to thinking you are not honest in your postings.