You are correct, they are both illegal, but the only property that a Schedule I drug must possess is that it has to have a potential for abuse. If cigarettes and alcohol were illegal, I’m sure that the government would see fit to include them as Schedule I drugs.
But to say that the addictive properties and\or the potential to harm oneself is the same for marijuana as it is for heroin is at best absurd. That’s like saying the potential for harm is the same from leaving a slingshot laying around as it is for a loaded 357. If you are going to try and make comparisons, at least try to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
Not quite. According to the CSA:
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
Alcohol does have "accepted medical use in treatment in the United States", so it would not be listed as a Schedule I drug, if it were illegal, which it is not.
If, and I see that you're big on "ifs", marijuana is found to have some medical benefit, it would be rescheduled to a II, III, IV, or V drug. It's there mainly because of the "no medical use" designation.
Now, you say it shouldn't be there. Fine. I'm sure many others agree. But it is there, right along with heroin and all the others on the link I gave you. And no matter what schedule it is, it's still illegal, it was made available to a 6-year-old, and he brought it to class.
That's my point.