When it comes to FR's great love/hate relationship and our never ending debate about drugs, the area I'm most comfortable with are the constitutional arguments. When it comes to the truth of claims like you make in the above quote, I generally take a pass and leave it to others to argue out the relative hazards.
rb22982 says: "Since alcohol is legal, its only logical to make marijuana legal as well."
Now there is an argument that I CAN sink my teeth into. Your logic has at least two fundamental flaws in it.
The first flaw is to presume that, when comparing alcohol to marijuana, the appropriate standards for comparison are safety, addictiveness and level of intoxication. You've offered no reason or logic as to why we should accept those standards for comparison (irrespective of their truth), nor have you offered any reason or logic as to why we should reject any other possible standards for comparison.
The second flaw is to presume that society, by accepting one type of hazard, is therefore morally obligated to accept additional hazards as well. It is not "hypocritical" (as you say) for a society to draw a limit line as to the total amount of risk they're willing to accept and say "this far and no farther".
--Boot