>>38
You cannot make broad generalizations like that. (lol @ me for even trying to say this). Whether or not you are a troll, argument by analogy is notoriously weak unless you can compare with mathematical precision that the two are essentially identical.
Anyway,
Alcohol is not to marijuana as marijuana is to hard drugs. Take heroin for example. Heroin is an incredibly powerful substance that destroys the body because of the physical consequences. On the contrary, it has not been extensively proven that marijuana has any detrimental consequences, and even if it does, they are clearly not to the degree of many other hard drugs. Marijuana is in fact different than "all the other drugs," even though DuPont would like you to think otherwise.
What cannot be used as a valid reason to ban a substance is its addictive properties. Firstly, there are many legal substances/things in this country that are easily as addictive as any drug. Cigs, alcohol, gambling, WoW, 4chan are all examples. Secondly, for a government to ban something because it doesn't think its citizens can use it responsibly, and when the item in question cannot cause direct harm to someone else (i.e. its not a grenade or flamethrower or something), then that's baseless restriction of individual freedom.
From a governmental p.o.v., however, i can see the reason for allowing alcohol and banning hard drugs. Hard drugs, consumed by youngsters, fucks up and kills off healthy productive members of society, or creates a burden on society when they endure destructive lifestyles. Cirrhosis and emphysema, on the other hand, do not hinder productivity, as they develop near retirement, shortening the time the person is on social security/medicare.