Do you ever stop and think of why drugs are illegal in the first place? They're dangerous. It protects people from harming themselves and others. That is what laws are for. It has been illegal for a long time and with good reason.
By this logic, you could make it illegal for individuals to cross the street because they might be hit by a car. Lawmaking is a metter of negotiating a balance between individual freedoms and social good, and all cannabis legalization advocates are arguing is that marijuana being illegal is too great an infringement on individual rights with nary a social benefit to justity remaining - especially since it's hypocritical to allow the sale and consumption of cigarettes and alcohol, which are similarly damaging (I'm not going to discuss the semantics), and not pot.
Yes, alcohol and tobacco are still bad for you. Tobacco we didn't even know was harmful until fairly recently. Alcohol has always been harmful and would be illegal were it not so widely accepted in our nation. They are still bad, we don't need more bad things.
Your logic is wrong. Everyone knows alcohol, tobacco and marijuana are "bad for you", but the argument for having them legalized isn't one that's saying they're healthy or good (though the relative affects of substances are weighed: noone's talking about making heroine legal) - instead, it's saying that when it comes to relatively tame substances such as marijuana, the individual should have the choice as to whether they want to do it or not - as with coffee or beer, the latter of which generates significant tax revenue.
Moreover, what makes you equate legalization of marijuana with "more bad things"? Conversely, "less bad things" have been the result in countries that have legalized it: organized crime has been damaged, tax revenues for public projects have increased, and rates of use have been stable, not increased due to legalization.
Saying "Alcohol and tobacco are legal, therefore pot shot be legal" is like saying "I've broken your nose and gave you a black eye, therefore I should break your finger". It isn't really logical.
Actually, all public policy and law can be described that way, since it's based largely on matters of precedent. Still, you need to distinguish between the
use of alcohol being a problem - since it definitely is - and the
legality of it being one, since, for example, in countries that have banned alcohol abuse continues similarly, except it's not taxed and it's not regulated. It's human nature to seek escapism: the goal of the government isn't to shape human nature by taking high-brow pseudo-moral stances - as was especially characteristic of fascistic regimes such as Hitler and Stalin's, and in all states to some capacity - but to implement the best solution in an existing context, i.e. the context of people funneling money into organized crime to purchase impure drugs that aren't regulated, and rates of abuse that do not go up when a country legalizes pot.
I can't force you to agree with me, but the evidence is there. Drugs have caused problems and widespread use of them will continue to cause problems.
Yes, marijuans as a drug will continue to cause problems, whether it's legal or not - except more if not. So will high traffic, power outages, and death. But it's not very practical for any of the aforementioned to be illegal, is it?
Do you honestly believe that those who have truely contributed to the world have been avid drug users? Do you think that Einstein smoked some pot while deriving the famous equation E=mc^2?
Drugs are generally negative, but your above statement is patently ludicrous. Coleridge invented Romantic poetry while largely in the throes of an opium addiction, and Louis Armstrong smoked marijuana every day while being arguably the highest-functioning jazz musician on the planet. Coffee isn't good, either, but have people done great things while on it? I would go with "yes."
