Just to show how facile this reasoning is, let's flip the bit: "Alcohol is one of the worst 'drugs' on a personal/societal harm scale - if we're going to toler

Just to show how facile this reasoning is, let's flip the bit: "Alcohol is one of the worst 'drugs' on a personal/societal harm scale - if we're going to tolerate this at large, we should make sure we keep other drugs illegal by default unless shown individually, through decades of research, to be safe. Otherwise we will burden our healthcare system and create a national catastrophe. As evidence of this danger, I submit the history of alcohol abuse, drunk driving, and liver disease, and their effects on our healthcare system." I offer that you can only do one of two things now: 1. Argue against my advocacy for inconsistency using personal incredulity 2. Provide a deeper argument that relies on something more than an appeal to consistency Edit: added a clause to sweeten my argument for inconsistency