So you state it's different then state it is the same
No, I didn't. If that's what you read, then I suggest you read it again.
To state it is significantly less harmful than those "legal" drugs... yes, sure... that is a valid comparison.
Your reply strengthens the point I made - saying that it is valid to compare cannabis with the two recreational drugs that account for about 95% of all drug-related deaths is even less of an argument in favour of legalising cannabis. It's very clearly an argument for keeping it illegal.
I have a very simple point... prohibition does not work... even if you choose to look at it as an issue, which I do not, prohibition causes more problems than it fixes and only goes to benefit those we would not normally like to benefit.
That's a completely different argument and a much better one. But is it true? You argue that cannabis is significantly less harmful than the drugs that cause 95% of all drug-related deaths in this country (and a similar proportion in many other countries). Which is true when eaten, but it's usually smoked. But in any case, you don't claim that it's absolutely harmless or that it's the miracle drug that cures all ills. So increased use would increase harm - more than it being illegal or less? Personally, I think less but I wouldn't say that's definitely proven to be true.
We have reasonable examples of this within the past century with the prohibition of Alcohol in the US... along with the prohibition of other substances the world over.
Outlawing a widely used and previously legal drug that's deeply engrained in the culture (such as alcohol in the USA) is not an example of legalising a far less widely used and previously illegal drug that isn't deeply engrained in the culture. One doesn't support the other.
If you wish to solve an "issue", you need to remove the demand... criminalising people does not do that - it is painfully obvious.
Why fight a war that cannot be won? (money?)
That's an argument for legalising all drugs for recreational use. Is that what you intended?
It's a naturally growing plant... it's hardly the same as a prescription medication and should not be treated as such.
But that's exactly the comparison you were making ("Pharma-approved prescription medication")and I was replying to. It's not reasonable to change your argument on an ad hoc basis.
Your new argument has some flaws too;
1) Farming isn't really "naturally growing".
2) Many currently existing strains of cannabis are the result of human engineering, not naturally occuring evolution.
3) Your argument would allow the sale and use of whole plants but nothing else. No resin, no oil, no extracts for adding to other things, nothing.
4) Quite a few drugs are contained in plants, with morphine being the most obvious example. So your new argument applies to those as well.
Have you actually had a look into the history of this plant's illegality?
Your post (and many others) suggest that is not the case.
Are you going to do the Big Paper Nylon conspiracy thing? Are you aware that it requires the use of time travel in 1930s USA?
. (Not that you'd care about not having it 
