I would like you to get familiar with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem
In short: you have continually tried to justify what
ought to be based on what
is. This doesn't stand logical muster, as it simply reiterates the status quo as a justification for the status quo. In other words,
Appeal to Tradition. Merely pointing out something is legal or illegal does not address the question of whether it
should be legal or illegal, it simply states a tautology.
Repeatedly saying "marijuana is illegal" is the true
non sequitur in the discussion. No point is made (i.e. "it does not follow") from the discussion of harms caused by its legal status and actual harms of its usage to simply mention its status. Certainly, it is illegal now, that point we all agree upon. What is in question, then, is
should it be illegal now. The means to evaluate that claim are by weighing its actual effects and the social effects of a policy which makes it illegal. To weigh actual effects, one must compare it to other drugs which are legal in the status quo. To weigh political effects, one must examine what happens as a result of enforcing the policies versus what would happen if the policies were not in place. This is what the discussion has often sought to do, but certain members have continually reverted to the weightless claim of "it's illegal" or "what good does this discussion do", never taking into account the profound social and constitutional impacts that stem from marijuana's illegality.
Take Citizen's post, for example: he effectively outlines how consequences such as no-knock warrants, mistaken raids, homicide for misdemeanor levels of an intoxicant, holes cut into the fourth amendment in order to justify search and seizure behaviors, funding of drug cartels, inability to effectively control distribution, no chance for harm reduction, et cetera all stem from the simple fact that making marijuana illegal doesn't get rid of it - it just pushes it to the black market. The sooner you step away from "it's illegal" rhetoric, the faster you begin to appreciate how many of your rights that are fundamentally tied to your right to keep and bear arms in defense of self and state, without fear of unreasonable search and seizure, is tied into the discussion of cannabis legalization.
But, to do all of this, you must first overcome the
is-ought problem.
