Well, actually reading a post and just glancing over it are two different things and I can asure you that only the first can help you understand what other person is saying.

Introducing a drug (for which we don't have yet the full table of clinical affections but the data that we have clearly shows it has negative long term effects) to unrestricted consumption and social acceptable norms is not ok especially in the context of how bad alcohol consumption is and how much damage is doing to consumers. But you actually don't care about alcohol consumption, it's just an argument you got flying around from the internet forums and subscribes ro whataboutism.

What I won't address is the comparison "less dangerous than" which is vague and unfounded. I can tell you why but I doubt that you care.

Telling people that weed it's bad for their health is the truth, especially to kids and that won't change when they grow older. But maybe you don't care because you're young and consuming and nothing bad happened to you.

Medical consumption and for leisure in a bar/coffee house consumption are 2 very different things. A medical drug is not something that is all good for you, it's something that consumed gives you more benefits than problems in the context of a health affection. Something recreational is something you consume just for fun. So the element of necessity (the health affection) is missing thus the trade-off between beneficial and detrimental is non existing. You actually have to be consistent in your arguments.