Pointing out that categories are used to create a false dichotomy in public discourse is not "playing coy", or a "quibble". Unless you can show scientific rese

Pointing out that categories are used to create a false dichotomy in public discourse is not "playing coy", or a "quibble". Unless you can show scientific research that firmly differentiates the addictivity and/or health effects of what people would consider hard drugs from what people wouldn't, in some meaningful way, your argument that "hard drugs" is a meaningful category doesn't hold up. You need to be able to make a meaningful distinction between 'hard drugs' and 'soft drugs', which holds up under scrutiny, which hasn't really been done in the public discourse. As I said before, I don't think anyone is claiming that there are drugs that're more addictive and more harmful than marijuana: it's just that many legal drugs also fall into that category. If you aren't going to consider alcohol a hard drug (which is frankly an incredibly dangerous substance, fairly easy to overdose on, addictive, incredibly bad for almost all of your body, has one of the most dangerous withdrawal profiles, and causes some people to become aggressive, violent or otherwise dangerous), then you're clearly drawing the line somewhere other than where you're claiming to have drawn it.