From the standpoint of "hard to ban what's used by a large part of the population" this does justify legalization indeed.

I don't have strong opinions on this, I was mostly a bit triggered by the parent's comment weird theory that "cannabis was only forbidden because of criminal big pharma". (I assumed "only reason" implied that they thought it was a safe drug without side-effects or risks; all (medical/non-medical) drugs have side-effects and risks so not being 100% safe isn't a reason for banning by itself, but that's a factor in the risk/benefit balance).

> From the standpoint of "hard to ban what's used by a large part of the population" this does justify legalization indeed.

I think they meant more that the negative effects don't seem that big because most people are ok even with such a large proportion of people already being experienced with it.

> triggered by the parent's comment weird theory that "cannabis was only forbidden because of criminal big pharma".

I don't believe it was either but I'm not sure your counter evidence really works. The science that you alluded to about long term effects all significantly post-dates the ban so couldn't have played a role in it.