You're either straight, gay, or lying?

I would say that a drug is anything being used to alter the chemistry on a person's brain.Glue, when sold and used as glue, is not a drug. When it is huffed, it becomes a drug because it's intended goal has changed. Cannabis is a plant, and remains a plant, but the moment it is smoked, it's intended goal is a change in the inhaler's brain chemistry making it simultaneously a plant and a drug.Your argument seems to be that drug and plant are mutually exclusive terms. It seems similar to claiming that if I fed someone hemlock and they died, I could not be charged with poisoning them because what I used was a plant, not poison. At most, I could be charged with planting them, which brings a whole different picture to mind...

I would agree. I was just pointing out that while cannabis is a plant, it can also be a drug. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. That's why they're manufactured by drug companies. The gubment, however, differentiates between recreational drugs and medicinal ones, and of course, the demarcation is arbitrary and inconsistent to the extreme.

I agree. However, there can, perhaps, be probability of use considered. Currently, if a person is growing cannabis in a hydroponic garden in their attic, is it more probable that it is going to be intended for drug use or for weaving?I don't think cannabis should be illegal while tobacco is legal. It's inconsistent and just makes no sense from even a trivial knowledge of the dangers in each plant. So, in this specific instance, I can agree with your implied point that cannabis shouldn't be illegal. However, looking at probable use is a valid reason for disallowing something.For instance, stores in my area are now required to limit the amount of cold medicines that contain ephedrine (I believe) because it is being used in meth labs. When someone is buying gallons of cough medicine, the intended usage becomes apparent, wouldn't you say?