The federal government’s incredibly poor, misleading argument for marijuana prohibition

In the article from the Washington Post, "The federal government’s incredibly poor, misleading argument for marijuana prohibition", by Christopher Ingraham, he argues that the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy created weak arguments for why marijuana should remain to be illegal in their blog. The author tries to make his point by repeatably mentioning how, the effects marijuana has on people are the same as those alcohol and tobacco have, yet these two substances are still legal. He gives us information from the arguments the ONDCP published on their blog, then states why the points they are trying to make are "weak". Credibly, he succeeds in proving why the points given in the blog were inadequate because even though, for the most part, he compares the effects of marijuana to alcohol and tobacco, he brings evidence regarding the argument to prove his point every time. Ingraham aims to everyone for his audience but for the most part, those who support the legalization of marijuana since it would be them whom the article is aimed for because they would be the ones who's attention is grabbed the most.
The author does a great job in proving why he believes the argument made by the ONDCP is feeble. Ingraham brings in sections from the blog, then compares it to how it would have the same effects as other, in some cases, worse substances, yet they are still legal, and also brings in statistical evidence, justifying his points even more. He ends his article using a quote from the blog against them, that says that there should be science and evidence when trying to prove a point, not ideology, yet that is exactly what they are doing.