Ok, I accept that tobacco is much worse than cannabis. However, I'm still not convinced that liberals don't have a double standard when it comes to alcohol. Given that the risks of alcohol consumption are understated, as I said earlier, why don't you hear liberals clamoring for more regulation of alcohol (i.e. how much you can drink, how alcoholic a drink can be made etc.)?
1) Being an alcoholic, a sever alcoholic, on average, means you'll live longer than a tea-totaller. Moderate drinkers live the longest, but we need to keep the damages of alcoholic consumption in context, which is that, while it is bad, and leads to bad things, that's sorta just what life does to you. http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/08/30/heavy-drinkers-live-longer-than-non-drinkers-study-finds/
Even though heavy drinking is associated with a higher risk of liver problems like cirrhosis and some cancers, heavy drinkers in the study were less likely to die than those who never drank. Time says the social aspect of drinking is why drinkers live longer.
Fairly sure I head of one study that tried to get rid of as many of the social benefits as possible, and it still came to the same conclusion.
2) There are
regulations regarding how much one can drink. They're not enforced, but in at least several states, it's actually illegal to sell an intoxicated person a drink. In New Mexico, if someone has a BAC of .08, and you sell them a drink, you technically just committed a felony. If you sell someone a drink, and they go and kill someone while driving, YOU are held responsible. Beyond that, there are several regulations regarding what you can sell, where you can sell it, etc. For instance, in Montana, you can't get more than three beers at a brewery (not a bard, but the place the actual taproom in a brewery).
Besides, the biggest one, is that you can't drink until you're 21, and you get fucked up the ass if you're even caught in a car, drunk, with keys on you.