No, I think it is entirely appropriate. What you wrote is this sort of smart aleck sort of response. It's not as if most people are not aware that you can be prescribed drugs very similar to street drugs. I don't think it adds much, it's just typical way of trying up define problems out if existence.
The idea was to highlight the smart aleckness of your response, but my goal clearly failed.
But I'm really not quite sure what you are even trying to argue at this point. The original question posed was how to respond to the comparison of the legalization of marijuana to hard drugs.
> It's not as if most people are not aware that you can be prescribed drugs very similar to street drugs.
I have nothing but anecdotal evidence from real life and online forums, but I very much believe that this is false. Many people know cocaine is used as a prescription drug, few people know desoxyn is meth, and fewer still know about heroin. It is for this reason I made that a point of how to respond, in an attempt to question the distinction between legal and illegal drugs and to persuade the conservative viewers (the hypothetical scenario implied fox news) that there is still a conversation to be had, that the question is not already answered like most would believe.
Most people are unaware that meth is legal and less scheduled than pot, that heroin is used as a painkiller (and was a trademark of Bayer), and that ketamine is only Schedule III and regularly given to children.
