I'm arguing that you can't compare alcohol being legal to anything else being illegal without ignoring why it's legal and generally oversimplifying your point to the level of a grade school argument over what's fair
I think the problem is that he wasn't necessarily defending it because of its traditional value. I think what he was trying to get across is that it is a relevant part of the issue, and one that was completely ignored by the article. I don't think it was pro-alcohol or anything, but a criticism of the argument itself. That was just my interpretation of the argument though, i don't want to be putting words in the tacocat's mouth.
You basically just compared buying a beer to slavery. You are part of the reason I don't talk about drugs on the Internet. I'm glad you're clever enough to find a rhetoric flaw with a statement by someone who probably agrees with you but I will continue to dread an orange hubwheel today.