Soda specifically isn't a necessity to live, but some form of drink is and, if someone chose to do so, they could use soda as their only liquid intake and it would be a necessity for them. Soda, like any drink that isn't water, is just an alternative form of something that is absolutely required - liquid intake. So no, it obviously shouldn't be banned.
Honestly, if I could, I would since you're right here. They're more dangerous than cars and they're overall not totally necessary. Although others have covered the reasons why motorcycles could be considered better than card anyway.
I'd say there are more benefits to having kids than there are to smoking marijuana. If the parents believe that the benefits outweigh the risks then that's fine. Where are the genuine, realistic benefits of marijuana other than it makes you feel good?
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's dangerous and without realistic gains or any degree of necessity, so it should be banned. There's much more to the argument than the very oversimplified "omg ban everything remotely dangerous". Of course I'm absolutely against that idea. I'm also uncertain of where you got the impression that I'm talking about a "dangerous thing I don't like to do like pot that should be illegal" when I've not said once that I don't do pot. I do. And I still think it should be illegal because I know it's not really helping me or anyone with pretty much anything. It's just something potentially harmful that people do for no real reason. And on those grounds, I'd want it banned.
You want me to provide a more extended argument here but you've still not given me a reason why something which does no good and potentially does do harm shouldn't be illegal. You've only compared it to other things which don't really apply. I'll give you one back: would you unban harder drugs? They're bad for you but they make you feel good so your argument should say yes.
Entirely disregarding the health issue... I'm not shoving a blunt a down your throat and forcing you to puff on it, am I? So then, pray tell, why would you intend to force the disuse of this substance upon me, when I have not even had the slightest intent of forcing its use upon you? I think I'm quite old enough to assess the benefits and drawbacks to something that affects purely me. I mean... if marijuana really did make me go crazy and murder my family with an ax... I could see where you are coming from. But it doesn't, and I can't. Since I would also be smoking in a private venue, the idea that my smoking is affecting anyone else in anyway is just plain wrong.
Just because the risks are slim compared to x and y, which I'll come to later, doesn't mean they don't exist and doesn't mean they shouldn't be dealt with. It's your body, true, but isn't it the job of those running a country to try to ensure the best for its residents by, in part, the prohibition of dangerous activities which have no real useful application? I don't see why a government should sit by and allow its people to potentially harm themselves at will. I'll ask you the same that I asked Toujours - why should harder drugs be banned?
Regarding alcohol and tobacco, I never said anything about not wanting any of those things banned. If I had it totally my way, they would be. But as we've seen in the past, banning those sorts of things just doesn't work and isn't at all feasible. The same argument I'm using here for marijuana applies in my mind for alcohol and tobacco.
On a note not directed at either of you, rather than arguments against marijuana being illegal, can someone give arguments for it being legal? If they outweigh the reasons for which I think it should be illegal than I'll probably change my viewpoint.