No, it's quite accurately directed at you.
and somewhat defensive.
Yet another sleazy ad hominem.
You are in the best position to know if the "sleazy ad hominems" fit you or not.
They don't. Nor have you provided any reason to believe that they fit many legalization proponents.
If you are sincere in your beliefs that dope smoking is implicitly or explicitly a constitutionally protected activity, then more power to you.
It's "protected" by the Tenth Amendment limitations on federal authority.
BTW, most courts and state jurisdictions have disagreed with your position
Most courts have held that abortion is a "right." Most courts wouldn't know the Constitution if it bit them on the posterior.
You would have been correct in your accusation, if for example, I had only argued that dope shouldn't be legalized because I once saw a dirty hippie smoking it. But unlike you, I provided several reasons for my position. So if you could, please come up with any remotely viable arguments whenever you disagree with me. Your accusation is itself a "sleazy" ad hominem attack.
You also said that "...most courts wouldn't know the Constitution..." Well, apparently neither do you. Your Tenth Amendment "argument" in favor of marijuana is as overreaching as the so-called "penumbra doctrine" used to justify abortion as a "right." If you're an "originalist" as you seem to me to be representing yourself, do you reasonably believe that Founding Fathers understood and intended a "right" to get stoned? It would be reasonable to conclude such an implicit understanding and intent as far as alcohol is concerned.
From ancient times, alcohol has almost always been legal and accepted in most cultures, religions, and nations. It has also been widely accepted and used by the general public for reasons other than the purely recreational use that you have advocated thus far. Apart from some Native American religious use, most hallucinogens are not condoned in this country or most other countries. In this broad context, your pro-legalization "arguments" seem too frivolous to rise to the level of a fundamental "constitutional right" like free speech or due process.
As I said, most state legislatures, federal and state courts, and public opinion, for now, do not support your pot legalization position. If the public truly supported it, then it would be legal, e.g., public sentiment ended Prohibition. So why don't you go and do something constructive and become an activist if this issue is of such burning "Constitutional" importance to you?