To add an additional point about Hinduism, it seems like a distinction is made between ritual use and recreational use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_and_religion (“In Hinduism, wise drinking of bhang (which contains cannabis), according to religious rites, is believed to cleanse sins, unite one with Shiva and avoid the miseries of hell in the future life. It is also believed to have medicinal benefits and is used in Ayurvedic medicine.[37] In contrast, foolish drinking of bhang without rites is considered a sin.[38]”).

I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between specific religious use on certain holidays and recreational use of marijuana. But otherwise fair point.

> I know you were trying to dispute GP's assertion that cannabis was made illegal in the US as a way to selectively prosecute minorities by pointing out how it's illegal worldwide. The example above might show you how both could be true.

But your link suggests that the first point is not true. It categorizes countries into groups based on their positions in the treaty. But the anti-drug groups included many countries besides the US:

“Manufacturing states group: This group included primarily Western industrialized nations, the key players being the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Switzerland, the Netherlands, West Germany, and Japan. Having no cultural affinity for organic drug use and being faced with the effects of drug abuse on their citizens, they advocated stringent controls on the production of organic raw materials and on illicit trafficking.”

“Strict control group: These were essentially non-producing and non-manufacturing states with no direct economic stake in the drug trade. The key members were France, Sweden, Brazil, and the Republic of China. Most of the states in this group were culturally opposed to drug use and suffered from abuse problems.”

> Does someone quietly consuming a plant without bothering anyone qualify as "degenerate"?

Yes. For most people, marijuana makes them worse rather than better at fulfilling their social roles as parents, workers, etc. I’m sure there are exceptions, but I’ve never met one. (Like “functional alcoholics” y’all aren’t as functional as they want us to think.)

My argument is: “it’s banned in all these places so it must not be the result of US racial politics.” The same is true for laws against abortion or homosexuality. The fact that Hinduism and Buddhism have taboos against both shows that the taboos aren’t something that American Christians ginned up from nothing. They reflect something about the human experience that cuts across completely different cultures.

The same thing with gender roles. Social consensus 200 years ago probably reflects some cross-cutting aspect of the human experience, for example the fact that 200 years ago, when most people survived by doing back-breaking physical labor, the physical differences between men and women were much more salient in everyday life.