The point is some of us want to talk about what a reasonable standard for bad behavior is.
That is, it seems now, despite what archie said earlier, that he can agree that not all things that are illegal are bad. Maybe he'd even admit that some historical illegal activities have been pretty beneficial, and that those who participated in those activities were not only not bad, but good. The founding fathers of America, and other American revolutionaries, are perfect examples of this.
This implies that illegality isn't a sufficient condition for concluding that either the breaking of the law or the breaker of the law is bad. The questions still remain: If illegality isn't a sufficient condition, what is/are? And, how does marijuana fit the standard implicit in your answer to that question.