So there is another illegal drug death and there is a nationwide push for the legalization of another drug - marijuana?
After every shooting, there is a call for more gun laws - I don't understand the logic reasoning.
The truth value of a conclusion is dependent upon the validity of the premises and the inductive or deductive method.
In one case, if you assume as a premise that 1. "guns" are bad (cause harm), and 2. the state ought to regulate bad things, then the state ought to regulate guns more strictly in order that less harm occurs. I'd challenge both premises on several counts. There needs to be a scientific evaluation of the cost/benefit analysis of firearm ownership, which may reveal that the benefits outweigh the costs, or that they are approximately even. If one believes the state ought to regulate things that cause harm, then things that cause more harm than firearm ownership (e.g. motor vehicles, alcohol, tobacco, medical malpractice, etc.) ought to be more severely restricted/regulated than those things that cause less harm (unless you postulate that irrational prejudice or bias is valid).
In the other case, the argument is 1. the state ought to regulate substances/things based upon their cost/benefit analysis of harm caused, 2. cannabis and other currently illegal drugs cause far less harm than many things the state currently deems legal (alcohol, motor vehicles, tobacco, incompetent doctors [lack of sufficient regulation], etc.), therefore the state ought to apply rationally appropriate regulations to cannabis, which means it ought to be regulated less restrictively than alcohol and motor vehicles (since they cause more harm). Someone asserting that cannabis and heroin are virtually identical in consequences of use and therefore ought to be accorded the same state regulation will be in the untenable position of producing any credible evidence to substantiate their claim. Much in the same way, the people who point to various "advocate" research from the CDC, et. al. about the extreme dangers of gun ownership have nothing but highly questionable methodologically unsound pseudo-science as evidence for their claims. Neither of which will stand up to critical scrutiny.
I'd be curious to hear your explanation for what criteria the state ought to use in determining how much of what kind of harm justifies state regulation, and to what degree, and where exactly to draw those lines and how. Please clearly and directly apply whatever criteria you use directly to alcohol, tobacco, cannabis, firearms, and motor vehicles. I've never seen arguments to ban/heavily restrict firearms and cannabis, and leave alcohol and motor vehicles relatively unrestricted that wasn't logically fallacious and/or based upon evidence that was fraudulent or the result of incompetent or biased research.