1) There are very good arguments to legalize it for recreational purposes, both from a stand point of personal freedom and precedent (pot is as bad or not as bad as these other legal recreational drugs).
2) There's some evidence elements in pot have positive medical effects but as skeptics we should seek out what the scientific consensus is. Throwing around cherry picked studies only serves as evidence against a straw man argument that pot has no potential medical benefits.
3) There is potentially still a stigma (if not legal prohibitions) against pot which limits science getting to the bottom of beneficial effects.
As a skeptic, I would support the first line of argument for legalization. As a skeptic, I reject the second line of argument. As a skeptic, I would feel badly if non-experts were trying to interpret a body of scientific research themselves and use their non-expert conclusions to push for legalization. As a skeptic, I would also have no issues with the third line of argument.