If extending the dynamics of the market to its logical extreme and criticising any kind of regulation is "economic extremism" (also known as libertarianism), this is social extremism.
The legalization of some drugs that are illegal today could be one of the most humane beneficial acts that can happen today in India. Imagine the amount of spousal abuse/hooch deaths that can be reduced, if the masses had access to marijuana, instead of relying of country liquor and tobacco.
As a moderate, I don't think I will have any problems in debating whether marijuana should be legal or not. That will be a good sport. But only as a sport, does it qualify for debate.
To extend the argument and claim that marijuana will reduce spouse abuse, in my view, is an attempt to try and shock the audience by sensationalising the consequence just so that people might take notice. To try and establish a credence that it otherwise does not deserve.
It is called fundamentalism, when religious texts are taken in literal sense and preached as maxims. This is very similar, only that we probably need a different word to qualify this.