Replies

Sure, I'll play this game.

I'm glad you spent some time learning the names of common logical fallacies, but, unfortunately, you misapply them.

1)
This is known as the "Tu Quoque" Fallacy. Bad behavior from one person does not excuse or justify bad behavior for another.

The analogy of drunks wasn't to excuse smoking pot. That should have been obvious. It was used to show your own logical dissonance in which you apply two entirely different standards to the same principle. If you are not willing to fully ban alcohol (Prohibition) because it is "bad behavior", but you DO want to ban marijuana because it is "bad behavior" (of the exact same nature as alcohol - intoxication) then you demonstrate that you are not operating from a fully logical and consistent standpoint.

And this is the fallacy known as "False Dilema." You present only two answers as if they are the only possible answers. I wouldn't mind heavier regulation of drunks, but we don't have to prohibit alcohol.

Bingo. You admit you apply two different standards for virtually identical behaviors. You've just buried yourself. And you misapplied the "False Dilemma" fallacy. You are calling for a full ban of marijuana, a "Prohibition" of marijuana, and the reference to reinstating alcohol prohibition was an analogy of that, not some "false dilemma".

So by your thinking, if we give you heroin, you ought to still be able to get up and work a regular job and feed your children, right?

False analogy. decriminalization does not, in any way, involve anyone giving anyone anything, ever. We simply allow the individual to make that choice for himself. Perhaps there is a guy out there who can do moderate amounts of heroin and still lead a normal life. I don't know. But if there is, then it is not the proper role of government to tell that guy he can't because some other guy might not handle it as well as he does. And it certainly isn't the proper role of government to use that anti-drug law to shred all of the rights of freedoms of the people it is "protecting".

The analogy of drunks wasn't to excuse smoking pot.

Yes it was. There is no other point in bringing it up. Now you are just trying to walk it back.

That should have been obvious. It was used to show your own logical dissonance in which you apply two entirely different standards to the same principle.

I'm not writing the laws here. Drunks have been permitted by society since 1933. The nation made a deliberate choice to tolerate them. (And the 65,000 people who die every year from alcohol) And it's still beside the point. What drunks do, does not justify the same behavior from pot heads. Abandoning your children financially is still wrong whether it be done by drunks or pot heads.

If you are not willing to fully ban alcohol (Prohibition) because it is "bad behavior", but you DO want to ban marijuana because it is "bad behavior" (of the exact same nature as alcohol - intoxication) then you demonstrate that you are not operating from a fully logical and consistent standpoint.

Again with the false choice. Alcohol has been deliberately legalized by the nation. It's disposition has already been decided. What is still in flux is the legal disposition of Marijuana, and THAT is the topic under discussion now. Again, your entire argument is a childish "Well he did it too!" (Tu Quoque)

Bingo. You admit you apply two different standards for virtually identical behaviors. You've just buried yourself. And you misapplied the "False Dilemma" fallacy.

Are you on drugs? You presented a choice between total legalization of Alcohol and total prohibition. THAT is the false choice. I pointed out that stronger regulation of drunks would be a preferable third choice, but it is one which you didn't permit by the manner in which you asked the question.

I think i'm probably wasting my time by addressing your points logically, but it happens to be a habit. You are saying that Alcohol and Marijuana are treated differently, to which I say "Yes they are, but so what?" I feel no compulsion to be "fair" to Marijuana. I don't have to support making it legal just because Alcohol is.

Alcohol has been decided by society (and a constitutional amendment) to be tolerated, despite how much damage and misery it causes to some individuals. The nation had made the decision to tolerate the downside of Alcohol legalization, and whether or not I agree with it, that is the current status of the drug.

False analogy. decriminalization does not, in any way, involve anyone giving anyone anything, ever.

Way to miss the point. I was addressing your statement that we shouldn't ban substances because people do bad things and it's not the fault of the substances. This is such a nonsensical point when you attempt to apply it to MIND ALTERING SUBSTANCES that I thought you would be able comprehend it if I used an example like Heroin. "Giving" was not even part of the point.

Perhaps there is a guy out there who can do moderate amounts of heroin and still lead a normal life. I don't know. But if there is, then it is not the proper role of government to tell that guy he can't because some other guy might not handle it as well as he does.

On this you are completely wrong. It is most definitely the role of Government to insure it's own continued existence, and if it allows the people to become infected with drug addiction, that government will CEASE TO EXIST, and it will be replaced by one that will, most usually a dictatorship.

Legalized drugs is an existential threat to a society. (perhaps not pot, but harder drugs, certainly.)

Again, China went down this road. China Collapsed. China acquired a dictator who banned drugs. We will achieve the same fate if we follow the same path.

You just look at things on too small of a scale. You are still focused on yourself and others as individuals, and seemingly have no comprehension that you are intent upon losing a tragedy upon future society.