Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
It's quite another to suggest that the decision to legalize/not legalize should be based on a danger scale.

So if it's OK to legalize (or not) based on danger, what's wrong with a danger scale?

112 posted on 02/04/2003 8:18:33 AM PST by MrLeRoy ("That government is best which governs least.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies ]


To: MrLeRoy
"So if it's OK to legalize (or not) based on danger"

I never said that. In fact, my point is just the opposite.

I have no problem with a person saying that a drug is dangerous. Or that a drug is not dangerous. Or that one drug is more dangerous than another drug.

"what's wrong with a danger scale?"

When it comes to drug legalization, however, I'm saying that a "danger scale" is irrelevant. Using such a scale says non-dangerous drugs are legal and very dangerous drugs are illegal, and somewhere in between we go from legal to illegal based on some arbitrary danger point.

For starters, this method would make the drugs used in chemotherapy illegal. Also, it ignores other factors, such as those listed in my post #86. It attempts to quantify something (danger) that is subjective as it's sole criterion.

Every time you post that "alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana, yet alcohol is legal and marijuana is not", you're using a "danger scale" that I will not recognize.

115 posted on 02/04/2003 8:50:55 AM PST by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson