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.
OK.
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.
Alcohol seems to be worse than marijuana based on the factors you listed in #86.
You don't recognize it? The "danger scale" is the entire basis for the WOD. The feds can throw out whatever ICC argument they want, but the basis of the CSA and laws against "drugs" is that they are "too dangerous". Thats why there is the "Class schedule".
Almost everything government "regulates" is done so on the basis of "danger".
If you don't buy the "Danger scale", then on what basis do you support "drugs" being illegal? I don't tgink you have ever answered that question. In fact, your posts that I have read on this topic in the past seem to indicate that you in deed do support "Drugs" being illegal on the basis that they are "too dangerous". Please clarify your position.
Looking at your list, I find those statements somewhat inconsistent, particularly in regards to #6.