“Hey, you’re the one who said my argument was illogical.”
I didn’t say it was illogical. I said it was sophistry.
Definitions of sophistry on the Web:
•Sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
•An argument that seems plausible, but is fallacious or misleading, especially one devised deliberately to be so; The art of using deceptive speech or writing; Cunning or trickery
•A seemingly plausible, but fallacious and devious, argumentation.
______________________________________________________
It is misleading to argue that alcohol is more dangerous than pot **and** that marijuana should therefore be legal. It is misleading whether or not alcohol is actually more dangerous to health than pot.
This is because there are many factors other than danger to the user’s health that justify prohibiting pot.
You can easily figure out for yourself what these are, so I’m going to give myself a break and not type them in — again.
Are any of those other factors NOT related to the problems created by prohibition in the first place, such as gangsterism, violent crime, adulteration, police corruption, etc?