Replies

Wow you are so wrong on so many levels.

Lets start with the constitutional level. I understand interstate commerce, however the federal government has banned INTRA state as well. Why do you think they keep going into California Medical Marijuana facilities, genius.

Listing other applicable standards in this reply would not cure the defect in your flawed premise. You concluded that a person would be a hypocrite for not accepting your standards and no other standards, but you failed to present any reasons or logic for why this sould be so. My purpose in detailing that flaw was to elicit from you those reasons and logic. Do you have any? (Then we can get on to the separate issue of what other standards there may be.)

You haven't given a SINGLE reason why it should be illegal besides a liberal rhetoric for the community reason, which would make alcohol illegal as well. Name ONE, just ONE reason why alcohol should be legal, yet marijuana illegal. That is logic, not the crap you are putting out.

Again you assert, that the only standards to judge that "in every way, marijuana is less of a problem" can only be the standards you offered and no others. Until you can show the reasoning and logic behind why we should use your standards and no other standards, your conclusion of "hypocrisy" can not stand. Flawed premise = flawed conclusion.

Nonsense, I see you cannot read, I asked you what way you would judge it and you haven't given any reasons besides the ones I gave. Next time, try reading and comprehending what I wrote before you respond with things I've already addressed. Give me one reason why marijuana should be illegal, and alcohol illegal. You have yet to do so.

rb22982 exclaims: "Wow you are so wrong on so many levels."

Oh??

rb22982 exclaims: "You haven't given a SINGLE reason why it should be illegal...Name ONE, just ONE reason why alcohol should be legal..."

LOL, you still haven't figured what I've been saying, have you? Let me show you in outline form and see if that clears it up for you and follow that up with an example.

You presented the premise (alcohol is worse than marijuana because...
The logic of your premise contains the following two flaws.
- You failed to present reason or logic for your unspoken presumption that the standards you included in your premise were the proper standards by which to compare the two drugs.
- You failed to present reason or logic to show why your list should exclude the possiblity of any other standards.
Your failure to present reason or logic to justify your presumptions is not mine to rectify. That job is yours. Until you can support your presumptions with reason and logic, there is no point in me offering examples or reasons for the ban on marijuana and not alcohol.

Just to make sure that you understand what I'm driving at, allow me to suggest by example, a possible rephrasing of your premise, then compare it to your original and see if that clears it up for you.

"Marijuana is safer, less addictive and less of a high than alcohol, therefore..."
-- rb22982 premise
"If we assume that the proper criterion for comparing marijuana to alcohol is the relative risk each drug presents, then one should at least consider their safety (i.e., danger to the user and others), level of addiction and level of intoxication. By this standard, marijuana is less hazardous than alcohol, therefore..."
-- possible rephrasing of rb22982 premise

Notice that in the rephrasing you are no longer treating an unstated presumption as fact, you clearly state that you are only assuming that relative risk is the only proper criteria for comparison. Assuming is OK if you state that as a given in your premise. But if you intended to limit the possibilities to only relative risk, you would then have to offer some sort of logic or reason for that.

Notice also that in that rephrasing, the three standards offered (safety, addiction, intoxication) are qualified by the phrase "..at least..." these standards. Here you would no longer have your unspoken presumption that the only three possible standards are the one's offered.

The rest of your post consists of further pleas and demands that I offer some examples to correct your flawed premise, but you can't get to those arguments, examples, etc., until you present a coherent premise. I await either your rephrasing of the premise or some logic and reasons to support your presumption that three standards you offered are the correct ones to use and that no others are possible.

BTW, I notice you had no comment on my replies to your questions about the 10th 18th and 21 Amendments. Was that an oversight?

--Boot