Replies

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

No no no and no again. Let me turn this around on you then since this is the way you seem to want to play. These questions are simply independent of each other.

Why should marijuana be illegal.
Why should alcohol be legal
Why drug prison times reflect the problems the drug causes in all cases except marijuana, alcohol and nicotine.

Your failure to present reason or logic to justify your presumptions is not mine to rectify.

It's just that you are not getting the logic, does not mean it is not present. My position is actually not presumption. Before marijuana (and all other currently illicit substances) was declared illegal, there had to be a reason to make it illegal, Correct? What were those reasons? When you tell your kids not to intake a substances, what reasons would you give them besides it being illegal which is circulatory (bad because illegal, illegal cause its bad)?

The year is 1937. Marijuana is currently legal. YOU make the case to have it outlawed.

You have failed to give any reasons to make/keep marijuana illegal, especially in light of currently legal substances.

I did address your comments on the Constitution, you are right, the 18th and 21st banned intra-state commerce, however the feds have banned intra-state commerce as well.