1
   

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

 
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 12:04 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
You'll have to refresh my recollection. When did I concede the "hypocrisy" of the marijuana policy?

How about when you said:
joefromchicago wrote:

I am perfectly willing to concede, for the purposes of discussion, that marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol.

I conceded only what I conceded: marijuana is as harmful as tobacco and/or alcohol. I said nothing about policy or the hypocrisy thereof.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
It seems to me you felt you were ill-prepared to argue this point at that time. No?

No.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Before answering, consider:
A) Over 100 thousand deaths annually are directly linked to acute alcohol poisoning… In 4,000 years of recorded history, no one has ever died from a pot overdose.

I find it extremely difficult to accept that 100k deaths annually are attributed to alcohol poisoning. Is that in the U.S. or worldwide?

On the other hand, even if that's true, so what?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
B) Alcohol has been proven physically addictive. Marijuana is only habit forming.

I am not sure that this is the consensus opinion. However, I believe that the majority of researchers have concluded that marijuana is psychologically addictive, not physically addictive.

But then, so what?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
There is no shame in admitting you are wrong. Idea

Good advice. I hope you bear it in mind.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
If you really think you can prove I'm wrong; start by demonstrating these first two points don't constitute proof of hypocrisy. I'll make a much longer list if you like. :wink:

I won't require you to make a longer list. I would, however, require you to explain the point you're trying to make. After all, your argument could be used either to advocate the legalization of marijuana or the criminalization of alcohol. Which is it?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 01:08 am
joefromchicago wrote:
I won't require you to make a longer list. I would, however, require you to explain the point you're trying to make. After all, your argument could be used either to advocate the legalization of marijuana or the criminalization of alcohol. Which is it?

Either way, hypocricy would be proved. My point is very simple. If one can be shown to be more harmful than the other; it is alcohol. Merely demonstrating they are equally harmful, however, would demonstrate hypocricy.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 09:03 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Either way, hypocricy would be proved. My point is very simple. If one can be shown to be more harmful than the other; it is alcohol. Merely demonstrating they are equally harmful, however, would demonstrate hypocricy.

How so?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 09:15 am
Frankly, I don't much think it matters whether or not marijana laws are hypocritical. I oppose them because they are an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs.

I happen also to consider them...counterproductive...or at very least, to lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the problems of drug abuse, if only by using up so much of the treasury that could better be used to combat abuse problems in general.

And lastly, the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 11:13 am
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Either way, hypocricy would be proved. My point is very simple. If one can be shown to be more harmful than the other; it is alcohol. Merely demonstrating they are equally harmful, however, would demonstrate hypocrisy.

How so?
What criteria other than potential harm would you use to justify the difference in legal treatment? (Joe, I've seen you do a brilliant job of arguing a preposterous position on another thread. I am purposely trying very hard not to let you obscure this issue.)
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 11:37 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
What criteria other than potential harm would you use to justify the difference in legal treatment?

Well, let's first figure out your position, Bill. If the law is required to treat similar harmful substances in a similar fashion, and potential harm is the only permissible criterion for making any distinction among substances, and alcohol is more harmful than marijuana, then your argument can either be for: (1) the legalization of marijuana; or (2) the criminalization of alcohol.

Now, it appears that you assume that alcohol should remain legal. Given the premises of your position, however, you cannot make this assumption without any justification. In other words, you first need to explain why alcohol should remain legal before you can use alcohol as the yardstick for measuring the acceptability of marijuana.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
(Joe, I've seen you do a brilliant job of arguing a preposterous position on another thread. I am purposely trying very hard not to let you obscure this issue.)

Uh ... thanks ... I think.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 11:41 am
Frank Apisa wrote:
Frankly, I don't much think it matters whether or not marijana laws are hypocritical. I oppose them because they are an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs.

Where does one find these rights?

Frank Apisa wrote:
I happen also to consider them...counterproductive...or at very least, to lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the problems of drug abuse, if only by using up so much of the treasury that could better be used to combat abuse problems in general.

Of course, the drug abuse problems that society currently faces are, one would suppose, kept in check by the current drug prohibitions. We simply don't know what the extent of the drug abuse problem would be in the event that the current prohibitions are relaxed or lifted.

Frank Apisa wrote:
And lastly, the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny.

Sez you.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 11:53 am
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.
This is the issue Joe. This is the challenge you accepted. Accordingly; I will not allow the debate to be expanded until you either prove or concede this point. To prove or disprove hypocrisy, it is irrelevant whether I think alcohol should be legal. Thus far I've seen no attempt to disprove this hypocrisy. Do you give up?

Ps. That other statement was indeed a compliment.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 12:07 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Frankly, I don't much think it matters whether or not marijana laws are hypocritical. I oppose them because they are an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs.

Where does one find these rights?


In the same place one finds the right to eat oatmeal for breakfast, Joe.



Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I happen also to consider them...counterproductive...or at very least, to lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the problems of drug abuse, if only by using up so much of the treasury that could better be used to combat abuse problems in general.

Of course, the drug abuse problems that society currently faces are, one would suppose, kept in check by the current drug prohibitions. We simply don't know what the extent of the drug abuse problem would be in the event that the current prohibitions are relaxed or lifted.


Oops! You did what Bill has been accusing you of doing. Changing the subject.

We were talking about marijuana prohibitions -- not drug prohibitions in general.

In any case, your response really ducks the essence of my comment -- that the money spent dealing with marijuana could better be spent dealing with abuse problems in general (and I'll add, drug abuse problems in general!)

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
And lastly, the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny.

Sez you.


Yep, sez me.

Wanna discuss any of 'em?
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 12:17 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
This is the issue Joe. This is the challenge you accepted. Accordingly; I will not allow the debate to be expanded until you either prove or concede this point. To prove or disprove hypocrisy, it is irrelevant whether I think alcohol should be legal. Thus far I've seen no attempt to disprove this hypocrisy. Do you give up?

Bill, I'm still trying to figure out what you consider to be hypocrisy. As such, I won't even consider conceding or disproving the hypocrisy of anything until you divulge what makes the equation of alcohol and marijuana hypocritical.

I tried to make some effort in this direction with my previous post, which you have chosen to ignore. If you don't want to explain your position beyond a rather bland "sez me," then I suppose the only suitable response would be for me to reply: "oh yeah?" If, on the other hand, you'd like to explain the nature of this supposed "hypcrisy," I'd be happy to discuss it on a more elevated level than that of schoolyard taunts.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 12:25 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
In the same place one finds the right to eat oatmeal for breakfast, Joe.

Ah, Frank, you've finally come to accept the existence of natural rights. It took you long enough!

Frank Apisa wrote:
Oops! You did what Bill has been accusing you of doing. Changing the subject.

We were talking about marijuana prohibitions -- not drug prohibitions in general.

Well, you were talking about "the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs." If you're willing to confine the definition of "recreational drugs" to marijuana (and any legal drug, such as alcohol), then we can certainly confine the discussion to marijuana. But I won't admit to changing the subject when it's not clear what subject you're discussing.

Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, your response really ducks the essence of my comment -- that the money spent dealing with marijuana could better be spent dealing with abuse problems in general (and I'll add, drug abuse problems in general!)

I think that there are many things that the current drug policy does wrong, including misallocating resources. That, however, is a policy enforcement question. What we're dealing with is the existence of the policy.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Yep, sez me.

Wanna discuss any of 'em?

Did you have any particular rationales in mind?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 01:18 pm
I chose my words very deliberately when posing this question, so as not to allow much wiggle room.
joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:

Do you really think you can mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy?

Yes.


OCCOM BILL wrote:
My point is very simple. If one can be shown to be more harmful than the other; it is alcohol. Merely demonstrating they are equally harmful, however, would demonstrate hypocrisy.
I'll restate this point in an attempt to clarify it for you. I will not, however, expand on it in order to provide you additional wiggle room. Please abandon that strategy.

POINT: Since Marijuana is not more harmful than Alcohol, current laws that make Marijuana illegal while Alcohol is legal constitute hypocrisy. END POINT

How could I possibly be any clearer?

I have previously given you ample opportunity to withdraw from this futile position.
Thus far you have chosen not to do so. Further attempts to redirect attention will be met with this same re-centering. Do you wish to concede now? If not; please begin to "mount an argument to demonstrate Marijuana being illegal while Alcohol is not; doesn't constitute hypocrisy" like you said you could. :wink:
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 01:34 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
In the same place one finds the right to eat oatmeal for breakfast, Joe.

Ah, Frank, you've finally come to accept the existence of natural rights. It took you long enough!


If you've come to that conclusion, Joe, you've looked in the wrong place for the right to eat oatmeal, Joe.

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Oops! You did what Bill has been accusing you of doing. Changing the subject.

We were talking about marijuana prohibitions -- not drug prohibitions in general.

Well, you were talking about "the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs." If you're willing to confine the definition of "recreational drugs" to marijuana (and any legal drug, such as alcohol), then we can certainly confine the discussion to marijuana. But I won't admit to changing the subject when it's not clear what subject you're discussing.


Well, perhaps you can get help for that problem, Joe. My comments were very, very specific. Allow me to cut and paste them again. Perhaps you can tell what I was discussing from a re-reading:

Quote:
Frankly, I don't much think it matters whether or not marijana laws are hypocritical. I oppose them because they are an unnecessary infringement on the rights of individuals to use recreational drugs.

I happen also to consider them...counterproductive...or at very least, to lead to unintended consequences that exacerbate the problems of drug abuse, if only by using up so much of the treasury that could better be used to combat abuse problems in general.




Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, your response really ducks the essence of my comment -- that the money spent dealing with marijuana could better be spent dealing with abuse problems in general (and I'll add, drug abuse problems in general!)

I think that there are many things that the current drug policy does wrong, including misallocating resources. That, however, is a policy enforcement question. What we're dealing with is the existence of the policy.


You may be! But only because it suits your purposes for the moment. If you read my comment over again, however, you will see I was right on point.

Bill is right about you, Joe.

You do tend to try to cloud these discussions by getting into petty minutia about peripheral matters -- rather than trying to argue the essentials of what is being discussed.

Why don't you stop that playing around -- and discuss the essentials? You apparently have lots to offer -- but you screw things up with all this nonsense.

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Yep, sez me.

Wanna discuss any of 'em?

Did you have any particular rationales in mind?


As a matter of fact, I do. I'd like to discuss whichever rationale you want to discuss. I'd prefer a single one -- and we can go on to others after we've finished with the first one.

Keep in mind: Marijuana.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 10:04 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
I'll restate this point in an attempt to clarify it for you. I will not, however, expand on it in order to provide you additional wiggle room. Please abandon that strategy.

POINT: Since Marijuana is not more harmful than Alcohol, current laws that make Marijuana illegal while Alcohol is legal constitute hypocrisy. END POINT

How could I possibly be any clearer?

I appreciate the clarification. Of course, your position provides just as much support for an argument in favor of the criminalization of alcohol as it does for the legalization of marijuana -- which is one of the problems habitually faced (or, more usually, evaded) by those who take your position. I will, however, pass over that particular difficulty for now.

Regarding the equation of marijuana and alcohol, let me offer an analogy: the gypsy moth caterpillar is an invasive pest, non-native to North America, that destroys trees. First introduced to the continent in 1869, the gypsy moth has expanded from New England and now threatens trees in much of the American northeast. The Asian longhorned beetle is also an invasive pest, non-native to North America, that destroys trees. First introduced to the continent in 1996, the beetle has, as of now, been confined to small outbreaks in Illinois and New York.

Both the gypsy moth and the Asian longhorned beetle attack trees and are equally dangerous. The gypsy moth has increased its population to the point where it can no longer be eradicated. At best, it can be managed as a pest. The Asian longhorned beetle, on the other hand, is still at the stage where eradication is a possibility.

Now, here we are, faced with roughly equivalent problems. One has become ineradicable, the other has not yet reached that point. Would it, then, be hypocritical to say that we should manage the first and eradicate the second?

As I see it, we face a similar situation with alcohol/tobacco and marijuana. Alcohol, for instance, has been around for thousands of years, and has become engrained in Western culture -- to such an extent that major religions incorporate it into their ceremonies. As we discovered in the 1920s, alcohol has become, for better or worse, ineradicable. We can do no more, at this stage, than manage it as a social problem. In contrast, marijuana has not yet become so engrained in Western culture that it cannot be eradicated, or at least suppressed to the point that it remains a low-level problem.

Alcohol, in sum, is a problem that can only be managed, whereas marijuana can be eradicated or suppressed. As such, I don't think it is inconsistent to suggest divergent approaches to similar problems that are susceptible to different solutions. Rather, it would be falling prey to a foolish consistency to say that, just because we have one problem, we shouldn't object to having two.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do you wish to concede now?

Mmmm . . . no.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 10:19 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
If you've come to that conclusion, Joe, you've looked in the wrong place for the right to eat oatmeal, Joe.

I'm fairly familiar with the law, Frank, and I am confident that there is no positive law that gives anyone either the right to use recreational drugs or eat oatmeal. If there is such a right, it is either a natural right or it's a law on the books. What is it?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Well, perhaps you can get help for that problem, Joe.

Hardly likely.

Frank Apisa wrote:
My comments were very, very specific. Allow me to cut and paste them again. Perhaps you can tell what I was discussing from a re-reading:

No need to get out the scissors and paste, Frank: I quoted your exact words in my previous post. You said "recreational drugs." If that class of drugs comprises only marijuana, then your remarks were confined solely to marijuana. If not, then they weren't.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You may be! But only because it suits your purposes for the moment. If you read my comment over again, however, you will see I was right on point.

No, it's not because it suits my purposes. Rather, that has been the entire focus of this thread. Furthermore, I have no interest in discussing drug policy, and if that's the direction you want to go, Frank, you'll have to find someone else to debate.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Bill is right about you, Joe.

You do tend to try to cloud these discussions by getting into petty minutia about peripheral matters -- rather than trying to argue the essentials of what is being discussed.

Yeah, right Frank. I suppose I could just indulge in open insults followed by a string of vulgarities, but then what would you do to distinguish yourself?

Frank Apisa wrote:
Why don't you stop that playing around -- and discuss the essentials? You apparently have lots to offer -- but you screw things up with all this nonsense.

Thanks for the tips, but I'll take advice from you on debating techniques about the same time I take it from Bill.

[EDIT: giving credit where credit is due]
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Jan, 2004 10:45 pm
Interesting answer Joe... I'll answer in a little while. By the way; you credited me in your last post that was all from Frank.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 12:15 am
joefromchicago wrote:

Now, here we are, faced with roughly equivalent problems.
Problems according to who?
joefromchicago wrote:

One has become ineradicable, the other has not yet reached that point. Would it, then, be hypocritical to say that we should manage the first and eradicate the second?

LOL, 1 in 3 people high school age has tried Marijuana at least once. 1 in 5 people overall in the country have tried it at least once, and the number of people who admit to using has increased 50% in the last decade. I would bet the vast majority of Americans knows at least one person they can get it from and no person is more than 3 persons removed. Avid smokers will tell you there may be an occasional "dry" period, but most of the time it is readily available. In other words, we have utterly failed to even curb it, let alone eradicate it.



joefromchicago wrote:

As I see it, we face a similar situation with alcohol/tobacco and marijuana.
Pretty damn close to conceding I see.



joefromchicago wrote:

Alcohol, for instance, has been around for thousands of years, and has become engrained in Western culture -- to such an extent that major religions incorporate it into their ceremonies.
According to my encyclopedia: Marijuana has been known to have been used as early as 3,000 BC. Native Americans were smoking it before any Chinese Junk-boats, Vikings or Spaniards ever showed up. In fact, some Native Americans still smoke it regularly for ceremonial purposes and recreation (as they always have), perfectly legally. So much is it part of their religious beliefs; they are even allowed to smoke it in Prison during regular Religious Ceremonies.


joefromchicago wrote:

As we discovered in the 1920s, alcohol has become, for better or worse, ineradicable. We can do no more, at this stage, than manage it as a social problem. In contrast, marijuana has not yet become so engrained in Western culture that it cannot be eradicated, or at least suppressed to the point that it remains a low-level problem.

The 18th Amendment, or Volstead Act began in 1920 . 14 years later came the 21st amendment forever abolishing the 18th. 14 years of this hopeless foolishness. Obviously we've tried to get rid of Marijuana for a hell of a lot longer than that. Same result; utter failure. Hypocrisy.

Secondly, it is easier to grow marijuana than it is to make bath tub gin. It is more easily concealed at border crossings, and harder to detect on a user. So that doesn't work.



joefromchicago wrote:

Alcohol, in sum, is a problem that can only be managed, whereas marijuana can be eradicated or suppressed. As such, I don't think it is inconsistent to suggest divergent approaches to similar problems that are susceptible to different solutions. Rather, it would be falling prey to a foolish consistency to say that, just because we have one problem, we shouldn't object to having two.
Not only is alcohol not a "problem", but even if it was you have still shown nothing to separate it from marijuana. That was an interesting angle… I'll give you that. But ultimately, it proved useless even if alcohol was considered a problem, which you never substantiated anyway. Don't bother for the time being, since I've already demonstrated it wouldn't help. Anything else you'd like to try? We could probably have a far more interesting conversation once you concede this feeble position.

joefromchicago wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do you wish to concede now?

Mmmm . . . no.

How about now?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 03:45 am
Joe,

The introduction of social permeation as a differentiating factor is sound and relevant.

But what you've never done thus far in any of the drug debates is make a case for the societal bane that marijuana is supposed to pose. I'd be interested in seeing you make the case.

Bill and Frank,

If you guys get to the core of the debate (the validity of proscription itself) you will make Joe have to defend the societal cost of criminalization by making a case for the societal damages caused by marijuana.

In the past Joe has focused on a "we don't know yet" argument. And that is an easily assailable position.

I suggest you guys change pace and stop defending legalization and ask Joe to try to defend the criminalization.

Joe has managed to keep the ball in the other court. But in making a case for criminalization in the first place you have a really defensible position.

Here is a quick point/counterpoint.

The safest "bane" argument Joe will have is societal health, both physical and mental.

Because marijuana is an intoxicant and is smoked Joe can make comparisons of marijuana to both cigarettes and alcohol.

If you avoid making the 'hypocrisy' issue central to the argument you can assail the flaw in the comparison. Namely that it's an easy case to make that marijuana is not as harmful as alcohol and certainly not as harmful as alcohol and tabacco combined.

You might get a few "we don't know"s but there are really strong arguments against that.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 04:28 am
Craven de Kere wrote:

Bill and Frank,

If you guys get to the core of the debate (the validity of proscription itself) you will make Joe have to defend the societal cost of criminalization by making a case for the societal damages caused by marijuana.

In the past Joe has focused on a "we don't know yet" argument. And that is an easily assailable position.

I suggest you guys change pace and stop defending legalization and ask Joe to try to defend the criminalization.


I've already done that by telling him that the rationales behind these laws really do not stand up to scrutiny -- and asking him to discuss those rationales.

As you can see, he has declined.


I don't blame him!
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Jan, 2004 10:59 am
OCCOM BILL wrote:
LOL, 1 in 3 people high school age has tried Marijuana at least once. 1 in 5 people overall in the country have tried it at least once, and the number of people who admit to using has increased 50% in the last decade. I would bet the vast majority of Americans knows at least one person they can get it from and no person is more than 3 persons removed. Avid smokers will tell you there may be an occasional "dry" period, but most of the time it is readily available. In other words, we have utterly failed to even curb it, let alone eradicate it.

I have no idea where you get your statistics -- possibly from the same source that said that there are 100,000 alcohol poisoning deaths per annum -- so I won't put much stock in them. But since you're so caught up with statistics, let me ask this: Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Pretty damn close to conceding I see.

You must be kidding, Bill. The equivalence of alcohol/tobacco and marijuana is a premise of my argument. I already conceded that point -- remember? To suggest that this point amounts to a concession of your position is to buy into your "logic" -- which, so far, only you have seen fit to do.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
According to my encyclopedia: Marijuana has been known to have been used as early as 3,000 BC. Native Americans were smoking it before any Chinese Junk-boats, Vikings or Spaniards ever showed up. In fact, some Native Americans still smoke it regularly for ceremonial purposes and recreation (as they always have), perfectly legally. So much is it part of their religious beliefs; they are even allowed to smoke it in Prison during regular Religious Ceremonies.

Indians and their practices are part of Western culture?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
The 18th Amendment, or Volstead Act began in 1920 . 14 years later came the 21st amendment forever abolishing the 18th. 14 years of this hopeless foolishness. Obviously we've tried to get rid of Marijuana for a hell of a lot longer than that. Same result; utter failure. Hypocrisy.

Is marijuana use as prevalent as alcohol or tobacco use?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Secondly, it is easier to grow marijuana than it is to make bath tub gin. It is more easily concealed at border crossings, and harder to detect on a user. So that doesn't work.

So what?

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Not only is alcohol not a "problem", but even if it was you have still shown nothing to separate it from marijuana.

This is an odd assertion coming from someone who has already stated that alcohol is more harmful than marijuana. Of course, if neither is a problem, then you have to justify the existence of any laws regulating the sale or consumption of alcohol.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
That was an interesting angle… I'll give you that. But ultimately, it proved useless even if alcohol was considered a problem, which you never substantiated anyway.

It was never my burden to substantiate that alcohol is a problem. Remember, I conceded that marijuana is as harmful as alcohol. Consequently, its harmfulness is not in need of substantiation; rather, it is a given. Now, if you think that harmful products are not problems, then say so. Likewise, if you think that marijuana and alcohol are completely innocuous, then you should also make that clear.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Don't bother for the time being, since I've already demonstrated it wouldn't help. Anything else you'd like to try? We could probably have a far more interesting conversation once you concede this feeble position.

Bill, I admire your dogged tenacity, but simply demanding, over and over, that I concede your position won't make it happen.

OCCOM BILL wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Do you wish to concede now?

joefromchicago wrote:
Mmmm . . . no.

How about now?

Nope.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 05:27:55