1
   

What's your take on the War on Drugs?

 
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 12:45 pm
Joe,

Even if marijuana is illegal there is nothing preventing people from invoking the First amendment and "advertising" it. See Cypress Hill.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 01:00 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Yes, it's complete nonsense.

There is no reason whatsoever that decriminalization (or even legalization) has to allow for advertising.

It doesn't even have to allow for it's sale.

This one posed quite the puzzle, Craven. I had to rack my brain before I could come up with any legal article in commerce that can be consumed but that cannot be sold.

Ultimately, I came up with two: sex and body parts.

Now, admittedly, neither is, strictly speaking, an article in commerce, although sex can be sold legally in many places around the world. And body parts are not "consumed" in the normal sense of the word, although certain products (such as blood and various glandular secretions) are "used up" in the course of one's life.

Still, in terms of tangible items that are not related to particular bodily functions, I can think of nothing that is both legally consumable and strictly prohibited from entering into commerce. I suppose, however, that it is theoretically possible.

On a pragmatic level, however, I doubt that marijuana sales could be prohibited once the use of marijuana is legalized. Moreover, there are simple expedients around any strict sales ban: e.g. "buy a pack of rolling papers, get a free Glad-bag filled with primo weed!"

But I'm sure that, in response, you'd propose a large, national police force to crack down on illegal sales of legal pot. Of course, little Craven, Jr. will undoubtedly complain loudly about his daddy's hypocritical stance on marijuana sales, and will long for the day when the nation can rid itself of its costly, ineffective anti-drug-selling laws.

The irony would indeed be delicious.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 01:12 pm
You have a vivid imagination. I would not "propose a large, national police force to crack down on illegal sales of legal pot". I never even said I would support a prohibition of its sale at all.

My point was "it is theoretically possible" and that your claim that it has to have the consequences you claim is not true.

My point was that when you defined everyone's options you did so in error, that's all.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 01:29 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,Even if marijuana is illegal there is nothing preventing people from invoking the First amendment and "advertising" it. See Cypress Hill.

It is rare indeed that one gets a good opportunity to explore the fallacy of equivocation, as I have had the pleasure of doing in another thread. And thanks to you, Craven, I now have the rare opportunity of repeating that lesson.

The "fallacy of equivocation" occurs when "a word essential in an argument is used ambiguously in such a way that it makes the argument appear sound when it is really not" (D. Walton, "Toward a Pragmatic Theory of Fallacy," p. 61).

In this particular case, the word is "advertising." The usual definition of "advertising" involves "offering something to the public for sale." But another meaning of "advertising" is simply "to impart information broadly." Thus I may advertise to sell my used car (definition 1), while I may also advertise the fact that I am in a bad mood (definition 2).

Craven, your example of Cypress Hill extolling the virtues of pot usage is a clear instance of "advertising" in the sense of definition 2. Now, obviously, the First Amendment says nothing about "advertising" in that sense. Cypress Hill can "advertise" all it wants about pot, or cocaine, or rape, or murder, or jaywalking with absolute impunity, as long as they're not attempting to engage in the sale of those things.

"Advertising" in the sense of definition 1, however, is a different beast entirely. Right now, the government cannot prohibit Cypress Hill from singing about pot, but it can most assuredly prohibit them from telling people it is for sale at their concerts. That's where the equivocation comes in: you've clearly confused "advertising" an illegal good for sale (definition 1) with "advertising" one's endorsement of that product (definition 2). The first can (and is) subject to prohibition, the second is not.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 01:47 pm
Joe,

It's only a fallacy if the relevant definition is being ignored. As I suspect you are aware we disagree on the relevant portion.

See, the real negatives are shared. The bad part of both meanings of "advertising" is that it is promoting the use of a harmful (if only slightly) substance.

Since my point was that marijuana can be advertised (extolled, promoted) even without it's sale it's obvious that I was not speaking of the definition of advertising that involves sale.

Now you may see this as equivocation, and that is, indeed a common fallacy.

But that is predicated on the notion that the relevant definition was established.

I am contesting your assertion. To me both definitions share a common negative, which is the promotion of a unhealthy substance. And it is that common ground that I was arguing, not the definition of "advertising" that you are trying to impose on the discussion.

Now if your point is that my agument was fallacious toward the aim of arguing that advertising a sold product can take place without its sale I agree. It's very very obvious and had I been trying to argue that my argument would be fallacious in very elementary ways.

But that was not my argument at all. My argument was that the legalization of marijuana does not change the fact that the First amendment protects the efforts to promote marijuana.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 01:58 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Inportant caveat there, wouldn't you say, Joe.

I must say, Frank, I've noticed you have been particularly jocular lately, but this time up you have definitely cracked me!

OK, fine: I suppose that, in comparison to the struggle to legalize marijuana, the effort to amend the constitution will look like mere child's play. Perhaps the overwhelmingly mellow mood of the country will facilitate the quick alteration of the nation's foundational document.

I'm just glad that you are candid enough to acknowledge that the legalization of marijuana will also necessitate the rewriting of the First Amendment.


Now you are getting absurd. I acknowledge no such thing.

I merely indicated that I think we can develop a class of products that can be legal -- but which should not be advertised.

We don't allow the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment to apply indiscriminately now -- and we don't have to in the future. I am not even sure that the matter is as settled as you indicate it is - and it would not surprise me to find that we can decriminalize pot and still place strictures on sale and advertising.

The first amendment is not in jeopardy -- although the fact that you wanted to offer such an argument gladdens my heart. I thought you might have better ammunition in your pouch.


Quote:
There may be many victims left in the wake of the Stoner Revolution, but it seems clear that the first will be free speech.


Preposterous. You usually do much better than this -- and I hope you do better on your next try.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 02:14 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
But that was not my argument at all. My argument was that the legalization of marijuana does not change the fact that the First amendment protects the efforts to promote marijuana.

If that was indeed your argument, then it wasn't worth making. Nobody disputes that you can extoll the virtues of marijuana usage, even if such usage is illegal. The First Amendment, however, came into this discussion because it is relevant to the issue of advertising (i.e. offering a product for sale).
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 02:19 pm
Joe,

The First Amendment is directly relevant to both definitions of "advertising" as the First Amendment protects both.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 02:26 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
Now you are getting absurd. I acknowledge no such thing.

I merely indicated that I think we can develop a class of products that can be legal -- but which should not be advertised.

Let me go over this slowly, so that I don't have to repeat myself.

(1) As the supreme court's constitutional jurisprudence now stands, a product that can be legally offered for sale cannot be subject to a total advertising prohibition.
(2) That is because, according to the First Amendment, the government cannot ban commercial speech (of which advertising is a prime example) without some overriding governmental interest.
(3) The government has an interest in regulating commercial speech in connection with certain potentially harmful products (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, gambling, etc.).
(4) It is clear, however, that the government cannot totally ban truthful advertising of even these products, despite the fact that they are potentially harmful. See the cases that I linked in my earlier post.
(5) If marijuana becomes legal, it will only be because it is perceived to be no more harmful than the most harmful legal substance (in this case, I presume that to be tobacco -- which is also the most stringently regulated product in terms of advertising).
(6) Under the First Amendment, it would be impermissible for the government to ban all tobacco advertising. It would, perforce, be equally impermissible to ban all marijuana advertising.
(7) The only way to institute a total ban on marijuana advertising, then, would be to amend the First Amendment.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You usually do much better than this -- and I hope you do better on your next try.

Frank, you usually show at least a minimal grasp of the law -- and I hope you do better on your next try.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 02:29 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,

The First Amendment is directly relevant to both definitions of "advertising" as the First Amendment protects both.

But one is simply not controversial. Face it, no one is arguing with you about Cypress Hill or anyone else encouraging people to smoke pot. Frankly, Craven, I have no clue what point you're trying to make here.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 02:47 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Now you are getting absurd. I acknowledge no such thing.

I merely indicated that I think we can develop a class of products that can be legal -- but which should not be advertised.

Let me go over this slowly, so that I don't have to repeat myself.

(1) As the supreme court's constitutional jurisprudence now stands, a product that can be legally offered for sale cannot be subject to a total advertising prohibition.
(2) That is because, according to the First Amendment, the government cannot ban commercial speech (of which advertising is a prime example) without some overriding governmental interest.
(3) The government has an interest in regulating commercial speech in connection with certain potentially harmful products (e.g. tobacco, alcohol, gambling, etc.).
(4) It is clear, however, that the government cannot totally ban truthful advertising of even these products, despite the fact that they are potentially harmful. See the cases that I linked in my earlier post.
(5) If marijuana becomes legal, it will only be because it is perceived to be no more harmful than the most harmful legal substance (in this case, I presume that to be tobacco -- which is also the most stringently regulated product in terms of advertising).
(6) Under the First Amendment, it would be impermissible for the government to ban all tobacco advertising. It would, perforce, be equally impermissible to ban all marijuana advertising.
(7) The only way to institute a total ban on marijuana advertising, then, would be to amend the First Amendment.

Frank Apisa wrote:
You usually do much better than this -- and I hope you do better on your next try.

Frank, you usually show at least a minimal grasp of the law -- and I hope you do better on your next try.


Oh, have it your way.

In any case, the first objection to legalization that you brought up has been completely defeated -- insofar as your comment:

Quote:
And there's nothing the government can do to stop this kind of advertising, short of amending the constitution...


...is equivalent to saying:

The governement can do something to stop this kind of advertising.

So the advertising factor is a non-starter.

And as I said earlier, the first amendment protection of free speech is not absolute right now -- and creating a class of products that we feel should not be illegal, but should not be advertised will do no more injury to it than prohibiting someone from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.



What is the next item?
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 03:22 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,

The First Amendment is directly relevant to both definitions of "advertising" as the First Amendment protects both.

But one is simply not controversial.


That's not true. In fact I know of a band (Planet Hemp) that was arrested. It was in Brazil (similar legal codes) and the charge was "contributing to the delinquency of minors".

It didn't stick but to deny the polemic nature of this form of "advertising" marijuana is too convenient.

It's quite controversial.

Quote:
Face it, no one is arguing with you about Cypress Hill or anyone else encouraging people to smoke pot. Frankly, Craven, I have no clue what point you're trying to make here.


Joe, I don't think you will see it but here goes:

People do, indeed, complain about Cypress Hill. The Mayor of San Bernadino, Judith Valles, said their "SmokeOut" concert was not welcome and the police called it a "crime magnet".

So despite you not agreeing with my point it's pretty simple.

Regardless of whether the substance is legal or illegal the First Amendment protects the right to tout it.

So decriminalization does not threaten the First Amendment, as you tried to argue earlier.

Either way (legal or illegal), there will be those who those who seek to censor the lauding of marijuana and they run into the First Amendment. Legalizing marijuana is no more a threat to the first amendment than is its criminalization.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 03:56 pm
Joe

As things stand right now, you are expressing indignation with the damage that might be done to the first amendment by decriminalizing marijuana and not allowing it to be advertised.

You mentioned that "...it will necessitate the rewriting of the First Amendment" and that "...there may be many victims left in the wake of the Stoner Revolution, but it seems clear that the first will be free speech."

Yet you seem to be able to easily to deal with the fact that a person can conceivably be thrown into prison -- lose property and freedom -- because of possession or use of pot.

With all the respect in the world, Joe, your priorities are screwed up.


Under any circumstances -- you acknowledge that the problem of advertising can be dealt with. If we do decide to decriminalize pot, we can eliminate the problem of "advertising."



Unless you see things very differently and want to attack this question from another, different perspective, why not go on to whatever is next on your list of reasons why we should not decriminalize pot.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 04:00 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
In any case, the first objection to legalization that you brought up has been completely defeated -- insofar as your comment:

Quote:
And there's nothing the government can do to stop this kind of advertising, short of amending the constitution...


...is equivalent to saying:

The governement can do something to stop this kind of advertising.

So the advertising factor is a non-starter.

Sure, as long as it goes ahead and rewrites the First Amendment, everything should be just dandy.

Frank Apisa wrote:
And as I said earlier, the first amendment protection of free speech is not absolute right now -- and creating a class of products that we feel should not be illegal, but should not be advertised will do no more injury to it than prohibiting someone from shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theater when there is no fire.

Prohibiting someone from shouting "fire" in a crowded theater is permissible now, without any amendment to the constitution. In contrast, prohibiting advertising of a legal product would require rewriting the First Amendment. In short, if you want your total ban on post-legalization marijuana advertising, Frank, you need to institute limits on free speech that are not currently possible.

Frank Apisa wrote:
What is the next item?

Now, Frank, you know you're not allowed to be excused from a discussion unless you raise your hand first.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 04:04 pm
joefromchicago wrote:

In contrast, prohibiting advertising of a legal product would require rewriting the First Amendment. In short, if you want your total ban on post-legalization marijuana advertising, Frank, you need to institute limits on free speech that are not currently possible.


Incorrect, as long as the sale is forbidden then the meaning number 1 of "advertising" is not possible.

This without changing the First Amendment.

This would leave definition number two, something you called fallacious to use here, and pointless.

Now I don't necessarily advocate the prohibition of the sale but neither does the First Amendment need to be altered to curb the advertising.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 04:09 pm
Craven de Kere wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,

The First Amendment is directly relevant to both definitions of "advertising" as the First Amendment protects both.

But one is simply not controversial.


That's not true. In fact I know of a band (Planet Hemp) that was arrested. It was in Brazil (similar legal codes) and the charge was "contributing to the delinquency of minors".

When did the First Amendment become applicable in Brazil?

Craven de Kere wrote:
It didn't stick but to deny the polemic nature of this form of "advertising" marijuana is too convenient.

It's quite controversial.

Maybe in Brazil. I offer no opinions on the state of Brazilian law.

Craven de Kere wrote:
People do, indeed, complain about Cypress Hill. The Mayor of San Bernadino, Judith Valles, said their "SmokeOut" concert was not welcome and the police called it a "crime magnet".

I don't see how "complaints" rise to the level of First Amendment violations.

Craven de Kere wrote:
So despite you not agreeing with my point it's pretty simple.

Regardless of whether the substance is legal or illegal the First Amendment protects the right to tout it.

I don't disagree with your point at all. I just don't see that it's controversial -- or that it's particularly relevant to the foregoing discussion.

Craven de Kere wrote:
So decriminalization does not threaten the First Amendment, as you tried to argue earlier.

See my explanation that I gave to Frank: legalization of marijuana is incompatible with a total ban on marijuana advertising. You can't have both. And since you want legalized marijuana, you'll have to rewrite the First Amendment before you can have your total advertising ban.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Either way (legal or illegal), there will be those who those who seek to censor the lauding of marijuana and they run into the First Amendment. Legalizing marijuana is no more a threat to the first amendment than is its criminalization.

The legalization of marijuana affects the First Amendment in the fashion that I outlined above. Now, if you are unconcerned about marijuana advertising, the First Amendment has nothing to worry about. You, however, were the one who expressed qualms about advertising marijuana. Let me repeat: if you want to ban marijuana advertising, you need to rewrite the First Amendment.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 04:22 pm
Frank Apisa wrote:
As things stand right now, you are expressing indignation with the damage that might be done to the first amendment by decriminalizing marijuana and not allowing it to be advertised.

No, I'm merely pointing out some of the consequences of your position.

Frank Apisa wrote:
With all the respect in the world, Joe, your priorities are screwed up.

That wouldn't surprise me.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Under any circumstances -- you acknowledge that the problem of advertising can be dealt with. If we do decide to decriminalize pot, we can eliminate the problem of "advertising."

Only by rewriting the First Amendment.

Frank Apisa wrote:
Unless you see things very differently and want to attack this question from another, different perspective, why not go on to whatever is next on your list of reasons why we should not decriminalize pot.

Here's why advertising is relevant to the question of legalization: if we legalize marijuana, I don't see how we can stop people from advertising it for sale -- short of amending the constitution.

Furthermore, I strongly suspect that usage of marijuana will increase once it is advertised for sale to the general public. Indeed, I strongly suspect that you and Craven would agree with me, which is why both of you have expressed reservations about advertising legalized marijuana.

Now the advertising of marijuana is not, in itself, an argument against legalization. It is, however, a predictable consequence of legalization, and one that would probably lead to increased usage. For anyone who is unconcerned about increased marijuana usage, advertising should pose no concern at all. For those who don't want to see increased usage (be they pro-legalization or not), advertising should be a problem. And for those who want legalized marijuana but a prohibition on marijuana advertising, they should be forthright and acknowledge that they would need to rewrite the First Amendment in order to achieve their goals.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Jan, 2004 04:27 pm
Joe,

Brazil has similar laws about free speech, I never once claimed it was relevant to the First Amendment and was merely citing examples that illustrate the controversy that you denied.

You really will go to any lengths to contend something Joe.

I raised examples in the US as well, and you claim said complaints are not First Amendment violations.

While true this is also something I've never contended. It should come as no surprise to you that you do not see it that way, what you would do well to take note of is that nobody has forwarded it in that context.

joefromchicago wrote:
See my explanation that I gave to Frank: legalization of marijuana is incompatible with a total ban on marijuana advertising. You can't have both. And since you want legalized marijuana, you'll have to rewrite the First Amendment before you can have your total advertising ban.


Joe,

1) A total ban on "advertising" marijuana is not compatible with the First Amendment at all. Regardless of whether it is legal or not.

2) The more narrow definition you focused on earlier has as a criteria the sale, and as I note freedom to sell marijiana is not an inherently necessary component of an act to legalize it (though I concede that it is foolish not to).

So what inconsistency with the first amendment do you speak of? Or have you now adopted the less strict definition of "advertising" that you earlier called a fallacy?

See, without the sale of the substance your definition of "advertising" is simply not possible. This can be achieved through proscription of its sale, and doesn't have to involve the First Amendment at all.

Your insistence on portraying it as a threat to the First Amendment is of your own creation.

You have very recently admitted that it's theoretically possible to eliminate "advertising" (using your own definition of it) by forbidding the sale, and not the speech.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 09:10 am
Craven de Kere wrote:
Joe,

Brazil has similar laws about free speech, I never once claimed it was relevant to the First Amendment and was merely citing examples that illustrate the controversy that you denied.

If a Brazilian band was arrested for advocating the use of marijuana, then it is quite evident that Brazil does not have similar laws about free speech. If it did, the band would not have been arrested. And injecting an example, drawn from Brazil, into a discussion revolving around the First Amendment, clearly was an attempt to display its relevance. Your belated retreat on this point, Craven, is hardly credible.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You really will go to any lengths to contend something Joe.

You bring into a First Amendment discussion an irrelevant example all the way from Brazil and you accuse me of going "to any lengths to contend something"? Really, Craven, it is to laugh.

Craven de Kere wrote:
I raised examples in the US as well, and you claim said complaints are not First Amendment violations.

Because you are, for some unknown reason, conflating the two definitions of "advertising" and attempting to make them have the same legal meaning.

Craven de Kere wrote:
1) A total ban on "advertising" marijuana is not compatible with the First Amendment at all. Regardless of whether it is legal or not.

This is the purest nonsense, unless you are suggesting that a "total ban" on "advertising" would apply to both definitions of "advertising." But then such a position is simply ludicrous: no court has ever considered "advertising" as anything but "offering a product for sale." Your attempt to shoehorn the second definition of "advertising" into a discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence is either willfully dishonest or blockheadedly obtuse.

Craven de Kere wrote:
2) The more narrow definition you focused on earlier has as a criteria the sale, and as I note freedom to sell marijiana is not an inherently necessary component of an act to legalize it (though I concede that it is foolish not to).

I'm not convinced you're right, but then I'm not convinced you're wrong.

Craven de Kere wrote:
So what inconsistency with the first amendment do you speak of? Or have you now adopted the less strict definition of "advertising" that you earlier called a fallacy?

I adopt the only definition of "advertising" that has any relevance to a discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding commercial speech. Your attempt to broaden the definition, beyond these bounds, is a cartoonish* distortion of the issue.

Craven de Kere wrote:
See, without the sale of the substance your definition of "advertising" is simply not possible. This can be achieved through proscription of its sale, and doesn't have to involve the First Amendment at all.

For the purposes of moving this discussion along, I'll concede that a product may be legalized for consumption but prohibited from commerce.

Craven de Kere wrote:
Your insistence on portraying it as a threat to the First Amendment is of your own creation.

No, it is a predictable consequence of your own position.

Craven de Kere wrote:
You have very recently admitted that it's theoretically possible to eliminate "advertising" (using your own definition of it) by forbidding the sale, and not the speech.

The "speech" about marijuana has never been prohibited. That's why we have no concerns about the ATF shutting down this thread.

*One of your favorite words, Craven: I've just been dying to use it.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Jan, 2004 10:39 am
joefromchicago wrote:

If a Brazilian band was arrested for advocating the use of marijuana, then it is quite evident that Brazil does not have similar laws about free speech. If it did, the band would not have been arrested. And injecting an example, drawn from Brazil, into a discussion revolving around the First Amendment, clearly was an attempt to display its relevance. Your belated retreat on this point, Craven, is hardly credible.


Brazil does indeed have similar laws, the example illustrates that despite that some people's zeal in defending against the boogeyman that is marijuana leads them to disregard them thusly causing the controvery that you denied.

The example was about your claim that marijuana promotion was not "controversial".

Herein I illustrate controversy.

If the fact that it comes from another nation is so much of an issue for you, then please note that I provided a US example as well, and that you choose to focus on the Brazilian example.

Quote:
You bring into a First Amendment discussion an irrelevant example all the way from Brazil and you accuse me of going "to any lengths to contend something"? Really, Craven, it is to laugh.


Joe, you do not possess the right to arbitrarily determine what the discussion is about.

My example was addressing your contention that it was not a "controversial" issue.

That is what I was didcussing and I made no reference whatsoever to the First Amendment in that point.

Really Joe, you will find your points anywhere, most commonly in focusing your energy on debunking arguments and points that your opponent never made.

An example of this is that I used two examples and one was from the US, and you choose simply to focus on the Brazilian example. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
This is the purest nonsense, unless you are suggesting that a "total ban" on "advertising" would apply to both definitions of "advertising." But then such a position is simply ludicrous: no court has ever considered "advertising" as anything but "offering a product for sale." Your attempt to shoehorn the second definition of "advertising" into a discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence is either willfully dishonest or blockheadedly obtuse.


What I said, and what you deliberately fail to acknowledge is that the first amendment is such that touting marijuana's benefits will always be legal.

What I elaborated on was that there are ways other than banning advertising to prevent the commercial definition of advertising that you spoke of.

The First Amendment is a red herring of your creation, I was discussing marijuana.

In the discussion of marijuana you tried to make a First Amendment issue. I noted that the first amendment does not prohibit one from promoting marijuana use.

Both definitions of advertising are relevant because both can be said to cause societal harm.

You are trying to keep it restricted to your First Amendment red herring because of the fallacious claim you made that "There may be many victims left in the wake of the Stoner Revolution, but it seems clear that the first will be free speech."

Now you are simply trying to continue to make this an issue about the First Amendment, ignoring the arguments that the First Amendment already protects the act of promoting drug use.


Quote:
I adopt the only definition of "advertising" that has any relevance to a discussion of First Amendment jurisprudence regarding commercial speech. Your attempt to broaden the definition, beyond these bounds, is a cartoonish* distortion of the issue.


Ok, Joe, let me pose a sincere question.

What is the connection of the First Amendment issue to the drug debate?

I contend that it was due to the discussion on the merits of restricting advertising.

What relevance does advertising have to the discussion of the merits of marijuana prohibition?

Presumably the societal harm that comes from increased use.

Now the non-commercial definition of advertising can also be argued to increase use and cause societal harm.

So how is that a distortuion of the issue? I see it as directly on-topic. It references the societal harm that marijuana promotion causes.

Quote:
For the purposes of moving this discussion along, I'll concede that a product may be legalized for consumption but prohibited from commerce.


In that case the First Amendment discussions herein are moot, right? For by your own "non-cartoonishly distorted" definition of advertising, without the sale there is no advertising. Right?

Quote:
Craven de Kere wrote:
Your insistence on portraying it as a threat to the First Amendment is of your own creation.

No, it is a predictable consequence of your own position.


And like I said, no it is not. I have never advocated an alteration of the First Amendment for drug legalization and I have never advocated any position in which one would become necessary.

And frankly you have very little notion of what my position is.

Quote:
The "speech" about marijuana has never been prohibited. That's why we have no concerns about the ATF shutting down this thread.


Correct, and because it has "never" been prohibited the decriminalization of marijuana is not something that will have an effect on one's ability to promote marijuana use and the subsequent societal harm from that allowance.

Quote:
*One of your favorite words, Craven: I've just been dying to use it.


Actually this is one of Frank's favorite words, he uses it to reference the Biblical god.

I usually use it when discussing things with Frank.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/18/2021 at 08:56:32