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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
*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.