In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> >> > Too late. I've clearly demonstrated this. Despite your complaints of of
> >> > vegan post smoker, you are just as "guilty" as she is and on all
> >> > counts.
> >>
> >> Not even remotely. I have taken no active role in her pot smoking, in
> >> fact I
> >> have attempted to discourage it. Following from that, if she quit because
> >> of
> >> my advice and subsequently had a negative outcome, it could be argued
> >> that I
> >> was morally complicit, although not really, as I have offered my advice
> >> on a
> >> take-it-or-leave-it basis.
> >
> > We disagree. The website you asked me to read supports legalization of
> > pot.
>
> It also points out several dangerous myths about pot. It presents a balanced
> picture, despite it's apparent underlying bias. Try and find some vegan
> website half that objective.

Please explain your position more clearly. I certainly recall you
stating you supported the decriminalization of pot.

Do you think pot is harmful? The evidence thus far would seem to
indicate that you do.

Do you think pot is wrong? Given your attempt to influence the vegan and
help her, I would say yes.

Given the evidence seems to be that you think pot harmful and wrong, how
can you take the position of decriminalizing the drug?

> Therefore, you are at least involved in allowing her legal access
> > to the very drug that you claim is harmful to her personal and social
> > well-being.
>
> Legalization won't make pot more harmful.

It won't make it less harmful either.

Why are you wanting harmful products on the open market place for
individuals when your position is that it can and does lead to social
and individual problems?

> > You've stated that you support legalization of pot, at least I think it
> > was your post. As a result of your condoning this behaviour in society,
> > you have made it "okay" for her to do so.
>
> I didn't condone it, it's currently illegal. I actually suggested that she
> quit.

Stating that it should be decriminalized is just that. My request was
that it be taxed. Decriminalizing pot is condoning it.

By example, if we decriminalize murder, are we condoning murder?

> > You attempt to "mitigate" your
> > responsibility by lecturing her on the "responsible" use of the drug.
>
> My lecture preceded my statement that I support legalization. But you used
> the word right there.

How odd that you would claim something so deliterious to human
well-being at the individual and social level and then take the position
that you want it to be legal.

What's that about, Dutch?

In your opinion, Dutch, is the legalization of pot going to have no
effect on the use of the drug, see a decline, or see an increase in use?

Given your reiteration of the Balitmore numbers, does this mean you want
34.7 of the population in trauma centres, more than that, or less than
that?