"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Dutch" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Ron" > wrote
>> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>> No, legalization.
>
> Nothing can be "legalized". Criminal acts can be decriminalized. The law
> doesn't denote what is legal, but does indicate what is illegal.

You are mistaken, the term decriminalization refers to half-measures like
not pursuing users while leaving production and trafficking illegal.
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/sec...nalization.asp

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

>> Potentially.
>
> That was a logical question, a True or False is acceptable.

You demand a yes or no answer when both are inferior responses?

> Your response of potentially discredits your earlier statement as to the
> harm.

Not at all.

> In each case, you avoided using the term "potentially". Further,
> stating drugs are potentially harmful is like saying that are "a bit
> wrong".

Not at all, lots of activities are potentially dangerous or harmful if not
done with care, caution and/or moderation, like driving a car, or
jaywalking.

>> > Do you think pot is wrong?
>>
>> Pot can't be wrong, that's a moral value.
>
> Correction: do you think that pot use is wrong or right?

Nope.

>> >Given your attempt to influence the vegan and
>> > help her, I would say yes.
>>
>> It's potentially harmful.
>
> Why the change. You have consistently commented that there is harm. I
> questioned you on "worst case scenarios". Now, you have modified your
> position from harmful to potentially harmful.

The facts about drugs use and smoking are as plain as can be, why are you
having such difficulty grasping them?

>> > Given the evidence seems to be that you think pot harmful and wrong,
>> > how
>> > can you take the position of decriminalizing the drug?
>>
>> Criminalization makes the problem worse.
>
> Please make your case.

Long story, see "War on Drugs" see "Overloaded Prisons" see tax dollars down
the drain, see kids with criminal records, see no resources for education,
and I still think you're trolling.

>> >> 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.
>>
>> Yes it will.
>
> Please make your case.

See above.

>> > 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?
>>
>> It's already on the open marketplace.
>
> It is an illegal product. It is in the underground marketplace. It is
> rare to find pot as a legal substance. In those instances, it qualifies
> as a controlled substance.

It's easily available to anyone who wants it.

>> >> > 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.
>>
>> I don't want to decriminalize it, and one cannot condone a plant.
>
> Can you indicate a law that "legalizes" something versus a law that
> decriminalizes a thing?

I see your logic, but you're wrong. Legalizing means removing from the
criminal code.

>> > By example, if we decriminalize murder, are we condoning murder?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> So then, legalizing/decriminalizing pot is condoning it. You are
> condoning pot by seeking legalization. Yet, you state it as harmful.

Potentially, yes, if one does not heed the advice of people like me.

>> >> > 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.
>>
>> Pot isn't that harmful if used responsibly.
>
> Ya, like saying it's a bit wrong. It's only a bit harmful if you use as
> you would like people to use.

Basically, yes, once in a while, at a party or concert, not constantly after
work and on weekends.
>
>> > 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?
>>
>> I would expect an initial increase of the number of users but a decrease
>> in
>> the amount of abuse due to the vast amount of money that will be
>> available
>> for treatment and education.
>
> Please explain.

No, troll.

> There is nothing in your position thus far that indicates that "abuse"
> would drop off in any way, shape or form.
>
>> The coffers of our government will be overflowing with money. Our health
>> care system will be fixed overnight.
>
> Wishful thinking. "Harm reduction" models the world over don't produce
> those results.

Example?

> Would you care to reason how this would happen?

Simple, produce pot and sell it, reap the profits, save the money currently
spent on enforcement and put a fraction back into treatment and education.