In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "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...dDecriminaliza
> tion.asp

Cut and paste -- again.

I asked and you don't seem to have responded. Please give an example of
a law that "legalizes" a product or action?

> >> > 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?

I'll rephrase: is pot use absolustely harmful or a bit harmful?

> > Your response of potentially discredits your earlier statement as to the
> > harm.
>
> Not at all.

Of course, it does. Your presentation was that pot use was harmful save
for a fun high. Your entire presentation relied on an argument that the
substance was negative and harmful. Then, you revised your position to
one of potential harm. I ask you to clarify, as a question of logic and
a true or false answer...is pot harmful, or is pot not harmful, or is
pot a bit harmful?

> > 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.

So then, we can say that pot use is not absolutely harmful. We can say
that pot us is only a bit harmful.

> >> > 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.

Is the use of pot a good thing, or the right thing to do?

> >> >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?

I've offered several times to review any study publicly that you would
care to use to support such a contention, you have avoided/declined.
Parotting was is common and popular doesn't make it right or accurate,
it only makes it common and popular.

I'd be happy to revier the SEER statistics with you publicly which does
show some discrepancies about smoking and cancer rates.

> >> > 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.

Are you incapable of making the case on your own?

> >> >> 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.

I didn't find it in any open market place. It is available through the
"black market" or "underground" economy. However, if we use your
reasoning, a nuke is 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.

This is a common social fallacy. It is not, for example, illegal to use
the word "theif", however, the use of such a word could lead to libel
and slander charges or lawsuit. Clearly, the use of the word is "legaL"
which still leaves it free to be used in a civil lawsuit.

> >> > 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.

So, if one heeds your advice and does become an addict you are then
responsible. If one heeds your advice for responsible pot use and dies
as a result of their usage or attends a trauma centre, you are now
complicit.

> >> >> > 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.

It's only a bit harmful. It's isn't that bad. It isn't that wrong. Hmmmm.

> > 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.

I see. We only need to convince people to be responsible. Only to kill,
rape, rob, use heroin or crack periodically.

> >> > 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.

Can you provide an example where an act or product was
decriminalized/legalized and the government/society experienced such a
winfall?

Canada and the US experienced "dry"ness over prohibition of alcohol.
Legal restrictions were lifted and the product even taxed. No such
winfal wiping out health or other costs were realized.

> > 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?

Amsterdam. Large metropolitan centres like Vancouver and Toronto. Harm
reduction programs do not provide the winfall that is believed to occur.
Public health departments operate such programs throughout North America
without such winfalls. How much for example has Toronto or vancouver
gained financially from their needle exchange, safe sex and crack kit
distribution programs? How much "new" money has Amsterdam realized for
the accessibilty of pot?

> > 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.

Enforcement? Let's look at history. How many police were retired and let
go through attrition when prohibition ended in the US? Clearly, with the
legalization of alcohol there was no need for local, state or national
authorities to provide police services. What of the court and prison
systems? What were the number of layoffs because there were "fewer"
criminals to prosecute and incarcerate?

Law enforcement costs? What are the total number of arrests in any city
with pot use charges. There are so few arrests for possession of pot
now, that the city of Toronto might be able to terminate one officer,
but that's about it.

For a would be dealer though, this is quite another situation. If a
cigarette manufacter can be held civilly liable then, so to should the
grower/dealer.