"Ron" > wrote
> "Dutch" > wrote:

>> >> > > -snip-
>> >> > >
>> >> > > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
>> >> >
>> >> > The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read
>> >> > your
>> >> > remarks.
>> >>
>> >> That would be great.
>> >
>> > Good thing that we view moral codes differently.
>>
>> It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.
>
> I know, it is good for you. Being one of those who accepts every piece
> of information thrown their way with no thought or consideration is
> exactly what makes you better than me. You rock, Dutch.

I am reading, considering, and dismissing virtually everything you say as
irrational claptrap, therefore that can't be true, Ron.

> No please respond to the latest question, if it isn't too much trouble.
>
> When I advocate for the removal of a law (legalization) am I, or am I
> not advocating for that action or behaviour?

You may, but not necessarily. In the case of pot smoking you may be
acknowledging that the status of illegal results in more net harm than
having it legal. Of course you are then required to make the case, and many
people, including myself, have done so.

Now please do yourself a favour and go back to whatever *** people do well..