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.

> > 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.

Your response of potentially discredits your earlier statement as to the
harm. In each case, you avoided using the term "potentially". Further,
stating drugs are potentially harmful is like saying that are "a bit
wrong".
>
> > 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?

> >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.

> > 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.

> >> 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.

> > 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.

> >> > 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?

> > 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.

> >> > 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.

> > 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.

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. Would you care to reason how this would happen?