She Was Denied Citizenship for Working in Legal Cannabis.

You look at one statement which you disagree with and conclude the study is not credible. Do you actually have a valid reason to conclude the study was not credible?

Regardless of whether you agree with this study, the deaths and illness due to alcohol went down significantly.

 

What is fair is treating everyone equally under the law. Currently, marijuana is illegal, and so people who work in the marijuana industry are doing so illegally. It would be UNFAIR for the feds to JAIL one for dealing marijuana, and then grant citizenship to another, who was doing the same thing.

 

You missed the point. Not a problem.

 

by that logic, playing football can be harmful to one's health, which means it's not less harmful than doing anything else that is harmful - so why is it allowed in our schools?

 

this is the kinda danger the war on drugs brings - it's dangerous for both citizens and cops

 

Football can be dangerous. However, it teaches leadership skills and discipline in addition to building a stronger body. It is a tradeoff.

They don't play football because there are other activities which are more dangerous. They do it based on its own merits

.

 

Well since you started this thread, you should know the OP intent, however the way I read the OP was that pot was legal and some poor immigrant was being mistreated because of that. That's simply not the reality of the situation.

If you think the real argument is to make it legal, that's different from some person who has already violated existing federal laws.

 

but they are children, and it's not less harmful, harmful is harmful.... right?

 

whoops, posted this in the wrong thread

 

It has nothing to do with it.

 

Thought you guys were for states rights, but only about certain things I guess.

 

Gee that really has nothing to do with this issue does it?

 

Yes it does.

 

And I think what you know about botany has filled quite a few text books.

 

the study argues for the restoration of the Volstead Act. I gave a sound reason refuting the premise. Please reread my comment.

Health is not the argument.

The argument is for or against prohibition.

Now, are you saying you favor restoration of the Volstead Act?

And, if you are, are you using that argument to argue for continued federal prohibition of cannabis? Because that, not alcohol, is the topic under discussion.

 

the OP is arguing that cannabis should be removed as a schedule one drug.

That is the argument.

 

And health is why I am for prohibition.

 

you asked how something harmful could be less harmful, so are you now saying something harmful can be less harmful?

 

one can use marijuana and alcohol in a healthy way, and they can abuse it

 

I don't see the connection between arsenic and cannabis. For one thing, arsenic is not a 'controlled substance' like cannabis is, though it's use is regulated.

So, please enlightenment on said point missed.

thanks.

 

That was a secondary point, but the main argument is that we should legalize post, federally. What we have currently is prohibition of a product millions want and use, whether it's a schedule one drug, or not.

 

That is not what I asked. I asked how using something more harmful justified using something less harmful.

 

non sequitur.

what I know about botany is irrelevant to the point.

 

If you are under about 25, you cannot use either in a healthy way because they destroy your brain cells. There have been numerous studies. Over about 25, it is problematic.

 

lol, sure you can, as long as you do not abuse