She Was Denied Citizenship for Working in Legal Cannabis.

Something is not more or less harmful regardless of whether something else is more or less harmful.

 

Sure it is. If A is less harmful than B, and B is less harmful than C, then A is less harmful than C. Something can only be more or less harmful to the extent that it is more or less harmful than something else.

 

The two events had nothing to do with each other.

I am not interested in arguing philosophy. Just because some drugs are more dangerous than mj, does not make mj any less dangerous.

 

You can't describe events as "more" or "less" dangerous unless they can be compared. There doesn't have to be any causal link between them.

Sure it does. What else would mj be less dangerous than? Ice skating? Solar power? Hamas?

 

So you’re saying Muslims are stupid for banning alcohol? Got it

good to know that in your household you consider it equally stupid to ban your kids from sex, drugs and alcohol or anything else really since they could just do it anyway.

You’re a great anarchist

 

Among other things.

My kids were never interested in drugs or alcohol.

No idea what you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about.

 

So you've never heard of Portugal. And guess what, the problem is identified as lack of treatment facilities

 

Yes it does.

 

Doesn’t matter, according to you. Drugs or no drugs, alcohol or no alcohol, they had the freedom to use it and abuse it at their will. That’s your philosophy, however intellectually, and morally, bankrupt it is.

you have no idea what an anarchist is? Google is your friend.

 

Portugal isn’t Oregon is it

 

Its still inhabited by human beings right?

 

They are adults. I'm thinking I'll treat them as such.

I have no idea why you would identify my views with anarchism.

Google hasn't been anyone's friend but Google's for a while now. Their motto used to be, "Don't be evil." It was quietly dropped a few years ago. Can you guess why?

 

Your kids popped out of your wife as fully grown adults? That’s amazing! Alas, nobody else’s does, so your lousy parenting isn’t applicable to what other people should allow their kids to do.

You don’t have much of an idea of anything, other than drugs for all, including kids. Can’t figure out how drug lawlessness and zero standards can be associated with anarchy? How sad for you.

keep on thinking. Maybe you’ll stumble on another great idea. Lol

 

Too soon to really tell. After RvW, abortions initially went up, but then dropped down to levels below those before RvW. 10 Years should give us a true idea of the effectiveness of the policy.

 

I can’t argue that logic. However the story being told by the majority of voters in Oregon is different

 

But that doesn't make A any less harmful that it is. Kriman's point is that the existence of something more harmful does not negate or reduce the harm of something. Simply because A is less harmful than C is not a reason to make A legal. The amount of harm remains the same.

Now with that, the implied harm of A could be exaggerated, as we saw with marijuana. We can look at A compared to B or C, and then say, Hey that harm from A is not what we thought it was. It's less harm than B which is legal, so we can make A legal.

 

That means nothing as far as seeing what the effectiveness is. It's not uncommon for people to want to claim something not working, if it doesn't work immediately. Think of it similar to someone claiming that Tylenol doesn't work because 1 minute after taking it there is no reduction in pain. And sadly, I have had people actually think that.

 

But as I pointed out, if you realize that MJ is less dangerous than something already legal, then there is no good reason to maintain it illegal. Either that or you make the more dangerous illegal, despite it being legal all this time.

 

Do you think the fact that alcohol and tobacco are legal means children can use them the same as adults? Where on earth would you have got such a nonsensical notion?

Oh, wait a minute, that's right: when you realize you have no facts or logic to offer, you just make $#!+ up.

You felt you had to make that up because you have no actual arguments to offer. I get it.

Just can't help makin' $#!+ up, can you?

OK, so you are completely unaware of the fact that until the 20th century, it was very rare for governments to regulate use of drugs, yet they were not anarchistic.

Oh, I will. Count on it. You should try it for a change.

Maybe you’ll stumble on a fact. Stranger things have happened.

 

No, you do. You want legal drugs for all. You’ve said so and at no point said otherwise. And that went for your kids, which when I asked you about, you merely replied they weren’t interested in them, clearly indicating if they were, you wouldn’t have had a problem with it.

What a meandering response, don’t know why you bother, guess I’ve hit a nerve but you have no idea how to explain your drugs for all position in a way that doesn’t double down on my assessment of you.

how pathetically unfortunate for you.

A person who only argues for lack of laws, particularly as it relates to the direct undermining and deterioration of society is someone I’ll call anarchist until they prove otherwise. And so far you’ve flat out refused to apply any law in any context anywhere, let alone explain it.

So my assessment of you stands. Don’t like it? Then start actually talking, rather than meandering

 

The point is to use those other examples for purposes of comparison. For example, we know that consumption of cured meats is harmful. We compare that harm to the harm of eating fresh meats potentially contaminated with bacteria, and decide that eating cured meats is not so bad after all.

It is if C is legal. Otherwise, it's hypocrisy, or at least logical inconsistency.

That's the idea. Every large-scale, scientifically credible study of marijuana prohibition, dating all the way back to the British India Hemp Drugs Commission of 1894, has found that prohibiting marijuana does more harm than consuming it. Every single one.

 

I guess that must be why you can't quote me saying so....

No, you made that up. My view is that if my kids were interested in trying drugs, I would rather they not go to jail as well.

I'm satisfied that your assessment of me is as unfounded in fact as everything else you have said.

OK. So you don't know what anarchism is. That fits.

Which undermined society more, Prohibition or its repeal?

<yawn> Try addressing what I have actually written, rather than just what you have made up.

 

I told you not to meander. Trouble following basic instructions?

it’s really simple. You don’t agree with my assessment of you, then say something specific to clarify your position. You refuse to. Post after post you just blather on in mindless repetition of blanket denial. it’d be hilarious if it weren’t so transparently pathetic.

Drug lawlessness is what you want and you want it for everyone including kids. Only reason your own kids aren’t doing drugs is because they didn’t feel like it rather than you having any kind of a problem with it.

Drugs undermine society, society crumbles and your anarchy panacea can finally exist. Oh how fun for you it will be.

Too bad it will never happen

 

Your comments are not related to anything I wrote. What a waste of electricity.