[Agamemnon]

Seriously, I now see DFF's frustration with trying to argue with you; you simply read what you want into any argument to make it easier for you to try to knock down.

Maybe your arguments are easily misinterpreted.

QUOTE=Agamemnon,May 29 2005, 08:33 AM]You equated liquor/cigarette/marijuana consumption in society with stab-wounds in a person. That comparison is _massively_ slanted, and basically presumes that, like being stabbed, these substances threaten the very fabric and life of society. I think that's overblowing it. A lot.

If liquor/weed are so evil for society that they are compared to being stabbed in an individual, why is one encouraged, and the other forbidden?

I said this explicitely before and I'll say it again: I'M NOT EQUATING SMOKING POT WITH BEING STABBED, NOR AM I SAYING IT'S BAD OR EVIL, I'm just using it as an example of something that also causes harm, albeit much more, in order to show the flawed logic in the argument that if one activity is accepted any other equivalent activity should be automatically accepted as well.

Lovely exercise in semantics, but all you've done is replace the words 'bad or evil' with 'harm'. A negative connotation, as I was always saying. Maybe you're the one not hearing me, instead of vice versa. Or maybe you used a bad example.

Seriously, it's like you're trying to misunderstand me.

You seem to think that the only relevant question is whether there is symmetry in the laws. You're just standing with your hands in over your ears saying "Treat them the same, Treat them the same, Treat them the same" over and over again, refusing to address any further arguments.

But any responsible gov't has to go further than that and ask "What would be the effect of treating them the same?" and if the answer is "Society would be greatly harmed" then any responsible gov't will maintain the imbalance. It's not an arbitrary imbalance done 'just because', but a reasoned one.

That's where the Smoking & Asbestos argument is relevant.

Would you honestly go before Parliament and say, "If you're not going to make smoking illegal, then I demand you legalize the use of asbestos. Despite the fact that it will cause cancer, illness and death to many Canadians it is incumbent on you to allow its use in order to create symmetry in our laws!"?

I certainly hope you wouldn't, because it's an absolutely moronic and irresponsible demand. Legal symmetry doesn't trump the right to health and safety.

And again as I've said before, if you go on to apply that further consideration of the effect of legalizing pot I'm not sure where it comes out. It could be that the benefits of legalization resut in a net benefit to society. But the refusal to address it isn't going to aid the legalization argument.

I guess. I'd suggest it's pretty legitimate that, when making/deciding legal legislation, all other aspects of society be taken into account. It's great to try and isolate issues from reality to explore theories, but, at the end of the day, we live in reality. You can't separate related-issues from each other 'just because'. While I'm not suggesting that 'if A=1 then B MUST=1', I'm saying that, when assigning value to A, to completely ignore B is a mistake. B must be taken into context and examined.

Some people here bring up the health-costs of marijuana. Should we look at bringing up the health costs of every substance in society? Sugar? Fat? Tar? Should all of these be illegal, because marijuana is, ostensibly for health/addiction reasons? There are plenty of unhealthy/addictive substances in society.

Show me where and how this one is different. Show me why many, many 'harmful' substances are allowed, and this one, arbitrarily, isn't. 'Because one more vice will break the camel's back?'. I doubt it. Marijuana use is already prevalent.

As I said, it's harder to take an activity that is currently legal and completely integrated into every aspect of our lives and make it illegal than it is the enforce a current law. Trying to equate the extent of pot use in Canada and the extent of alcohol use is laughable.

I think marijuana is well on its way to becoming 'integrated into every aspect of our lives'. I think that, because of this, it is as impossible to enforce as you're claiming banning alcohol would be. In fact, since BC is already growing $6 billion a year's worth, retail, doesn't that mean that enforcement is a complete failure so far?

I think the comparisons between marijuana and alcohol are extremely apt. Alcohol would be impossible to ban, and marijuana, I believe, is proving to be the same. It will just take a matter of time before we realize that it's here to stay, and there's nothing we can do about it short of starting our own 'war on drugs'. But those haven't proven to work too well, so far.