[Hipfan734]

Your smugly sarcastic and dismissive tendency shows that you...

you can only utter ad hominem retorts to cover up your intellectual impotence and false accusations in the debate realm.

cratch:

Out of context artificial construction of an *apparent* contradiction.

[cferneyh]

In the same thread, within a couple of posts of each other, you accuse one poster of being dismissive, and another poster of "intellectual impotence" and then call it "out of context". Seriously?

:lol:

[mojo_mattv]

Your smugly sarcastic and dismissive tendency shows that you...

you can only utter ad hominem retorts to cover up your intellectual impotence and false accusations in the debate realm.

cratch:

Thankyou, lol.

[Hipfan734]

In the same thread, within a couple of posts of each other, you accuse one poster of being dismissive, and another poster of "intellectual impotence" and then call it "out of context". Seriously?

:lol:

Your logic is flawed, and disconnected from context.

[Hipfan734]

For the record I say legalize pot, let the "corporations and big business" mass produce it, and tax the hell out of it, just like tobacco and alcohol.

WTF???? I would trust that weed even less than the shit that you buy on the streets...they'd be adding all sorts of shit to make it more addictive once there was a profit to be had off of it for them...

Like Pepsi, or McDonald's or w/e.

Who said you can't frequent small time operations ? In Edmonton, I went to the Good Food restaurant once, best fries and burgers I ever had. Currently, you can make your own soft drinks and burgers own your own. If the ONLY legal operations allowed in the marketplace were the most malicious of MegaCorps, you'd have a point. Also, Subway isn't = to Mcdonalds, is it ?

So, as long as the regulations and inspections are strong, and as long as they let small time and medium sized operators into the cannabis marketplace, the above ground cannabis supply would be better for society than the underground cannabis supply.

It would be important to not let the biggest corportions lobby the industry or write up the regulations.

[Hipfan734]

Your smugly sarcastic and dismissive tendency shows that you...

you can only utter ad hominem retorts to cover up your intellectual impotence and false accusations in the debate realm.

cratch:

Thankyou, lol.

Are you a cliqueish alcoholic ?

[skippy the wonder dog]

Your smugly sarcastic and dismissive tendency shows that you...

-ignore the vast discrepancy in fatalities (cannabis being entirely non-lethal)
-ignore the vast discrepancy in addictiveness (alcohol being rated by medical doctors as much more addictive, where as cannabis is relatively non-addictive)

No, I'm not ignoring that at all. I'm not arguing that cannabis is more harmful than alcohol, or that cannabis should remain illegal. I am arguing -- and please read this slowly, so it sinks in this time -- that cannabis is not as benign as cannabis activists claim. Full stop.

I have also argued that the pro-cannabis lobby uses false arguments to suggest that Aunt Mildred's glass of wine with dinner is somehow more dangerous than cannabis use, which it is not. This false argument harms their credibility.

Your monomaniacal focus on lethality and addictiveness is a handy straw man for you, but it has nothing to do with my argument.

-imply that I entirely dismiss potential psychological harm done by heavy cannabis use (which I do not, I simply state the research is new, often inconclusive, and potentially flawed)

.... and "a smear," i.e. a false statement made to demonize cannabis.

You have, indeed, entirely dismissed any research that suggests cannabis is not as benign as you would like to think. You're now backing off calling it a smear, but still dismiss it as new and unverified, and state that more research is required before the results can be accepted.

Cannabis is not entirely benign. It's certainly not as dangerous as it was once made out to be, but dismissing all the research findings you don't like isn't constructive. It's not very good for your credibility.

[skippy the wonder dog]

That doesn't mean that a different marketplace scenario can't be envisioned and set up. So, just because I oppose and criticize the current paradigm infrastructure, doesn't mean I'm automatically a hippie commie. Such a fallacy of false alternatives is invalid, as I am advocating a viable 3rd(4th/5th) alternative.

This raises a number of interesting questions, such as:
- what is a paradigm infrastructure, precisely? Is that something you build out of buzzwords, like a philosophy made of Lego?
- has there ever been a fallacy of true alternatives, and if so, was it valid?
- is a 3rd(4th/5th) alternative actually a 2.4th alternative, as my dimly recalled math suggests? I remember Sarah M----- far more clearly; she sat in the next row, one seat ahead, and possessed a devastatingly elegant neck ... consequently, I remember my math poorly. But I digress.

Anyway, please do keep it up.

[The Horrible Esthete]

I have also argued that the pro-cannabis lobby uses false arguments to suggest that Aunt Mildred's glass of wine with dinner is somehow more dangerous than cannabis use, which it is not. This false argument harms their credibility.

Such an argument would indeed harm the credibility of the movement, as that claim is ridiculous.

But as with any "cause" for activism, there is always that "lunatic fringe" whose arguments are not embraced (and often rejected outright) by the more 'sensible', central contingent.

Wouldn't you agree that the 'sensible' contingent of pro-legalization activists does have a valid argument when they assert that alcohol abuse has greater quantitative physical, social, and economic ill-effects?

[mojo_mattv]

For the record I say legalize pot, let the "corporations and big business" mass produce it, and tax the hell out of it, just like tobacco and alcohol.

WTF???? I would trust that weed even less than the shit that you buy on the streets...they'd be adding all sorts of shit to make it more addictive once there was a profit to be had off of it for them...

Like Pepsi, or McDonald's or w/e.

Who said you can't frequent small time operations ? In Edmonton, I went to the Good Food restaurant once, best fries and burgers I ever had. Currently, you can make your own soft drinks and burgers own your own. If the ONLY legal operations allowed in the marketplace were the most malicious of MegaCorps, you'd have a point. Also, Subway isn't = to Mcdonalds, is it ?

So, as long as the regulations and inspections are strong, and as long as they let small time and medium sized operators into the cannabis marketplace, the above ground cannabis supply would be better for society than the underground cannabis supply.

It would be important to not let the biggest corportions lobby the industry or write up the regulations.

I do believe that if Canada were to legalize marijuana, and I'm sure there are many others who will agree, it will not be under the conditions that it can be privately sold. The government would ensure that it is dispensed through a government owned organizations much like the LCBO with alcohol.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Wouldn't you agree that the 'sensible' contingent of pro-legalization activists does have a valid argument when they assert that alcohol abuse has greater quantitative physical, social, and economic ill-effects?

In principle, yes, although when you get to the specifics you usually find people playing fast and loose with definitions for rhetorical effect.

However, that's an argument against banning cannabis, and it's many years too late. What the legalization movement fails to grasp is that they need an argument for legalization.

[The Horrible Esthete]

I do believe that if Canada were to legalize marijuana, and I'm sure there are many others who will agree, it will not be under the conditions that it can be privately sold. The government would ensure that it is dispensed through a government owned organizations much like the LCBO with alcohol.

But the problem there is that unlike alcohol, cannabis can be easily produced privately, at extremely low cost, and at a level of quality which is comparable or better than anything that could be mass-produced. Thus, the issue of controlling its "sale" would be a moot concern.

It would be impossible to de-criminalize this type of organic "produce", yet still try to restrict private production.

[VioletlightHeron]

I do believe that if Canada were to legalize marijuana, and I'm sure there are many others who will agree, it will not be under the conditions that it can be privately sold. The government would ensure that it is dispensed through a government owned organizations much like the LCBO with alcohol.

But the problem there is that unlike alcohol, cannabis can be easily produced privately, at extremely low cost, and at a level of quality which is comparable or better than anything that could be mass-produced. Thus, the issue of controlling its "sale" would be a moot concern.

It would be impossible to de-criminalize this type of organic "produce", yet still try to restrict private production.

I also think there would be a secondary market for those who do not like paying taxes on goods and there would be a strong probability that this secondary market would be run by gangs and organized crime outfits.

[skippy the wonder dog]

It's unlikely the government would attempt to regulate or control anything except the sale of the finished product. That would be very difficult to enforce, and as VLH points out, would not get rid of the problem of drug-related organized crime.

Remember, you can brew your own wine and beer, and you can grow your own tobacco. It's only distilling your own liquor that's against the law.

[The Horrible Esthete]

Right, skip.

But tobacco requires a specific climes and soils, and can't really be grown indoors. And the processing of the plant is also dependent on some pretty specific conditions. Growing it for personal use would require living in a specific region and have a drying barn.

Brewing beer and making wine is difficult. They are sensitive, complicated processes, and require a lot of knowledge and expertise (or trial and error), not to mention select ingredients (which you won't find at the corner store), and material resources.

Cannabis, on the other hand, is an extremely hardy plant that can be grown everywhere, with little effort, and virtually no startup cost or material resources.

I mean....it's a freakin weed...