3 ms·

Yearly alcohol overdose deaths: 88k Yearly marijuana overdose deaths: 0 Supporting alcohol use in any form is logically inconsistent with your argument.

Chris2048 10y ago
Alcohol which is legal versus marijuana which isn't, with no sensitivity to harm beyond fatality? No sensitivity to social issues arising from marijuana use; Can marijuana contribute to depression, for example. You are incorrect in assuming your arguments are conclusive.
- cmdrfred 10y ago
  Alcohol certainly contributes to depression. It also causes a great deal of social harm. If you heatmap crime in a city bars are often the epicenters of violent crime. Factor in that the majority of sexual assaults and domestic abuse cases involve alcohol and I'm not sure what your argument is.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    Alcohol contributes to depression in excess, in small regular quantities what harm is there? > If you heatmap crime... Again, look at all the problems I had with your original arguments. Alcohol is legal, and hence there is far more opportunity to abuse it. Small, regular amounts of alcohol is likely not be be harmful at all - all problems arise from excess, hence there is an argument for restriction, not criminalization. Why are you talking about alcohol rather than marijuana in any case? Your comparison is a straw-man - whatever can be concluded about alcohol doesn't necessarily apply to marijuana.
    - cmdrfred 10y ago
      Why are you talking about alcohol rather than marijuana in any case? Your assertion was that legalizing cannabis would cause social harm. If your goal is preventing harm then you must also criminalise the currently legal recreational drugs to be logically consistent.
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        > then you must also criminalise No you don't, did you read what I wrote!
        cmdrfred 10y ago
        Drug that does objectively more damage = legal Drug that does objectively less damage = illegal, it is too damaging You have a right to an opinion, but logic is not open to interpretation.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > logic is not open to interpretation. It is; you are just making up rules and calling them "logic". These are just your arguments, and they are flawed and inconclusive. Again, read my comments, I'm not interested in your comparisons if you don't even answer to the problems with your own arguments.

Chris2048 10y ago

Alcohol which is legal versus marijuana which isn't, with no sensitivity to harm beyond fatality? No sensitivity to social issues arising from marijuana use; Can marijuana contribute to depression, for example. You are incorrect in assuming your arguments are conclusive.

cmdrfred 10y ago
Alcohol certainly contributes to depression. It also causes a great deal of social harm. If you heatmap crime in a city bars are often the epicenters of violent crime. Factor in that the majority of sexual assaults and domestic abuse cases involve alcohol and I'm not sure what your argument is.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  Alcohol contributes to depression in excess, in small regular quantities what harm is there? > If you heatmap crime... Again, look at all the problems I had with your original arguments. Alcohol is legal, and hence there is far more opportunity to abuse it. Small, regular amounts of alcohol is likely not be be harmful at all - all problems arise from excess, hence there is an argument for restriction, not criminalization. Why are you talking about alcohol rather than marijuana in any case? Your comparison is a straw-man - whatever can be concluded about alcohol doesn't necessarily apply to marijuana.
  - cmdrfred 10y ago
    Why are you talking about alcohol rather than marijuana in any case? Your assertion was that legalizing cannabis would cause social harm. If your goal is preventing harm then you must also criminalise the currently legal recreational drugs to be logically consistent.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > then you must also criminalise No you don't, did you read what I wrote!
      - cmdrfred 10y ago
        Drug that does objectively more damage = legal Drug that does objectively less damage = illegal, it is too damaging You have a right to an opinion, but logic is not open to interpretation.
        Chris2048 10y ago
        > logic is not open to interpretation. It is; you are just making up rules and calling them "logic". These are just your arguments, and they are flawed and inconclusive. Again, read my comments, I'm not interested in your comparisons if you don't even answer to the problems with your own arguments.