Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Guess you haven't heard of medical marijuana. If being less beneficial is not a case for banning something, the what is the underlying principle that allows you to consistently ban marijuana but not tobacco and alcohol?So it has no health benefit for a healthy person.
Alcohol has health benefits for the average person, with increased life expectancy across the board.
It is no wonder our military suffers with health providers like you.
Aren't there many drugs which are legal yet have no benefit to healthy people?
I'm also curious if it's alcohol which provides benefits or certain types of alcohol. I've heard that red wine can be beneficial, but it is not simply the alcohol content which is the reason. What are the benefits of alcohol that are true for all alcoholic beverages? I'm not saying they don't exist, simply that I'm unaware of what they are.
Of course, the idea that something must benefit society or be illegal is ridiculous, but let's ignore that for the moment.
What recreational drugs are legal but have no benefit to healthy people??
It seems that while red wine is the winner, many studies simply measure alcohol intake and moderate drinkers have considerably longer lifespans than non drinkers. In fact heavy drinkers have longer life spans than non drinkers, but not as long as moderates.
I am not saying something must be beneficial or be banned. I am saying that alcohol is not remotely comparable to illicit drugs for many many reasons, among them the health benefits.
Law are not made on the basis of individuals. I can safely drive a car at 90mph. That doesnt mean speed limits shouldn't apply to me.
Legalizing drugs will incresae their use. Does anyone argue this is a good thing?
You dont like executing criminals? Sorry for you.
We legalized tobacco in spite of the drain that it puts on health-care costs. Alcohol is legal even though some people can't handle booze. Let's outlaw alcohol consumption. We can execute alcoholics.
Red herring of an argument.
Did you think of this one all on your own?
A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. Clearly, referencing tobacco when debating drug law is not a red herring. The Rabbi likes to call any argument that he can't respond to a type of fallacy so he can avoid discussion.We legalized tobacco in spite of the drain that it puts on health-care costs. Alcohol is legal even though some people can't handle booze. Let's outlaw alcohol consumption. We can execute alcoholics.
Red herring of an argument.
Did you think of this one all on your own?
I'm not clear on what "red herring" means. My point is that practically all things are relative. We allow people do do some things that are dangerous. We do not allow people to do other things that might me less dangerous or more dangerous. For instance, what should the speed limit be. Why not set the speed limit at 40mph. That seems like a very safe speed. Some people have serious traffic accidents when driving 50mph. Let's execute shoplifters. Would that take a bite out of crime?
We legalized tobacco in spite of the drain that it puts on health-care costs. Alcohol is legal even though some people can't handle booze. Let's outlaw alcohol consumption. We can execute alcoholics.
Red herring of an argument.
Did you think of this one all on your own?
I'm not clear on what "red herring" means. My point is that practically all things are relative. We allow people do do some things that are dangerous. We do not allow people to do other things that might me less dangerous or more dangerous. For instance, what should the speed limit be. Why not set the speed limit at 40mph. That seems like a very safe speed. Some people have serious traffic accidents when driving 50mph. Let's execute shoplifters. Would that take a bite out of crime?
Red herring of an argument.
Did you think of this one all on your own?
I'm not clear on what "red herring" means. My point is that practically all things are relative. We allow people do do some things that are dangerous. We do not allow people to do other things that might me less dangerous or more dangerous. For instance, what should the speed limit be. Why not set the speed limit at 40mph. That seems like a very safe speed. Some people have serious traffic accidents when driving 50mph. Let's execute shoplifters. Would that take a bite out of crime?
It's an inappropriate analogy to say "X is legal therefore Y should be legal." There are dozens of differences between X and Y.
We could execute shoplifters but do shoplifters do more than cause some property loss? We don't execute people for causing property loss.
Saying "X is legal therefore Y should be legal" is not a red herring fallacy. And you can argue that if X is legal Y should be legal if you have a logical connection as to why, which was provided. You don't know the fist thing about logical fallacies.Red herring of an argument.
Did you think of this one all on your own?
I'm not clear on what "red herring" means. My point is that practically all things are relative. We allow people do do some things that are dangerous. We do not allow people to do other things that might me less dangerous or more dangerous. For instance, what should the speed limit be. Why not set the speed limit at 40mph. That seems like a very safe speed. Some people have serious traffic accidents when driving 50mph. Let's execute shoplifters. Would that take a bite out of crime?
It's an inappropriate analogy to say "X is legal therefore Y should be legal." There are dozens of differences between X and Y.
We could execute shoplifters but do shoplifters do more than cause some property loss? We don't execute people for causing property loss.
I'm not clear on what "red herring" means. My point is that practically all things are relative. We allow people do do some things that are dangerous. We do not allow people to do other things that might me less dangerous or more dangerous. For instance, what should the speed limit be. Why not set the speed limit at 40mph. That seems like a very safe speed. Some people have serious traffic accidents when driving 50mph. Let's execute shoplifters. Would that take a bite out of crime?
It's an inappropriate analogy to say "X is legal therefore Y should be legal." There are dozens of differences between X and Y.
We could execute shoplifters but do shoplifters do more than cause some property loss? We don't execute people for causing property loss.
Ok... then why SHOULDN'T pot be legal... in your opinion, of course?
It's an inappropriate analogy to say "X is legal therefore Y should be legal." There are dozens of differences between X and Y.
We could execute shoplifters but do shoplifters do more than cause some property loss? We don't execute people for causing property loss.
Ok... then why SHOULDN'T pot be legal... in your opinion, of course?
BEcause I dont support turning this country into a nation of potheads.
Of course for someone like you who would notice?
It's an inappropriate analogy to say "X is legal therefore Y should be legal." There are dozens of differences between X and Y.
We could execute shoplifters but do shoplifters do more than cause some property loss? We don't execute people for causing property loss.
Ok... then why SHOULDN'T pot be legal... in your opinion, of course?
BEcause I dont support turning this country into a nation of potheads.
Of course for someone like you who would notice?
Ok... then why SHOULDN'T pot be legal... in your opinion, of course?
BEcause I dont support turning this country into a nation of potheads.
Of course for someone like you who would notice?
Ok... at the risk of repeating myself... FUCK YOU.
I haven't smoked pot since my early 20's(I am now 46). A nation of potheads? Those that do, will... those that don't, won't. I guess a nation of alcoholics is fine with you though.
Truthfully, I have no skin in this game. But because I have partaken of the drug in my early years... I know the effects and I know that a "nation of Potheads" is no more likely than a nation of Alcoholics... in fact, I'd be willing to bet that a nation of potheads is significantly LESS likely than a nation of alcoholics...simply because scientific studies have shown that Marijuana is not physically addictive.... but alcohol is.
Ok... then why SHOULDN'T pot be legal... in your opinion, of course?
BEcause I dont support turning this country into a nation of potheads.
Of course for someone like you who would notice?
You are guilty of a non-sequitur. It does not necessarily follow that the USA would be a nation of potheads any more than this is a nation of tobacco-addicts or alcoholics.
BEcause I dont support turning this country into a nation of potheads.
Of course for someone like you who would notice?
You are guilty of a non-sequitur. It does not necessarily follow that the USA would be a nation of potheads any more than this is a nation of tobacco-addicts or alcoholics.
It is not a non sequitur. You dont know waht that means.
Is pot use going to incresae or decrease if it is made legal?
You are guilty of a non-sequitur. It does not necessarily follow that the USA would be a nation of potheads any more than this is a nation of tobacco-addicts or alcoholics.
It is not a non sequitur. You dont know waht that means.
Is pot use going to incresae or decrease if it is made legal?
I think that pot-use will increase a little bit, but not to the extent that it will make the USA a "nation of potheads". Besides, isn't it the republicans that call for personal responsibility and call for government to get off our backs? I also think that any societal damage that might occur from a possible increase in the number of addicts will be outweighed by such things as less tax money spent on drug-crime. It will reduce prison over-crowding. It may even reduce drug-related crime since the price for marijuana and the transport of marijuana will greatly decline.
So your answer is yes it will increase.
Do you think that's a good thing for this country?
How many robberies, rapes, and murders have involved drugs? The answer is virtually all of them. Why you would want to introduce more drugs to increase more violent crime is known only to you. No rational person would suggest it.
People were making large careers, sneaking around the ban on alcoholic, committing illegal activities, and killing people. However, we don't see Al Capones running around now.
It is not a non sequitur. You dont know waht that means.
Is pot use going to incresae or decrease if it is made legal?
I think that pot-use will increase a little bit, but not to the extent that it will make the USA a "nation of potheads". Besides, isn't it the republicans that call for personal responsibility and call for government to get off our backs? I also think that any societal damage that might occur from a possible increase in the number of addicts will be outweighed by such things as less tax money spent on drug-crime. It will reduce prison over-crowding. It may even reduce drug-related crime since the price for marijuana and the transport of marijuana will greatly decline.
So your answer is yes it will increase.
Do you think that's a good thing for this country?
How many robberies, rapes, and murders have involved drugs? The answer is virtually all of them. Why you would want to introduce more drugs to increase more violent crime is known only to you. No rational person would suggest it.
People were making large careers, sneaking around the ban on alcoholic, committing illegal activities, and killing people. However, we don't see Al Capones running around now.
Try vacationing in Juarez, Mexico and tell us about it if you make it back.
