LDs At Their Best: Legalise Cannabis/Ban Smoking

Indeed, when the only response to actual facts someone dislikes is to say "BS" without any actual attempt to refute those facts logically, the conclusion has to be that they have no valid argument but don't want to accept that they could be wrong.

He has yet to explain why cannabis should be dealt with more harshly than alcohol in spite of most of the evidence suggesting that alcohol is the more harmful, nor effectively refuted all the myriad ways that illegality makes it worse, whilst stopping very few who want to smoke it from doing so. I have actual experience of the scene from my younger days and have never known of a single instance where the law stopped anyone who wanted to do it from doing so. I cannot categorically say that this means no one has ever been deterred by the law anywhere, but unless there is a valid reason for arguing that my own personal experience is somehow not the norm, then it clearly tends to suggest that the law stops very few people who want to smoke it. And all the harmful effects made worse by it's illegality is a high price to pay for such piffling deterrence.

You know when someone is arguing emotively rather than logically because they cannot see their own double standards. For example, using the case of a stoned driver killing someone as a reason to keep it illegal, though clearly that fact did not stop him from getting stoned and driving. Yet all the numerous cases of drunk drivers killing people is not similarly used as an argument for prohibiting alcohol, merely banning driving under it's influence. Since driving under the influence of any intoxicant is already illegal and would remain so even if cannabis were legalised, this double standard needs to be engaged with logically if we are going to have a debate based upon logic and facts rather than emotion.

Yes it is.

But seems there is a pro cannabis and quite possibly cannabis using clique here.

Do you have anything to back up the assertion? 

You don't think posts in the 8 pages above would give that impression?

That is a very valid point. But most of the evidence in thus far tends to suggest that it is most damaging to young people under the age of 18. Supplying it legally with an age restriction would be more effective at preventing young people from buying it themselves than leaving it to criminals who dont give a hoot whether someone is under age or not.