On May 22, 5:02 am, "Aidy"  wrote:

> > "Also"? So you concede that it is in fact an argument for legalization
> > and regulation?
>
> Cool, now we're playing semantics.  Sure beats tackling the actual arguments
> at hand, especially if you can't.

Straw man. I tackled your actual arguments (such as they are) later in
the post ... and clarifying your meaning is hardly "semantics."

> By saying "also" I avoid stating your remarks are wrong.  If I say "you are
> wrong and here is an additional point" then you will ignore the additional
> point

Wrong again. As a fortune-teller, you're a great janitor.

> and instead focus on the fact that I said you were wrong, which you
> will deny

I should accept it because you say so?

> and it gets us nowhere.
>
> In addition, just because something is an argument for something doesn't
> make it valid or correct.  You could say that Huntley was an argument for
> bringing back hanging...but being an argument and being a valid argument are
> two different things.

A statement that applies as much to your argument as to mine.

> > Definitely ... but since many people are not persuaded by that
> > argument, we need to proceed with legalization and regulation.
>
> Not everyone is persuaded that you shouldn't rape and murder yet many still
> do.  Should we proceed to legalise and regulate rape and murder?
>
> BTW feel free to ignore the point of the above analogy and instead focus on
> how taking drugs and killing people are not the same thing.

"Not everyone is persuaded" to obey laws against X is a point in favor
of legalizing X that is outweighed by X's being a violation of the
rights of others (there's me directly addressing the point of your
analogy) ... but while rape and murder are violations of the rights of
others, drug sale, use, and possession are not.