Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
I am saying it is possible to advocate for pot remaining illegal and alcohol remaining legal and remain consistent.
I am guessing that you are getting confused by the conjection. I see no argument yet given as to why you should be advocating pot being illegal AND be advocating that alcohol remains legal. The best I have heard thus far is a tactical argument that says we will only focus on the first of these for tactical reasons, even though you and I both don't think this was what the pope is doing, and wasn't what anyone was originally talking about.
Quote:
I am a legislator required to do two cost benefit analysis, one on the legalisation of cannabis, another the criminalisation of alcohol. It is plausible that the CBA returns in favour of the status quo being maintained, whether it would or not is disputable but their different status can lead us to recommend no change in the law, where is the inconsistency there?
So basically "if the answer is the status quo is best, wouldn't the status quo be best"? Obviously. But the point is that their is no good reason to think the status quo is best.
Quote:
I am not a hypocrite if I consider myself a member of the minority who can drink responsibly and participate while it's legal to do so while being prepared to forgo my legal past time in order that a greater benefit for society be delivered.
Okay, well done, you get your out. But it doesn't much change things. If you are in the category where you think both pot and alcohol should be banned, well great, I don't accuse you of any consistency. If you are in the category where you think only one of these should be banned, then I have yet to see a shred of justification for this position. And it seems like the pope is in this category, as well as many of your earlier statements about all the other people in this category that I thought you were defending.