rdmcandie wrote:
Quote:
You seemed to be implying that any "natural" drugs shouldn't be banned. But there's really no way to make that claim without it being fallacious (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature). Pot being "natural" or not has nothing to do with anything, really.
heh yet man made chemically produced drugs that have been shown to cause serious health issues are legal, hell cold medication can cause you more health issues than smoking a gram of pot a day and you can buy those off the shelf in any super market. Heck they even use cold medications to make drugs like meth, infact meth is mostly created using everyday items found in a super market.
You can diddle in your mindset all you want. The only reason pot isn't legal is because it is natural and anyone can grow it. Not to mention hemp oil has been show to cure skin cancers, as well as the stalk being used to make paper, the stalk and leaves can also be made to create clothing. That is three decent sized markets that are affected by one single plant. No the reason it is illegal is because it is natural.
As for cocaine and mushrooms these were used as painkillers, and cocaine was used as an energy supplement, long before pharmaceutical companies forced lobbied to have them banned. Hell Cocaine was consumed by children up until the early 50's in Coca Cola, they removed it and added an *** load of sugar.
If you want to argue the history of these drugs I suggest you do a bit more research and not link random anecdotal comments from lolwiki. When you are ready to seriously discuss the reasons why ill be around. These three drugs should be legal and they should be made available for consumption. You are kidding yourself if you think the reason is anything other than they can be grown anywhere, by anyone. They should be legal because they are natural, not illegal because they are natural.
Holy hell. My post went about 40,000' over your head.
Where to begin.
Well, first of all, you seem to have gotten some crazy notion that I'm against the legalization of pot. I honestly don't have a clue where you got that idea. I'm pro legalization. So yeah...wow. Reading comprehension.
All I was saying, was that if you want to make the argument for legalization, there are plenty of more fruitful paths to take than saying "It should be legal because it is natural." You could say, talk about its relative safety, especially when compared with legal drugs like alcohol. Or you could talk about potential revenue. Or you could make the ethics-based argument that we shouldn't legislate what someone does to their own body, if you wanted. Stuff like that. What you can't do, is argue an Appeal to Nature fallacy, because as others were pointing out, there are plenty of natural things that you really shouldn't do. Something being "natural" does not make it inherently good or bad. There is no correlation, and therefor, it's irrelevant to a discussion about whether a "natural" drug should be legal or not.
And no drugs are "illegal because they are natural." What an odd claim to make. I'd challenge you to come up with an argument to counter that, but you really shouldn't, because there is none. Pot is illegal largely due to a general perception that it's a more dangerous drug than it is. That it's a "gateway drug." That it makes kids accidentally shoot each other with their father's gun. It's based on emotion, and it's deeply ingrained. I don't think it's right, but that's the way it is right now.
Honestly, you wrote that all as if you were completely baked. It doesn't make an ounce of sense. It lacks focus and cohesion. And you completely misunderstood the point that I was making.
I think that legalization advocates would be better served if so many of them weren't making rambling, incoherent, emotional arguments for it. Perhaps that's asking too much?
Edited, Feb 11th 2011 1:06am by Eske