[ChronJohn]

I said I was going to do it and I did. Within the attached word document is a complete rebuttal of every single page on the opposition site to the Tax Cannabis 2010 initiative, https://www.nipitinthebud2010.org. It only took a few hours to do, as most of the arguments presented are actually arguments for regulation! This made my job much easier. I am sending this document back to the creator of the website, an ex(?)-speed freak named Alexandra Datig. I am also sending it to several of the reform groups: NORML, MPP, and DPA, as well as the official website for the initiative, taxcannabis2010.org. Hopefully it will be of some use to them. I did this because I like to talk about drug policy, I like to talk about cannabis legalization, and I love to debate. Seeing such asinine arguments literally laid out before me all in one place was too much of a temptation to resist. I hope you find my rebuttals educational, informative, and even humorous. I definitely had a few laughs while writing it. Have a good holiday weekend

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by Office of National Drug Control Policy

Blah blah fuckin' blah

Nice effort. I'd read it if my copy of Word 97 (yep) was working right. They're making logical rebuttals far too easy; I have, at the very least, one scientific study that takes the entire sum of Kerlikowske's logic, fucks it sideways and doesn't call the next morning.

[ChronJohn]

Care to share that study with us Preacher?

ONDCP is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. Their whole existence is legally based on lying. Kerlikowski couldn't do shit to end the "war on drugs" if he wanted to, he'd be fired before he could get get the memo out.
You gotta wonder why drug law reform groups don't try to attach riders that would either end prohibition or seriously fuck with Federal drug laws. You know, paper clip it deep inside some appropriations bill or something. Then when it's signed into law by Obama:

[Tony Aroma]

Nice rebuttal.

Sure, the prohibitionist's arguments are not based on any kind of logic or truth. So what? That hasn't prevented their success for the past 70 years.

Prohibitionists are like religious fundamentalists. You can't argue logically with them. They believe what they believe. Because... Well, because that's what they believe. They even recite their prayers or mantras faithfully, and usually without thinking: "think of the children," "it's a gateway drug," "legalization means more users." That's what they've always known to be true, and no amount of logical arguments or contrary evidence will change their beliefs. Because those beliefs are not based on logic or empirical evidence.

[ChronJohn]

The purpose was mostly to not only throw their arguments back in their faces, but to also provide meaningful rebuttals for the un-persuaded voters, the swing voters. I already emailed it to a bunch of people high up in the movement, hopefully they will make use of it. I have seen in a number of places a suggestion which I think holds true: No matter what, the prohibitionists will always try to change the argument to how "dangerous pot is" and that we must avoid this argument at all costs. Not because it's not a winnable argument, but because it's irrelevant to the idea that it's prohibition itself that is the issue, not the substance. By countering every single argument made by the Prohibitionist that it is the policy which they support that is causing all the problems, we are forcing them into defense mode rather than staying on the D ourselves defending cannabis' safe- and benign-ness. This should be something that all potential debaters keep in mind when faced with confrontations by the prohibitionists. Regardless of the dangers of cannabis use, it is still an argument for regulation! Would we rather have a dangerous substance under the "control" of criminals, or in the hands of those who would use and distribute it safely and responsibly? This is the only kind of response we should give when faced with a "mary-ju-wana is baaad" argument.
Anyshways, thanks for taking the time to read and comment Tony Aroma, much appreciated. Almost at the 1000 post mark, congrats!

[Preacher]

https://www.fileden.com/files/2008/8/...andHerbert.pdf

At this point I'm surprised to see anything like this come out of the US, the government does a great job at stifling scientific research on weed here.

[ChronJohn]

Thanks for sharing Preacher, that's one I haven't seen before that I added to the archives

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Preacher again."

[Tony Aroma]

Originally Posted by ChronJohn

No matter what, the prohibitionists will always try to change the argument to how "dangerous pot is" and that we must avoid this argument at all costs. Not because it's not a winnable argument, but because it's irrelevant to the idea that it's prohibition itself that is the issue, not the substance

Excellent point!

And this is post 1000 for me!!!!! Do I get a prize? I wish it could have been something more significant.

[ChronJohn]

I think your prize is a bigger photo album, wish it could be something cooler like a Temple Ball of hash or something of that nature tho

I got an email back from Aaron Smith of the California Outreach part of MPP. He liked my rebuttals and said his favorite argument on that site was the one about "environmental damage due to second-hand marijuana smoke". Are these people actually expecting people to believe that a plant that comes from the earth is going to be environmentally harmful when burned (and most likely indoors haha)?? I too found this argument ridiculous and didn't even bother to address it with a full rebuttal. It'd be a waste of time.

So what I've learned from doing this is that the opposition knows that they stand to lose a lot of money and they will say ANYTHING and hire ANYBODY to try and get in our way. We need to push through the BS and keep them on their toes, keep them on the defensive, like I was saying before. There's gonna be a lot of and at sometimes a lot of but if we persist and keep our arguments solidly about the FAILURE of prohibition and how almost every problem caused by prohibition can be solved by regulation, we will probably win. As we close in on voting day, I hope to see a lot of "town hall" style meetings where average citizens (and not prohibitionist ploys and provocateurs) can voice their concerns and have them addressed by someone from the taxcannabis2010 campaign, like a local outreach coordinator. The people who show up to those things are the most likely to get off their asses and vote in November anyways, so if those people have concerns we should work towards addressing them, all of them, even if on a 1-on-1 personal basis.

[Bi0hazard]

Educational post. Thanks ChronJohn.