It is not inpossible, as I have been understood before. It simply takes more intelectual effort to decipher.
Restatement Devestation of nicotine is greater than devistation of illegal drugs. (summarized thought, not my own) Suggesting, thus, that legalization means greater devistation, and thus only poor logic could lead to the conclusion (based on above thought) that legalization is the right choice, unless greater devestation was your desired goal. So, I find poor logic behind the statement that because legal nicotine does more damage than ilegal narcotics, narcotics too should be legal. This is not nessasarily an attack on legalization, just a comment on how nonsensical the propossed logic was. --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Uncool, > > > > Could you please explain / re-write your post. I honestly can't > figure out what you are saying. You may actually have some good > points, but I hesitate to reply on a hunch. Your writing is > impossible to read because your grammar and punctuation are > almost non-existent. Also, it might help if you would stop > repeatedly misspelling the topic on which you wish to be heard > opining: "PROHIBITION". > > > > -Mark > > > > > > ************ > {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote > "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the > case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions. > There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a > unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill > its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and > unjust lawsuits. > See www.fija.org > [Please adopt this as your own signature.] } > > > > > _____ > > > > That appears like poor logic to appose prohabition... The lack of > > prohibition on nicotine products, and the far greater devestation > to > peoples nicotine causes as a legal substance makes you beleive > that, > thus, the ilegal substances, the some of wich far more powerfull > than nicotine, should also be legal... because......? > > Not my position here, just pointing out you just gave an argument > > for prohibition as your argument against it. > > > > > > _____ > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
