<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
Debbie et. al.<BR>
<BR>
I am sorry, but after carefully reviewing the claims you make below, I am afraid you have distorted some of the facts of our discussion rather seriously. I considered what you said carefully, reasoned it through, and there is no doubt whatsoever that you are making errors, and engaging in torturous reasoning to escape this fact.<BR>
<BR>
You wrote, including part of my response to your post that answered my post on "Alcohol Kills etc," that I was in error to assert you must have been responding to the "Medical Cannabis & etc." Is this true? Let's review the facts.<BR>
<BR>
Debbie wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"And I honestly don't get this:<BR>
<BR>
> Debbie does not quote the post she references, nor does she mention the<BR>
> subject heading, but as best as I can determine, she is referencing the post<BR>
> forwarded below at the bottom subject headed "Medicinal Cannabis & Prescription<BR>
> Drugs."<BR>
<BR>
??????????<BR>
Whuh??<BR>
I was referencing your posting with the same subject heading about alcohol<BR>
kills 6.5 times more..."<BR>
<BR>
Debbie also wrote in her first response to my post "Alcohol Kills etc:"<BR>
<BR>
"I don't see how the statistics that say 'alcohol kills 6.5 times <BR>
more youth than all other illicit drugs' provides much support <BR>
for legalizing marijuana for non-medical use (if that is what <BR>
your previous post was getting at)." <BR>
<BR>
How could you derive any argument I might have made about legalizing cannabis for non-medical use from the post "Alcohol Kills etc," an argument I never made anyway in any of my V2020 posts on this subject, when the post that you were directly responding to with the subject heading "Alcohol Kills etc." did not make any argument in any shape or form about cannabis?<BR>
<BR>
Let's review my first post on "Alcohol Kills etc." and your reply in their totality:<BR>
<BR>
Here is the exact original post I wrote subject headed "Alcohol Kills etc:"<BR>
------------<BR>
All:<BR>
<BR>
While looking for info on medical cannabis issues, I came across a rather startling fact that, if true, should give anyone pause regarding our cultures emphasis on what drugs we prosecute and scapegoat for their nefarious effects. Of course the fact below really is no surprise given our cultures endorsement of and caviler acceptance of alcohol across all segments of our society. What is shocking, and seems to fly under the radar by some miracle of denial and rationalization that would baffle any psychiatrist were our society a patient under care for minimizing blatantly self destructive behaviors, is the lack of seriousness of actual legal penalties for breaking the laws regarding supplying alcohol to minors.<BR>
<BR>
<A HREF="http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/teens.htm">http://www.gdcada.org/statistics/teens.htm</A><BR>
<BR>
Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs combined.<BR>
<BR>
If this fact is true, and I do not doubt that even if it is not the exactly correct figure, it does reflect for the most part the relative magnitude of the damage alcohol does to young people compared to other drugs, how do the penalties of the legal system for supplying alcohol to minors match up with this reality compared to the penalties enforced for other drugs? Alcohol is illegal for minors, yet it seems those involved in supplying alcohol to minors, connected to killing 6.5 times more youth than all illegal drugs combined, who get caught, get a slap on the wrist, relatively speaking.<BR>
<BR>
Are the penalties for supplying alcohol to minors reflective of a rational approach to enforcing drug laws, given the magnitude of the harm done to youth by alcohol? Does the widespread acceptance of alcohol use by the mainstream culture who control the police, the courts and the government lead to a favorable status, relative to the penalties enforced for those who supply many other illegal drugs, for those who violate laws when they supply alcohol to minors?<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett <BR>
------------------<BR>
<BR>
I did not, as you wrote, "jump all over the place" in the post above. Each paragraph focuses on the issue of supplying alcohol to minors. The second and third paragraph both explore the incredible discrepancy between the damage done to youth by alcohol compared to all other illegal drugs, and the incredible discrepancy between the legal penalties for supplying alcohol to minors compared to the penalties for other drugs.<BR>
<BR>
Debbie also wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"I am not dodging your central issue of the difference between supplying<BR>
alcohol to underage people and supplying drugs to underage people. I am<BR>
not even sure what your central issue actually is since you jump all over<BR>
the place."<BR>
<BR>
In fact, you do not ever make SPECIFIC reference to the central fact of my post, which is that alcohol abuse kills more youth than ALL OTHER DRUGS COMBINED! How can you say you do not know what the central issue is in my post when it is in plain English in the subject heading? Good grief! In fact you try to cushion the impact of this shocking statistic by claiming that "alcohol doesn't kill the youth, most are killed in alcohol related motor vehicle crashes."<BR>
<BR>
And here is your exact response to my post on "Alcohol Kills etc:"<BR>
<BR>
I don't see how the statistics that say 'alcohol kills 6.5 times <BR>
more youth than all other illicit drugs' provides much support <BR>
for legalizing marijuana for non-medical use (if that is what <BR>
your previous post was getting at). Alcohol doesn't kill the <BR>
youth, most are killed in alcohol related motor vehicle crashes. <BR>
Driving under the influence isn't restricted to driving under <BR>
the influence of alcohol, it's driving under the influence of <BR>
drugs, alcohol, prescription drugs, etc. <BR>
<BR>
And the penalties for DUI are not that tough either. Yes, our <BR>
culture is bipolar in its thoughts and actions about drugs and <BR>
alcohol and alcohol use in youth but using one symptom of <BR>
substance abuse to support another doesn't fly with me.<BR>
<BR>
Debbie<BR>
<BR>
On 27 Jun 2005 at 6:04, Tbertruss@aol.com wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Alcohol kills 6½ times more youth than all other illicit drugs<BR>
> combined.<BR>
-----------------------------<BR>
Anyone carefully following these facts on V2020 can verify the truth of what appears above.<BR>
<BR>
I'm sorry to observe you engage is these attempts to obscure what really happened in our exchange, though you may just be confused.<BR>
<BR>
My first post subject headed "Alcohol Kills etc," as is obvious from reading it above, made no arguments relating to cannabis directly in any way shape or form, much less any kind of argument to legalize cannabis for non-medical use, an argument I never made on V2020 anyway, much less the sort of specific claim that I posted the fact on alcohol abuse among youth to, as you wrote, "supply much support for legalizing marijuana for non-medical use (if that is what your previous post was getting at)." And we have even more astonishing reasoning from you that implies the completely false claim that what I wrote on alcohol abuse among youth was somehow related to an argument "using one symptom of abuse to support another."<BR>
<BR>
Who is engaging in a fantasy debate? Perhaps there was someone else with you when you wrote that reply and you were responding to their arguments? Perhaps you were just arguing in the abstract some of commonly held arguments you hear tossed around about substance abuse? Because I never said anything even remotely suggesting "using one symptom of abuse to support another."<BR>
<BR>
I was assuming that because there was no argument relating to cannabis at all in the post on "Alcohol Kills etc." you must have been responding in your comments about any possible argument to legalize cannabis for non-medical use to the post I sent very close in time on the same day subject headed "Medicinal Cannabis and Prescription Drugs." I was giving you credit for being able to read that there was no argument about cannabis at all in any shape or form in the post "Alcohol Kills etc." so I assumed it must have been the post "Medicinal Cannabis & Prescription etc." you were referencing in your implications I might have been arguing for "legalizing marijuana for non-medical use."<BR>
<BR>
Now do you understand?<BR>
<BR>
Debbie also wrote:<BR>
<BR>
"I wonder if I should perhaps just withdraw and let you debate<BR>
this with yourself since you are already misinterpreting and reading into<BR>
my thoughts and beliefs things that have no basis in reality."<BR>
<BR>
You make implications that I am making arguments in my post that do not exist in the post, and you feel compelled to refer to "things that have no basis in reality" regarding my responses to your posts? I give you credit for seeing that the post on "Alcohol Kills etc." could not have been the post you were referring to when you implied that I might be making an argument for legalizing cannabis for non-medical use, then you come back and insist that indeed the post on "Alcohol Kills etc." was the post you were referring to!? <BR>
<BR>
Your own words provide evidence of gross misreading of what I wrote.<BR>
<BR>
Debbie also wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> "I don't see how the statistics that say 'alcohol kills 6.5 times<BR>
> more youth than all other illicit drugs' provides much support<BR>
> for legalizing marijuana for non-medical use (if that is what<BR>
> your previous post was getting at)." ***(IF THAT IS WHAT YOUR PREVIOUS<BR>
POST WAS GETTING AT)*****<BR>
<BR>
"See that bit right there? The IF THAT IS WHAT YOUR PREVIOUS POST WAS<BR>
GETTING AT bit? That means I wasn't sure WHAT you were getting at. That's<BR>
where you could have calmly said 'oh, no, that's not what my previous post<BR>
was getting at, my previous post merely pointed out that blah blah blah'<BR>
instead of going into emotional vampire mode and demanding an apology."<BR>
<BR>
It is clear you have some issues confused about our discussion, as the above rehashing reveals quite conclusively. A simple apology for misunderstanding what I wrote, or implying I was stating arguments I was never stating, is not such a big thing, is it? I have apologized numerous times on V2020 for mistakes and misunderstandings, even some rather trivial, but I do seek to be fair and accurate with discussions on this list, though I sometimes fail.<BR>
<BR>
I have reviewed these facts very, very carefully, and if I thought I was in error, I would apologize. But I am not in error.<BR>
<BR>
Don't worry, I won't go into "vampire mode" to demand an apology. <BR>
<BR>
It's clear that no apology will be given, despite the clear evidence I present above that you made mistakes that revealed gross misreadings of my posts.<BR>
<BR>
Ted Moffett<BR>
</FONT></HTML>