[macleodnine]

This is "WhatAboutism". Not all dangers are equal and therefore should be treated differently. In society we try to limit danger to whatever we think is an acceptable level (which is totally made constantly up for debate). Saying that the universe is dangerous and so any other danger is irrelevant doesn't hold.

I'm not really expressing an opinion on weed or anything, just the flawed logic.

[esahione]

No -- the nanny state is what I'm not for, so my argument has nothing to do with pot but more with the perception that safety is a requirement for something to be legal/accepted by society.

[lotusss]

Your logic is forcing me to draw parallels with marijuana that I don't want to, but this reasoning is not very persuasive.

Why shouldn't safety be a requirement for something to be legal? Should drunk driving be legal? Should firing a gun in a crowded place be legal? Should serving food that's contaminated with a poisonous substance be legal?

I know that marijuana isn't harmful in the way shooting a firearm or poisoning someone's food is. But this line of reasoning--"never consider safety when determining what's acceptable"--is ludicrous.

[esahione]

You're comparing safety of others with safety of one's self.

Of course drunk driving should be illegal, you're putting others at risk.

Think of Kantian logic applied to the body. As long as I am only affecting my body when doing something, it is irrelevant whether it is safe or not.