[leptons]

>But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things: it cures cancer, the smoke isn't bad for you at all, there are no downsides! etc.

Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy. I'm very involved in legalization and I don't know anyone that is for legalization that thinks any of those things, never even heard anyone say such garbage. I think you may be cherry-picking the crazy here.

[AlexandrB]

I don't think you can frame some of these arguments as belonging to a fringe minority. I remember watching an episode of "Penn & Teller's Bullshit"[1](2004) where they featured several pro-legalization advocates. These folks said or implied similar things (it's not bad for you, it helps cancer patients). These were not marginal "crazy" voices.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Penn_%26_Teller:_Bulls...

[leptons]

"it helps cancer patients" is vastly different than "it cures cancer" which is what OP claimed he heard. And yes, it does help cancer patients as well as anyone else in pain. And the smoke is far less harmful than cigarette smoke, it has no additives at all (when grown in a controlled environment without pesticides). And you don't even need to smoke it, it can be ingested in an edible/pill, making most of the arguments against ingesting marijuana completely bogus.

[bluGill]

I know that I too say and heard those arguments a lot. You do yourside a disservice by claiming it doesn't exist

[andrewflnr]

Good thing they didn't claim any such thing, then.

[everdrive]

>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.

This was over 20 years ago, long before "nut-picking" became impossible to avoid. This is what I was hearing from my peers on my college campus. They may have had had extreme views, but this was long before modern social media surfaced only the craziest people for any given position.

>Using the most anecdotally crazy people you met to suggest that the pro-legalization movement is crazy, is frankly, crazy.

Also, I disagree with this characterization. I am not crazy, it was unnecessarily rude to suggest otherwise. I'm repeating the arguments I heard from my actual peers. I'm not just finding extremists on the internet and painting the whole group by its worst members.

[leptons]

>Also, I disagree with this characterization. I am not crazy, it was unnecessarily rude to suggest otherwise.

You suggested the legalization movement is "crazy", without context. We are far from it. But you used the craziest shit to paint us as "crazy", so you get what you give.

Your original comment stated:

>"But, the pro-legalization folks would argue patently crazy things:"

Nowhere did you mention your peers, you specifically said "the pro-legalization folks", meaning the whole group, up to the most prominent people. That's the only way we can take your original comment, so if you don't like being called out like this, then be a lot more specific and say it was only your crazy friend group that was crazy, making it very anecdotal and not overly broad.

[buzzerbetrayed]

To be fair, the example they gave from the other side is far more fringe

> When you buy weed you're supporting the same terrorism that happened on 9/11

[smithoc]

That's not fringe at all. That was a claim made by anti-drug commercials that ran on TV across the US so frequently that it was satirized by South Park in 2002.

See the "Where did the idea come from" section here: https://southpark.cc.com/w/index.php?title=My_Future_Self_n%...