Why are you asking me to explain it? Is it because you're incapable of figuring it out on your own or because you feel the answer will provide insight into the validity of drug laws? If it's the former, then I do not care to accommodate you, if it's the latter, then you are, in fact, making a direct appeal to the majority, in which case, you are engaging in logical fallacy.It seems as if you're trying to convince me that the example of a logic fallacy I gave is, indeed, a logic fallacy. Rather odd.
That does not mean discussion of 'majority opinion' is necessarily a logic fallacy. In fact, understanding majority and minority opinions is usually crucial to understanding the issue under debate. So no, I've not appealed to the majority. I've simply asked you to explain it. Which you attempt to do later, because, I suspect, you understand it's not a logic fallacy at all, but extremely relevant to the issue.
Personally, I would rather move on to more substantive issues regarding drug policies in the US.
So, you want to analyze the various unique and complex, legal and historical circumstances surrounding the respective drug policies of every nation in the world, and use this information to construct a comprehensive and generalized understanding of how humans perceive drugs? Why not, instead of worrying about what other countries do, we concentrate on the historical and legal circumstances surrounding American drug policy?I don't know why not. I suspect neither of us were around in the early 1900's when marijuana laws were first put in place in the U.S. So we must rely on research. I expect you're bright enough to research the history of Dutch laws, or British laws, or Turkish laws, no?
The only thing that is relevant to a practice's legality is the US Constitution. That is what I am interested in discussing.The problem some of us are having is that relevance or irrelevance seems to change from post to post. For instance, some supporters of legalization deny that 'drug tourism' will take place if pot is legalized in California. Others acknowledge that it will take place, but suggest that it will be a good thing by helping out California's economy. So even among advocates, there doesn't seem to be a coherent position as to what may or may not happen if marijuana is legalized. And I suspect that lack of a coherent position is one of the primary reasons Americans don't support legalization.
A personal opinion does not necessarily translate into a willingness to be publicly vocal on an issue, nor is it indicative of a proper understanding of the issue. Just because a majority of Americans feel this way about marijuana does not mean they are willing to have an open and honest dialogue about it. I feel there is still a stigma attached to marijuana and that said stigma is largely institutionalized. How many Americans, for instance, would risk telling their coworkers or their relatives how they really feel about marijuana, or anything controversial for that matter?As I demonstrated in a previous post, most Americans NOW understand the relative dangers of alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana. So this idea that Americans are still having the wool pulled over their eyes, or aren't willing to accept basic facts about marijuana due to some ongoing misinformation campaign just isn't supported by the evidence.
But here it is again, a fairly recent opinion poll of Americans from NORML, Zogby Poll:
In a way, yes. I don't think Obama is willing to sacrifice a measure of his political capital in order to legalize marijuana. More importantly, the US government has maintained a consistently negative view of marijuana and drugs in general, so the idea that a coward like Obama would reverse this institutional trend is absurd.Well I'm curious why you believe politicians such as Obama, without doubt the most liberal president of our time, is inclined to oppose legalization. Do you believe he's appealing to a socially conservative base?