So, yes, street pot is clearly deadly.
Thus the matter is decided, irrefutably
And I say irrefutably
for two reasons: 1) the qualification, competency, currency, accuracy and veracity of the medical authorities presenting the deadly nature of pot is simply not rationally, soberly questioned, and 2) those who rebut these authorities are not rationally believable due to their association with a drug and its culture that clearly prevents its users from telling the truth.
Indeed, those who deny the obviously
deadly damage pot does -- and denial is part and parcel to addiction! -- could likely be suffering symptomatically from the effects of pot!
Brain damage, distortion, paranoia, etc., etc. -- how can one possibly rationally consider anything a pro-pot advocate has to say in defense of the drug of street pot as being truthful?!
And street-pot-legalization advocates are no different with regard to the question of their veracity, as though they may try to argue with a bait-and-switch perspective about "the drug war", as the authorities clearly present, such divertive double-talk by drug users is part and parcel of drug use -- they don't care about issues of fighting the necessary battle to keep drugs off our streets, they just want to make it easier to get stoned.
So in any discussion about street pot, a proponent of street-pot, according to the authorities, could likely not be playing with a full deck of mental faculties, and is likely to present distortions, false accusations against the authorities and other paranoid manifestations, links to sites that have purposely controverted reality (NORML, and other pro-pot apologetic links), links to old data that has been scientifically refuted today, nit-pick absolute nothings regarding the valid authorities' presentations, falsely minimize the drug's effect,
compare street pot to anything from alcohol to walking down the street saying that "everything is dangerous", etc., etc., etc. .. all essentially non-starters completely lacking in valid truth-based argumentation against the irrefutable deadly
nature of street pot.
Thus, though the deadliness of pot is simply rationally and thus truthfully unconjecturable irrefutably, I also have to ask here how any discussion in the matter could ever, ever give credence to the pro-pot users' presentations?
It just seems logical that, considering the rational applicable questions as to the state of mind of street pot-using proponents, 1) how can one ever trust that anything they say is the truth, and 2) how can one differentiate between a) someone who doesn't use pot and isn't brain-damaged/suffering a conflict of interest to the degree they don't tell the truth, and is thus truly only economically etc. concerned about pot legalization, and b) the brain-damaged pot user who can't be trusted to tell the truth about the deadly nature of pot and is suffering an addict-based conflict of interest in the matter?
And, of course, the street pot proponent saying "I'm telling the truth" .. could very easily simply be an unintentional delusion or an intentional distortion, obviously.
Only if a street-pot user exhibiting the deadly damaging effects of street pot finally admits street pot is damaging can he be rationally considered to be telling the truth, given the corroborating authorities, though one would have to question how he knows
he's telling the truth at that point!
I mean, it's a valid question isn't it? If the very instrument (the brain), by which truthful rational argumentation is made, is damaged (by street pot) to the quite possible degree it can't present the truth of the matter, how can those who are naturally suspect -- street pot proponents -- of having suffered the brain-damaging effects of street pot, be trusted not to be suffering from such brain damage and be sporting a rational argument? They simply can't -- they can't be trusted in that manner.
I simply don't see how one can logically rationally give any street pot proponent arguing against the irrefutable deadly nature of pot any credence at all.
For if two people are arguing in favor of street pot use and legalization, how do you differentiate between 1) the conflict of interest brain-damaged druggie who just wants to make it easier to get his fix, and 2) the economic oriented arguer who isn't suffering from street pot damage? Both their arguments sound the same!
The valid authorities in the matter have presented the deadly nature of street pot. Their qualification and veracity is not in question.
The qualification and veracity of street pot proponents? Obviously, always, suspect.