You may want to look up what a "strawman is". Correcting a statement you made about Marijuana not being addictive doesn't qualify. You made a point, I made a response refuting that point. Where as in your case, I made a statement, and then you refuted an entirely different point that I never made(that it's not a reason to make it illegal).
Second...you're "evidence" you're basing your argument around is some random students Blog sitting on a site aside such note worthy entries of stunning scientific value as declaring damage to sperm from WIFI enabled laptops
"Spermurder". A blog that he clearly states is just a reprint from "changetheclimte.org", a site whose entire purpose is pushing the legalization of marijuana agenda.
So lets see. First Anecdotal statement that has nothing to do with it's addictive quality. Second, a continuation of that anecdotal non-related statements. Finally, the last line states something I've already stated in terms of its lack of physically addictive nature. Oh, and on top of it all, it's an argument against it being HIGHLY addictive, something I never suggested.
Let me stop you right there. This may be a better example then telling you to look up what a strawman is. Look back over my posts. Find me
anywhere in this thread I've stated marijuana is harmful. Now, look back at your post and notice how you're attempting to debate, seemingly against me, the notion that it's not really harmful. That's a strawman, because you sir are not attacking any point I've raised...you're attacking a man of straw you created yourself and then decided to swat down.
Here's something to go with your students blog post. A narticle by a doctor talking about actual medical documentation
Perhaps a questionable source but at least on par with a random college student is WebMD:
A similar College based site, like the one you posted, from University of Marylands Center for Substance Abuse Research. If you'll go to the link, you'll find that their informaiton is actually sourced unlike changetheclimates.
Finally, I'll trust the words of a guy whose shown a history on this board regarding medical type issues and studies, who also has no bias in this what so ever, over a random students linking to a site with a clear bias
Which seems to suggest even my earlier suggestion that it's not physically addictive is wrong.
Note, as I've said in other threads and I believe this one...I'm someone in favor of legalization. Put those who push propoganda in FAVOR of marijuana, not surprisingly often those who have or would've prevoiusly had a significantly vested interest in its legalization, are not helping their cause one iota and are no better than those who buy into the "reefer madness" type propoganda of the other side.
