If Canada can do it

On 24/10/2018 18:14, Simon Jester wrote:
On Wednesday, October 24, 2018 at 11:24:55 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2018 20:16, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 6:27:17 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 23/10/2018 17:24, Simon Jester wrote:
On Tuesday, October 23, 2018 at 11:27:59 AM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 22/10/2018 21:34, Simon Jester wrote:

Why not UK

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45806255

Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug driving.

Is stoned driving better than drink-driving? They're equally risky and
both illegal (in the UK and USA, and almost certainly also in Canada).


And your point?

It's obviously too complicated for you,

And immediately lost the argument.

Really? You either didn't understand the point when it was made, or lied
and claimed that you didn't.

Which was it?

Neither, you didn't make a point.
Obviously drug driving is no better than drink driving.
Both are illegal in all civilised countries plus the USA.
Just because I am in favour of legal weed does not mean I condone drug driving.

Any "justification" of allowing the consumption of illegal drugs on the
fanciful basis that it reduces the incidence of drink-driving has a
recognition (and praise) of change of mode from drunk driving to drugged
driving implicit within it.

Your "Legal weed in Leftpondia has been proven to reduce drink and drug
driving" was that "justification.

I pointed out that boith are risky and that there is no (good) reason
for taking your uninformed line.

You either didn't see that point or you pretended that you didn't see
it. One of those has to be true. There are no other explanations for the
content of your replies.

Let me know when you are prepared to have an ADULT discussion.

Let the world know when you are going to stop asking for "the point"
after it has been explained to you.

Legal weed in the US has led to a reduction in both drink and drug driving.

Prove it.

So, once again, what was your point?

What... OTHER than the fact that you are talking out of the wrong
orifice, you mean?