Banning recreational substances never works, just exacerbates the problems related with the substance.
With alcohol, those problems are way worse than cannabis, and thus it became unbearable for society to bear the effects of alcohol prohibition, while pot prohibition doesn't really share the same problems.
Should I just copy paste the title or can we skip over that and get to the part where you get mad because you're ignorant of the history and motivations of prohibitions?
But you clearly see the question, and know I do as well.
Thus you should conclude you're wrong about thinking I'm answering a different question, which shouldn't lead you to understand you may have misunderstood/missed/be ignorant of something.
But that's just too much to ask on an online forum.
Seems like you're too good to ask what someone else meant by their comment.
So if your first assumption isn't right, you get frustrated and claim the other person is arrogant?
I have an actual argument. Yours is "I don't understan what you're saying and I refuse to acknowledge that could be due a lack of understanding, despite that being literally what it is."
What don't you ask me what I meant? Which part did you find confusing?
It took me several reads to figure it out, but I think I know what Dasus is trying to say now
Because alcoholics are often violent.
Weeders rarely are.
Violent alcoholics means that they'll fight to maintain access to their poison of choice, whereas the lethargy that comes with marijuana will have the opposite effect.
Yeah I got that too after a couple reads, I was just super turned off by how they responded to me. I definitely disagree with this analysis anyhow, I think it's more about racism/cultural control.