> again, fallacy of relative privation. except it's not because i'm not saying it's not bad because other things are worse. i'm saying it's not bad period. in a vacuum, all else aside, it is not addictive to a degree where it would be a problem. that is true regardless of all other factors. this statement is not relative to anything, asude from your own subjective definition of what "meaningfully addictive" means. in order to illustrate what a reasonable definition of "meaningfully addictive" is, other examples are brought in to provide a baseline. those examples are purely tertiary. if they weren't made, the central argument would still he exactly the same.  there is no fallacy, except the one you're doing, where you point to one piece of supporting evidence and act as though a (subjective) flaw in that refutes the entire point. > would you like the doctor performing your surgery to be high on weed that's also a fallacy! appeal to extreme. that's a very atypical situation that would functionally never happen irl even if weed was totally legal and accepted. alcohol's legal and heart surgeons don't come in drunk. > bullshit semantics fine, i'll legalspeak it for you: the claim that weed use causes psychosis and aggression is unsubstantiated. no credible evidence to support it exists, therefore it is wild conjecture, and wild conjecture isn't valid as either an argument against or a criticism of weed. my argument is that a claim which is improperly substantiated is not a valid basis for a subsequent argument against weed.  and if you say it's not unsubstantiated, that's a claim not an argument.
Pirate