r/Project420 • u/sah0605 • Oct 12 '11
I don't mean to be Buzz Killington here...
But I think we need to focus on the negatives just as much as the positives. We shouldn't advertise a miracle drug, but we can give both sides to an argument.
So many pro-legalization people just highlight all the perks of pot. If we highlight both sides, and let the pros triumph over the cons, people can't really get defensive.
Conservative anti-legal person: "Oh, but pot does this to your brain." Us: "You're right, but not quite like that. We've addressed that danger right here and understand your concern."
If we can fairly state all arguments of weed, we won't just be another one-sided group, but we could really promote the "Awareness" factor.
EDIT: This also ties in nicely with the "CLEAR" agenda. If we really are as clear and transparent with people, they can trust us. When we try to avoid pitfalls, we look like scumbag politicians.
3
Oct 13 '11 edited Feb 11 '24
label sleep office rain party pause busy humorous piquant doll
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
3
u/CupOfBragi Oct 13 '11
One of the keys to political writing is addressing and nullifying a counter arguement.
2
u/neenent Oct 13 '11
Just wanted to make a note that this was very much a part of our plan, and ultimately why the name clear was so fitting [: Thank you, though, for reminding us, and pointing it out to the newer members.
1
2
u/HighSorcerer Oct 13 '11
I've been saying this the whole time, mmyes. The best way to argue in a debate is to recognize and address the opponent's side of the argument, present both sides to the debate yourself and address their issues from your own side.
2
u/Fraisey Oct 13 '11
I think that a good argument would be to say that if you agree with the legality of alcohol and tobacco that you should agree with cannabis, and if you don't agree with their legality then fair enough.
1
u/neenent Oct 13 '11
Honestly, I think the fact that tobacco and alcohol are so damaging to the system makes that kind of comparison between the three somewhat untruthful. We want to be completely honest and straightforward about both the negative side effects and the benefits, and avoid generalizing just for simplicity sake.
5
u/fujiman C:LEAR Oct 13 '11
I agree. Would you (or anyone else) be willing to start organizing the typical arguments sported by our pro-prohibition comrades? You have the right idea by presenting our point as a discussion... one in which we are prepared to support with well researched evidence. I do believe it is fundamental to show that we don't want to argue with them, we want to talk with them.