The Logical Fallacies of Marijuana Prohibition: The False Dilemma

Article by Richard Cowan

The classic example of the “False Dilemma” is all too common these days: “You’re either with us or against us.”

For opponents of the Drug War, this problem was (and often still is) how to explain that someone could be in favor of “legalizing” marijuana, but not meth. A “drug” is a “drug”, except when it isn’t. Of course, alcohol and tobacco really are “drugs”, but they are still generally identified separately as in “alcohol AND drugs”, like dogs and cats.

The “Slippery Slope” From Marijuana Legalization; The Logical Fallacies of Marijuana Prohibition

Richard Cowan is a former NORML National Director and author of Everything You Want To Know About CBD Bath Salts.

As I have written about the logical fallacies of marijuana prohibition, the so-called “Gateway Effect” is a classic. “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” or “After this therefore because of this” is that marijuana use “leads to” hard drugs, etc.

The Logical Fallacies of Marijuana Prohibition: The Ad Hominem Is Nothing Personal

Article by Richard Cowan, former NORML National Director and author of Tips To Buy High Quality CBD.

In 1973, I was testifying before a committee of the Texas Senate in favor of legalizing marijuana, and a very prohibitionist Senator said, “Won’t you admit that you just like to smoke pot.”

I responded, “Senator, won’t you admit that you’re just in favor of marijuana prohibition because you like locking up young people?”