Decriminalization is of little use to the chronically uncool.
As in, warm-blooded animals?
Such as politicians? Or basically most people living in Ottawa?
As for politicians... well, my impression is that they prefer crack.
The contrapositive in this case being: "Not being cool means you do not smoke pot", which as you explain seems like a reasonable assertion.
Not that I'm really interested in smoking pot any more. It's a bit too uncool and boring.
(And more seriously, from a reputable and regulated supplier)
> No, the contrapositive.
The first thing you're ever taught about the contrapositive, generally at the same time the name is taught, is that a statement is exactly equivalent to its contrapositive.
For one thing, the law of the excluded middle holds here just as it holds everywhere else. You've got two options:
- Smoking pot makes you cool.
- Smoking pot does not make you cool.
Those cover all cases.
But, the point I'm making is that you are incorrect to label "being cool helps you access pot" as "the contrapositive" of "smoking pot makes you cool". The concept of a contrapositive does not apply to "smoking pot makes you cool", because it is not a conditional statement.
If you want to cast the idea you're supporting as a conditional statement, you have "if you're not cool, you don't smoke pot". This actually has a contrapositive, "if you smoke pot, you're cool", and it is the same idea.
I don't believe that innovative misuse of specialized technical terms is actually a good idea. When the word you'd really like to use doesn't mean what you want it to mean, suck it up and use some different words.
I agree with the change in this law, as a non consumer who has tried it in the past, but let's not draw a stupid line between those who partake and those who don't.