I thought he turned a traditional policy position ("prohibition fuels bad underground activity of worse variety") into a toy, overly emotional argument ("how is it reasonable to discuss legalization in response to sexual film spying?"). After you resolve the rhetorical difficulties, it just collapses back to the old argument still unaddressed (does prohibition fuel bad underground activity? can legalization reduce this phenomena in scope or impact?).

That's what makes it a bad point in my mind. It really is taking someone's position and turning it into a strawman, in a way that takes about 2 or 3 back and forth responses to resolve. I think it's totally worth hopping past this branch in discourse.

If you don't have anything to add to the discussion, use upvotes/downvotes. Responding with comments like this just makes you look like you're just a sock puppet, which you probably don't want.