Logical fallacies

[IYT]

are rather new to me.  I was on my local Valdosta forum in a discussion about, what else...drugs and drug laws.  I was hoping someone here more knowledgable of logical fallacies could make sure I'm calling them right.  Here's two I called a fella out on.

During the drug law debate, my opposition told me I was promoting the use of drugs when in fact I stated I think drug use should be a personal choice.  Never did I say people should use drugs.  Would this be a straw man?

Later, he said that my current drug use will cause me mental problems later on and I will eventually become nothing more than a burden on taxpayers.  I called a slippery slope.  Is that correct?

[?]

One can set up a straw man in the following ways:

1. Present a misrepresentation of the opponent's position, refute it, and pretend that the opponent's actual position has been refuted.
2. Quote an opponent's words "out of context" -- i.e., choose quotations that are not representative of the opponent's actual intentions
3. Present someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, refute that person's arguments, and pretend that every upholder of that position, and             thus the position itself, has been defeated.
4. Invent a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs that are criticized, and pretend that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5. Oversimplify a person's argument into a simple analogy, which can then be attacked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[?]

The slippery slope argument occurs in the following context: A, B denote events, situations, policies, actions etc. Within this context, the proposer posits the following inferential scheme:

    If A occurs
    then the chances increase that B will occur.

The argument takes on one of various semantical forms:

    * In one form, the proposer suggests that by making a move in a particular direction, we start down a "slippery slope". Having started down the metaphorical slope, it appears likely that we will continue in the same direction (the arguer usually sees the direction as a negative direction; hence the "sliding downwards" metaphor).
    * Another form appears more static, arguing that admitting or permitting A leads to admitting or permitting B, by following a long chain of logical relationships.


~~~~~~~~~~

This fallacy is often used in conjunction with the straw man when the topic of gay marriage is being discussed.

1.  Gay marriage has occured, or will or might occur, therefore,
2.  Marriage between humans and animals will occur (slippery slope)
3.  Marriage between humans and animals is wrong, therefore,
4.  Gay marriage is wrong.  (straw man)

[?]

Hope that helps. 

[IYT]

Yea, that's like much of the stuff I've been reading about, but I have never actually attempted to use them during a discussion.  Thanks.