Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana

Since alcohol meets the criteria for what defines a drug (a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body) I consider it a recreational drug. So, when the pope condemns the legalisation of recreational drugs, from my perspective, this is engaging in a significant double standard since the use of wine is common in the CC and is permitted amongst it's followers. Why isn't wine 'evil' too?

Jesus turned water into wine, which either makes him a drug pusher or a case typical of religious special pleading. Also, with the comment "Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromising… To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem," it seems that the pope is engaging in a slippery slope argument since the latter is not necessarily a consequence of the former.

So, hypocrisy/special pleading and slippery slopes all in one statement, nice one. Or does anyone disagree?

[As an aside, I also think he's wrong about this "not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects.". It entirely depends on what effects are desired, wouldn't you say? Since crime is down and tax revenues are up, in both Uruguay and Colorado, I don't think he has a case here.]

Not sure what your point is? That religious leaders think drugs are bad? That people can have double standards? That the pope shouldnt be a flawed human being? Or what?

To establish that there is suggested a double standard, you would have to show that the two drugs are similar enough to warrant similar treatment. You should show this on the pharmaceutical, individual and societal level. The first is generally the basis for the views of medical experts and the latter two are generally also taken into account by legislature. You would of course also have to know the pope's view on alcohol or other drugs.

It is not given that you can automatically transfer experiences from Urugay and Colorado to another society. For example I think in a typical European country the % of marijuana users (has used it at least once the last year) are around half that of the US (5-6% vs 12-13%).

If your position is purely libertarian; that drug control is up to the individual, then of course the debate is not actually about drugs, but on the ethics of legislation.

With such a broad definition of drug, I would think that most foods that are consumed could be considered a drug.

http://pubs.acs.org/isbn/9780841202467

That's some serious hair splitting TD Also, you didn't address what I considered to be the larger flaw in the pope's argument, the slippery slope fallacy he committed. Recreational drug use doesn't necessarily lead to addiction. Some definitions of 'Recreational drug' that I've seen include that they are non-addictive, which presumably then would make nicotine and caffeine more than just recreational, but that's an aside too.

I think this misses the point that the two drugs are not at all similar, one (alcohol) is far more damaging than the other, and there is plenty of medical and societal evidence to support that. For the purposes of this discussion though, I'm prepared to be generous and consider the two equal in terms of their medical and societal impact. I don't think, therefore, it's hard to demonstrate a double standard.

The issue of why the pope does not consider alcohol to be 'evil' despite it's addictive nature and devastating societal impact is interesting, and I have theories, but ultimately nothing more than my own speculation. I asked the question because I'm interested to hear the opinions of others on the subject.

Or perhaps the pope should be more specific about what in the nature of marijuana makes it evil when compared to other narcotic substances in common use such as alcohol, nicotine, caffeine or medicines? I don't think that's going to happen though. That would open a can of very stoned worms.

I'm making two assumptions here, quite reasonable ones I think. One is that if something is a criminal activity and then you decriminalize it, crime related to that will drop. A drop in crime rates is desirable. The second is that police time will have been freed up, and a great deal of money saved from that, enabling a focus on other areas of crime. Also a desirable outcome.

Those two experiences will transfer automatically to any country that currently prosecutes the use and possession of marijuana. So, I disagree with your statement.

This wouldn't change that if the CC consider a drug 'evil', then even if it were up to the individual it would still be something the pope discouraged. Frankly, I doubt that the legal status is what concerns him even though he describes it as 'highly questionable'.

Also, I just noticed that he also commits a tautology when he says:

Which really translates to:
Clearly not. But I would ask whether or not it can justifiably be called a problem.

I would have expected a pope to be smarter than this.

How smart do you think he is?

What do you consider the dangers of legalising cannabis

I think this shows relatively poor judgement on this part. While Popes (including Francis) have hardly stayed clear of walking into the domain of commentary on public policy, their primary purpose is as a theological leader. He is uniquely well situated to speak to the "evil" of drug addiction, of our sinful nature, of redemption from sin through jesus christ, and so on. But wading into a public policy debate as to the best approaches to dealing with drug addiction? The answer to that public policy debate isn't seemingly one answered by a theological study.

And I also happen to think he is rather wrong. The arguments in favour of legalization are quite a bit stronger than otherwise, and there certainly is a strong hypocrisy in the comparison to alcohol and cigarettes for those that want one of the drugs illegal and the other two not. In particular this statement is not at all obvious, and quite likely wrong: "To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem,". There is a pretty wide range of possible approaches, many of which seem better than the moralistic condemnation that is the status quo. For instance, something like safe injection sites (there is a trial site in Vancouver) are something where there is some cause for optimism about.

Note that this is a bit different than other public policy issues like gay marriage, where you have clear camps that think the marriage is an acceptable thing or an unacceptable thing from a theological perspective. There is disagreement on whether the action is or is not acceptable. On drug addiction, most people don't disagree that we want to minimize drug addiction - we agree that it is bad, that is - but ask what is the optimal policy to go about minimizing it.

Do you believe that there's a drug problem? Remember that the definition you've established:

It's a deepity. There is a trivially true meaning of the phrase but it insinuates a deeper comment on public policy that doesn't follow from the thing that is trivially true.

When Pope Francis started, his past and how he conducted himself made it clear that he was going to address issues that were pertinent to people's lives. The gap between theological issues and public policy isn't really as clear as some (like yourself) may want it to be.

I know nothing of the safe injection sites. By what measures is it minimizing drug addiction?

I think my interpretation of a deepity differs from yours, in one sense it is trivially true but in another sense obviously wrong, I don't know that this is obviously wrong in the same way.

We probably have very similar views on this but I think you've been sidetracked by the reference to drug addiction, which is exactly what slippery slope arguments are supposed to do, when employed deliberately.

There's no consensus on whether or not marijuana is physically addictive. In fact, the majority of available information suggests that it isn't. But by referencing drug addiction in a statement about marijuana he has either mistakenly committed the slippery slope mistake, or has deliberately conflated the two issues. So, he's not that bright, or he's deliberately being manipulative (I wouldn't go so far as to say 'lying', because technically it's not a lie, it's just not relevant).

Then how about that it's begging the question anyway. What 'problem' with drugs is he talking about? Does he mean the problem that the wrong drugs are legal?

The idea is something like this: people will do (hard) drugs regardless, but they often do them in particularly unsafe ways. They share needles which transmit HIV and other diseases, they overdose without an easy path to a hospital, they commit crimes while high, and the like. And there is often a large disconnect such that the large amount of resources available to drug addicts are quite far removed from the addicts themselves. With a safe injection site, users can - without fear of being arrested - bring their drugs and get clean needles for free, and a space to do it with medical supervision to prevent infection, overdose, etc. Further, the full compliment of public services to deal with addiction are readily available in a much more prominent way directly to the users. In Canada there is only a single site that has been allowed (the federal right leaning government is blocking expansions currently) and initial data is mixed. But there is some source of optimism, as there are for various other approaches to drugs in places in europe and south america outside of america's war on drugs style criminilization.

The problem he is referencing is clearly drug addiction. But sure, as you suggest, speaking about drug addiction a bunch when speaking to marijuana use is at best a red herring.

I think it's a slippery slope argument even if he's talking about Cocaine, Heroin, Crack and any other controlled substance. They do not necessarily lead to addiction, he's simply exaggerating the possible consequences to make his own position look more favourable.

To refer to marijuana in the same sentence as drug addiction betrays an ignorance of the medical evidence, or a very blinkered perspective (lumping them all in together), and to use the word 'evil' whilst blithely ignoring that their own sacramental wine contains ethanol, a hard, addictive recreational drug, that regularly devastates lives is a breathtaking double standard.

Perhaps this hinges on the prevailing attitude toward alcohol. The CC can't easily admit that alcohol is a hard drug, because by their own standards, the use of it would be 'evil'. What would they do then?

Perhaps smart is the wrong word, I'd assume someone who has risen to the top of an organisation as ferociously competitive as the CC, to at least be canny. Also, I'd assume that given his background, he's have had some exposure to the use of logic and wouldn't commit the basic fallacies that he appears to be making in this piece.

Why would you imagine that I consider there to be dangers? Bit of a loaded question mate.

you can't think of any dangers of legalizing cannabis? I happen to think the benefits outweigh the risks, but I'm not going to pretend the risks are zero.

http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/schi...psychosis-link

there are real risks of psychosis especially in young people. I don't think it does anyone any favours to deny the actual risks that exist.

I've smoked for over 30 years fwiw.

Safe injection sites and needle exchanges are intended to reduce harm from drug use not reduce drug use.

This is almost certainly not true. Me and friends when we were in our early 20's would drive in to Newark once in a while and score some diesel, maybe once a year or twice. I remember more than a few nights one guy in particular wanted to go but I would think about the consequences of getting caught (3 months jail (in Newark, nonetheless), rehab, etc.) and say nah- let's just go out and drink.

Nothing before the underlined addresses the problem of drug addiction itself. As you note in the underlined, accessibility of alternate resources at such a facility may not have the effect of effectively connecting addicts to rehabilitation.

This is more in line with what I would imagine such a facility would accomplish. It doesn't seem to me that such a facility actually minimizes drug addiction.

I'm not pretending that the risks are zero, I just wasn't comfortable starting at point of there being 'dangers', it seems to be going along with the rhetoric we're hearing from the pope. Why not ask 'what are the benefits' instead?

I don't want to digress into a medical analysis of the effects of marijuana, or alcohol for that matter, I'm not qualified to do that, apart from it being a little off my preferred topic. I do think that I can say that the pope is engaging in a logical fallacy though, or being deliberately manipulative, as well as perpetrating a double standard and being hypocritical. That's what I want to discuss.


You were a theist at one time right? Was your belief system was more in line with mainstream Christianity and if so, did smoking cause you any ethical dilemmas?

I'm interested in your sense of the "ferocious competitiveness" of the Catholic Church. Where do you get this impression from? What types of maneuvering do you think was necessary to become pope and in what way should that impact his stance on drugs?

So, you think he would have enough political savvy to "rise to the top of an organization as ferociously competitive as the CC" but you can't imagine that he would use rhetorical devices?