Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana - Page 2 - Religion, God, and Theology

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.

There are several goals, and reducing drug use is among them, particularly by making the availability of drug addiction resources more directly available to the drug using population in an environment conducive to them being received. One can question the efficacy of such an approach, but there seems to be at least some evidence that it is successful:

Quote:

Originally Posted by wiki

The research indicates an array of benefits, including reductions in public injecting and syringe sharing and increases in the use of detoxification services and addiction treatment among patients.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 12:50 PM

#27

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

That's some serious hair splitting TD

No it is certainly not. Double standard is one of the most overused and wrongly used arguments in debate. It is close to being meaningless as it is touted so often with absolutely no supporting argument behind it. I would say that almost always when the term "double standard" is employed, what people really mean is that the same conclusion should have been reached for different reasons, which has nothing to do with double standards.

The only argument that this was a double standard in your post was that marijuana is a recreational drug and so was alcohol. But that logic it is a double standard to ban sale of phencyclidine.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 12:51 PM

#28

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,965

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doggg

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.

I'm not sure what this is meant to disprove. That you only did drugs a few times doesn't refute the point that people will continue to do drugs.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:03 PM

#29

Lestat

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 10,998

Even as someone who used to smoke a lot of weed I would never pretend that it's completely harmless.

But as someone who grew up with an alcoholic father, I am comfortable saying that weed has nothing on alcohol in terms of potential destructiveness to self and family.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:16 PM

#30

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

You couldn't just call it PCP?

'double standard' - a rule or principle which is unfairly applied in different ways to different people or groups.

In this case it's a principle, that recreational drugs are 'evil' and yet the CC itself uses, and approves of the use of a recreational drug. If you want to discuss this particular issue, perhaps we should start by agreeing on what a recreational drug is, and what the pope means when he uses the term? (You don't think that calling some recreational drugs evil and not others is a double standard?)

I take it that you don't want to discuss anything else from my reply?

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:19 PM

#31

Mightyboosh

mmm mmm good

Join Date: Jun 2011 Posts: 5,560

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat

Even as someone who used to smoke a lot of weed I would never pretend that it's completely harmless.

Technically, breathing Oxygen into your body is harmful, it's all relative. The discussion about it being harmful is moot IMO, this is about double standards and papal rhetoric.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat

But as someone who grew up with an alcoholic father, I am comfortable saying that weed has nothing on alcohol in terms of potential destructiveness to self and family.

This would be in keeping with what appears to be the common understanding. If weed is more harmful than alcohol or Heroin, or even in the same league as those drugs, it's a well kept secret.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:20 PM

#32

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

In this case it's a principle, that recreational drugs are 'evil' and yet the CC itself uses, and approves of the use of a recreational drug.

The classification "recreational drug" is not one that I believe the Pope has actually used. That's something that the article writer used. The Pope used the term "drug addiction."

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:21 PM

#33

Aaron W.

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 30,132

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

Technically, breathing Oxygen into your body is harmful, it's all relative. The discussion about it being harmful is moot IMO, this is about double standards and papal rhetoric.

So... you're doubling down on your concept of drug? The Pope should be against eating, too?

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:50 PM

#34

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

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?

No, nor has sex outside of marriage or support for access to abortion or contraception.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:50 PM

#35

Naked_Rectitude

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,312

MB, do you think it would be okay for the pope to smoke pot and want pot legalized? You wouldn't find anything strange with that scenario?

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:54 PM

#36

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

It's part of a strategy to address drug usage and while i may be intended to reduce usage, this isn't how it's presented to the addict. There is generally no requirement that the user stops using to avail of these services. Certainly not through any services I'm familiar with.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:55 PM

#37

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mightyboosh

(You don't think that calling some recreational drugs evil and not others is a double standard?)

No, I don't think calling one recreational drug "evil" and not others is a double standard. I'm able to see a difference between heroin and caffeine. They are both used recreationally.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:55 PM

#38

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,965

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude

MB, do you think it would be okay for the pope to smoke pot and want pot legalized? You wouldn't find anything strange with that scenario?

The pope presumably wants to maintain the status quo that alcohol and cigarettes are legalized. Do you find anything strange with that scenario?

The thing with pot is that if one looks purely at the effects that the respective drugs have on the body, one really has to contort oneself to get to the idea that alcohol and cigarettes should be legal but pot should not. However for historical reasons, two of these three are legal and the other isn't.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 01:58 PM

#39

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,965

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

So what? They aren't required to use them, no, but they are readily available in a conducive environment that reaches problem users, and is quite possibly more effective for it.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:01 PM

#40

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

So what? They aren't required to use them, no, but they are readily available in a conducive environment that reaches problem users, and is quite possibly more effective for it.

Because it makes drug reduction an oblique goal rather than a direct one. The primary goal of needle exchanges and safe using areas is intended to reduce harm and would be beneficial irrespective of whether anyone stops as a result.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:03 PM

#41

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,965

Quote:

Originally Posted by tame_deuces

No, I don't think calling one recreational drug "evil" and not others is a double standard. I'm able to see a difference between heroin and caffeine. They are both used recreationally.

Sure, as there is a massive difference in the physiological and socioeconomic effects of heroin and caffeine. However, these stark differences becomes quite a bit less when comparing pot, alcohol and nicotine, and there it is really IS a double standard in most arguments that aim to make pot illegal while the other two are not.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:04 PM

#42

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Would the pope want them legalised if they weren't already? I don't think it's strange to want potentially harmful substances remain illegal and not to campaign for criminalising other harmful substances. You're right in that it's a quirk of our history that alcohol use is entrenched in societies where pot remains illegal but the pope's position is no stranger than anyone else that would have pot remain illegal while taking a drink.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:08 PM

#43

tame_deuces

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 17,817

There are other considerations as well. In my country the mode alcoholic is an elderly male tax payer, whilst the mode heavy cannabis user is a young man on welfare.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:15 PM

#44

Naked_Rectitude

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,312

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

Dereds answered this better than I would have.

I also would find it strange if the pope was seen at happy hour ordering pints and smoking cigs.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:29 PM

#45

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,965

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

the pope's position is no stranger than anyone else that would have pot remain illegal while taking a drink.

Sure, the pope is equally as unjustified in maintaining the asymmetric status quo as the guy in the bar is. But I expect more from a pope than I do of the guy in the bar and so I'm going to be more critical of him for holding this unjustified position.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:31 PM

#46

uke_master

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 15,965

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude

I also would find it strange if the pope was seen at happy hour ordering pints and smoking cigs.

Sure. There seems to be a pretty big difference from a pope actively engaging in these vices, and a pope advocating for certain of the vices to be made illegal and similar ones not. As a spiritual and moral leader, a pope shouldn't be engaging in these vices generally, pot or alcohol. But that doesn't make his position of wanting pot to be criminal but (presumably) not so for alcohol and cigarettes justified. If he wanted all of them banned I'd disagree, but at least I would think he was being consistent.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:36 PM

#47

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

I'm not quite sure what you are implying with "strange". It is true that it is common for people to hold such positions; my argument isn't that it is an uncommon position, it is that it is an unjustified position. I think a law that is inconsistent - assigning wildly different legal values to rather similar things - is problematic. Ignoring these asymmetries and trying to argue for one side in isolation is pretty lolbad.

Sure, the pope is equally as unjustified in maintaining the asymmetric status quo as the guy in the bar is. But I expect more from a pope than I do of the guy in the bar and so I'm going to be more critical of him for holding this unjustified position.

The use of strange was yours if you meant it to mean unjustified rather than uncommon fine.

I agree with you in the main but we aren't ignoring the asymmetric status quo we are acknowledging it. It may be that rather than legalising pot we are better criminalising alcohol but criminalising an established industry is hard and would meet resistance. We shouldn't be compelled to want pot legalised if we consider both bad but the problems of criminalising alcohol insurmountable.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:40 PM

#48

Lestat

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 10,998

Quote:

Originally Posted by dereds

You're right in that it's a quirk of our history that alcohol use is entrenched in societies where pot remains illegal but the pope's position is no stranger than anyone else that would have pot remain illegal while taking a drink.

Well, that's a pretty inconsistent (and therefore, strange) position to hold.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:43 PM

#49

Naked_Rectitude

veteran

Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 2,312

Quote:

Originally Posted by uke_master

He's not advocating that it be made illegal, he's advocating that it not be legalized.

Quote

07-07-2014 , 02:45 PM

#50

dereds

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2008 Posts: 16,782

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat

Well, that's a pretty inconsistent (and therefore, strange) position to hold.

I don't think so. It may be ignorant rather than inconsistent. Like we'd agree that it doesn't make sense to advocate for the legalisation of heroin on the basis that alcohol is legal. If the person taking the drink is ignorant of the real dangers of cannabis then it makes sense to them.

It doesn't seem inconsistent to drink while considering the dangers of drink sufficient to accept alcohol should be banned.

Quote

Page 2 of 16

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12

Last

Post Reply Subscribe

...

Page 2 of 16

First

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 12

Last