I don't have a problem with a tactical argument, but there is no indication that this is what he is doing. He isn't saying "I'd like all three to be illegal, but given tactical difficulties we can focus on just one of them". I would except a pope to be open and honest with his followers, and not blatantly cover up one side from any mention for the pursuit of some particular tactic. Thankfully, I don't think this is what he is actually doing.

Further, you mentioned the people that would drink while wanting pot illegal. So there clearly is a class of people that want this legal asymmetry to remain in place, I suspect the pope is in it. I thought you were defending that class, am I wrong? I submit that this class has no good justification for their views.

I'm guessing that he would advocate it being illegal in places where it is currently legal, but I don't see how this distinction matters to anything I have said. Advocating for an unjustified legal asymmetries is as unjustified regardless of whether it is the status quo or the new situation that is the asymmetric one.

Of course it would be strange but from my PoV it would be ok. I don't think marijuana should be illegal.

uh....yes it does. Doing the thing that you think is so bad it should be legally banned is practically the definition of hypocrisy.

I don't think it's what he's doing either he's not advocating against criminalising alcohol though and he's not commenting on alcohol. This is why I'm not seeing the double standard. I am saying it is possible to advocate for pot remaining illegal and alcohol remaining legal and remain consistent.

I am a legislator required to do two cost benefit analysis, one on the legalisation of cannabis, another the criminalisation of alcohol. It is plausible that the CBA returns in favour of the status quo being maintained, whether it would or not is disputable but their different status can lead us to recommend no change in the law, where is the inconsistency there?

It's also consistent to think that alcohol is not a net cost to me but it is a net cost to society, believing such I may drink while it remains legal to do so but will not advocate for it's legalisation once criminalised.

It would be just as strange, and likely stranger, if the pope took it upon himself to make every vice or drug illegal. Afaik it is perfectly legal to sniff paint and gasoline, he should by this logic rally against these things as well, just to maintain some level of consistency that he's defying.

Pot is prevalent and becoming accepted, and he and others disagree with it, it's as simple as that. Just because he doesn't rally to make things that are currently accepted, illegal, doesn't mean anything more than he doesn't see them as the same, more difficult to campaign against, or as important an issue.

Drinking alcohol while alcohol is banned and advocating that it should remain banned is actually the definition of hypocrisy.

I don't think it's hypocritical for smokers to smoke while believing that it's harmful to them. They're just accepting the dangers of their activities. I don't think it's hypocritical for smokers to smoke while advocating smoking be banned.

No, I may believe that for a minority of alcohol users it's use is benign, for the majority it's use is not and so wish for it to be criminalised, at which point I will stop drinking. I am consistent in obeying the law in both cases and I am consistent in wanting a law I believe beneficial passed.

I am not a hypocrite if I consider myself a member of the minority who can drink responsibly and participate while it's legal to do so while being prepared to forgo my legal past time in order that a greater benefit for society be delivered.

Even if for the majority the use is benign I may still consider the cost to the minority sufficient for it to be made illegal.

I was talking about marijuana and alcohol. Same question but let me elaborate to avoid any further confusion.

Alcohol is a far more dangerous drug than marijuana, with a far greater negative impact both medical and societal. Assuming (and this is why I wanted to confirm definitions) that the pope is calling weed 'evil' because of it's negative effects on people's lives, and yet is not calling for alcohol to be made illegal despite it's far far greater negative effects, he either doesn't consider alcohol to be a recreational drug (in which case, why not?) or is a double standard not in play here? Why is alcohol being treated differently?

What do you consider a recreational drug to be?

Who really cares what some Poope says? Be your own person, think your own thoughts, make up your own mind.

He's just a Poope. Just an ordinary human who wears a funny hat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CuvG7xnzLk

Yeah I was going to use smoking but I think there are fewer smokers for whom it is benign.

I disagree. Most forms of advocacy have a social/political context to them that make pushing some angles more relevant than others. Being held to a standard of needing to advocate against absolutely everything you're against all the time is a good way to get absolutely nothing done.

That's a fair perspective, and you may be right, but by your logic you should want all drugs to be legal. The distinction you make between pot and whatever other drugs are illegal, could be the same that someone makes between alcohol and pot.

I don't see a problem with disagreeing or agreeing with one issue and considering all others independent, even if similar.

What's next? The Poope condemns bananas too?

Fwiw This is from the Pope's lenten message

I don't consider it hypocritical to tell a kid he can't use the 12" chef knife because it's dangerous while I'm actively cutting vegetables with a 12" chef knife, either.

If you dislike this thread, there is pretty much nothing in this forum for you. This is a perfectly executed thread, it has a theologically relevant story with a link, a controversial opinion, the OP gave his insights and criticisms, and the floor is open for discussion. It's not so much about the pope as it is with the idea in general.

If you disagree with the pope and that particular stance, you should explain why, you'd be surprised at the level of thought some people are capable of around here, where you may even walk away thinking differently.

yeah I'm good with different levels of responsibility being granted with maturity.

I'm not even sure it's necessarily hypocritical to participate in something that's illegal and wanting it to remain illegal. A dealer or small grower may not welcome a change in the law. I also may think that it's better pot remain illegal in terms of society's benefit while accepting that I am breaking the law by doing it.

I think it may be a more difficult defend but I don't think it's necessarily hypocritical in the way, wanting a different legal status for me and someone similar to me in all relevant details, is.

I am guessing that you are getting confused by the conjection. I see no argument yet given as to why you should be advocating pot being illegal AND be advocating that alcohol remains legal. The best I have heard thus far is a tactical argument that says we will only focus on the first of these for tactical reasons, even though you and I both don't think this was what the pope is doing, and wasn't what anyone was originally talking about.

So basically "if the answer is the status quo is best, wouldn't the status quo be best"? Obviously. But the point is that their is no good reason to think the status quo is best.

Okay, well done, you get your out. But it doesn't much change things. If you are in the category where you think both pot and alcohol should be banned, well great, I don't accuse you of any consistency. If you are in the category where you think only one of these should be banned, then I have yet to see a shred of justification for this position. And it seems like the pope is in this category, as well as many of your earlier statements about all the other people in this category that I thought you were defending.

I guess the vagueness of "a change" is probably good enough. You may think that the proposed law is stupid and you think it's better to hold out for a better one. But if you desire that it remains illegal under all circumstances (and I suppose you have some sort of "rule of law" ethos), I don't think you could escape the hypocrisy accusation.

Right. That is the whole point, is that people - for reasons unknown to me - have it in their heads that pot is somehow worse than alcohol, that it is more important to rally against than alcohol to the point that they advocate pot to be illegal but not so for alcohol. However, when one considered the effect of the drug, the massive asymmetry in the legal status just doesn't seem to be justified by the differences in the two drugs. Heck, pot seems to be the better of the two on most important metrics. Yet they disagree with its acceptance, but don't seem to disagree with alcohols acceptance.

I'm not interested in an out, this isn't an argument I'm trying to explain a position that you seem intent on ignoring. I am not someone who thinks the status quo is best what I am saying is that it is not inherently hypocritical to participate in an activity while legal that you think should be banned. This wasn't specifically about the pope's perspective given that no one has pointed out where he's advocated for the use of alcohol.

What I did post was a quote from the Pope's lenten address where he seems consistent in his treatment of drugs and alcohol. As you seem to have missed it.

Cheers, I'm done with this discussion.

Huh? How does the status of the law change the nature of it being hypocritical? In either case one is advocating for a legal status different than what one's own actions are doing. I actually accept deregs out as in my other post, but I think the switch from my statement to yours here is entirely irrelevant.

Sure, and I said earlier that I have no problem with tactical arguments that pick and choose your emphasis. Note that I said "advocating for an asymmetry" - as in both sides of the asymmetry. If you would prefer both to be illegal but are going to dedicate all your attention to keeping pot illegal that is certainly consistent as I said earlier. But if you believe that alcohol should remain legal and that pot should remain illegal, that position is unjustified. The point of the thing you quoted was to say that this position - one's preferred legal status - is just as unjustified regardless as to whether it is or is not the current status quo.

I think a dealer avoids the charge of hypocrisy if he accepts the risk of being caught as a part of his job. Only if he wants the law not to apply to him is he hypocritical.

Well, it would definitely be worthwhile to investigate the bolded claim a little further. I think it is more complicated than effects of the drugs, there is also a moral element, since the objection is partly a religious one.

I'd like to let these more competent posters finish their current discussions, before I derail this with my moral objections.