Tell that to the Dutch. You're simply not used to that because it's never been allowed to occur in our country.

I'm really not sure what it says about us that pubs are he 'backbone' of the community and that people might not get together socially the same way without there being a hard drug present. how did we get to this situation, and that it be considered the norm that if I went into my local hard drug dealers establishment and said this, they'd look at me like I had three heads.

If this means not being able to make all recreational drugs illegal, then perhaps it's an argument for making them all legal?

Not exactly what I was doing and the purpose of this thread wasn't to present a case for the legalisation of cannabis, it was to question whether or not the statement by the pope contained logical fallacies and a double standard.

I worked in the Nertherlands. As it is smoking is not allowed in pubs in the UK as it previously had been and I doubt very much whether cannabis being legalised in the UK would result in coffee shops of Amsterdam.

You did ask the question of someone what they considered recreational drugs. In any case you haven't demonstrated either a double standard or a logical fallacy.

Again, it's not possible to be physically addicted to Marijuana, he's conflating two issues, perhaps purposefully (I'm not as willing as you are to assume that he's just ignorant) and who knows how much damage he's done. And he is being hypocritical in that he's demonizing marijuana and other recreational drugs, claiming that we shouldn't use them because they are 'evil' while using one himself in ceremonies to the very god that he believes wants him to call them evil.

Unless of course he has some argument for why alcohol isn't a recreational drug.

Yes and I don't think this has been explored enough. For the pope not to be using a double standard, there has to be some difference in how he's defining 'recreational drug' from the way I'm defining it, or any definitions I can find online.

I think I've done both. The fallacy is his slippery slope mention of drug addiction while talking about drug use. The latter does not necessarily lead to the former.

The double standard is this. Marijuana and alcohol are both recreational drugs, he thinks that recreational drugs are 'evil' but then he uses alcohol, clearly treating it quite differently. Different sets of principles for similar situations. Is that not a double standard?

There are exemptions to that law and I didn't suggest that it had to happen in pubs.

[I live in a small village, there are no shops, there are two places that legally sell a hard drug, and people consider this normal and acceptable 'it's how things are'. Am I alone in thinking that this is weird?]

You read where the Pope condemned alcohol abuse in his Lenten address?

If not pubs then where, remember that uke asked for a relevant distinction between alcohol and cannabis based on their legal status and I pointed out the role that alcohol plays in social events, what harm is done to community infrastructures by keeping cannabis illegal? Would those infrastructures be harmed by criminalising alcohol.

No I didn't know about that. Interesting. So not only does he condemn recreational drugs as evil, then use one himself, but when he says "The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs.", this still doesn't apply to alcohol even though that drug causes problems that he's clearly aware of. From my perspective, his double standard just increased in scope.

Private establishments, hotel rooms, there are a number of exemptions to the no smoking law.

I don't want alcohol criminalised, I want cannabis legalised too, and it's not really what the thread is about, so the question is interesting but not one I want to spend time addressing, sorry.

What you seemed to want is criticise the Pope for being inconsistent and engaging in a fallacy and you've failed to do both. No one forced you to respond to a post that was addressed to uke_master on an element of the discussion you don't want to spend time addressing, sorry for your troubles.

How have I failed? How is it not a slippery slope fallacy and how is it not a double standard?

You keep saying I've failed but without explaining why so I've got nothing to go on except your assertion, but that isn't helping me to understand the failure.

Which is why I said sorry, tacitly acknowledging what I'd done and apologising, and generally it would have ended there with you graciously accepting that apology. I'll accept the passive aggressive rebuke even though it wasn't necessary.

Now, can we call it quits and not fall out over this?

Because you haven't accounted for the differences in legal status and when presented with a quote from the Pope condemning alcohol abuse you decide that is evidence of a double standard.

You like the scientific method right consider this as a test of falsifiability.

You claim that the Pope engages in a double standard re Alcohol and Cannabis.
I post a quote from the Pope condenming both
You claim that reinforces the double standard

You claim that the Pope engages in a double standard re Alcohol and Cannabis
I post a quote from the Pope condemning Cannabis but not Alcohol
You claim that reinforces the double standard

The first is what happened the second is hypothesis but you see your claim of a double standard is reinforced by two meaningfully distinct claims. This isn't a good thing.

Sound we'll drop that line of questioning let's not start making accusations passive aggressive posting.

I don't think this is a question of legality, I did say that earlier ITT. The pope is explicitly calling recreational drugs 'evil' and only made a passing reference to the legality by saying that he considers the recent changes in Washington and Colorado 'highly questionable'. He doesn't mention Uruguay AFAIK.

Yes I do, because he takes a totally different line with alcohol. In the Lenent address, which I've now had a look at, he mentions being 'in thrall to alcohol' (amongst other vices, and that's the only mention I could find) but what he doesn't do is describe it as 'evil', which is an extremely strong word for him to use. The ultimate condemnation.

He both describes marijuana as evil, and also claims that the solution to the drug problem is not the continued use of drugs. But then conspicuously fails to do the same with alcohol, acknowledging that there's a problem, (being 'in thrall') but not calling it evil and not demanding that it not be used. In fact he uses it himself.

Yes, because it highlights how differently he's treating them. He's not condemning them both equally, he's calling one 'evil' and saying that we shouldn't use it at all, and the other he's saying 'don't be in thrall to it' but it's clearly ok to use it.

I do, because they're examples of how differently he's treating the two things, how he's applying different principles to them, even though they're similar (both being recreational drugs). As I understand it, that's the very definition of a double standard.

How is he treating these differently in this address?

How about that he describes them as 'alcohol' ,[AND] 'drugs' as if they were two different things? The very distinction is a double standard unless you can show the set of principles being used to define them in a way that shows that they're not being treated differently? I'm not aware that there's a distinction, is alcohol not a drug? Why is this thing, that meets the criteria for what defines 'drug', and that devastates lives to a far greater degree than marijuana, not something that is also 'evil'? Like I've said, this hinges around how he's defining 'recreational drug'.

So, we've accepted that this is primarily a moral issue for the pope, and that the legality isn't his focus?

Also, why quote from the Lenent address, I already said that I looked at it, I even used the terminology from it in my last post. That and the fact that you're really asking the same question that I already answered in that post #122 makes me wonder if you really absorbed what I said at all.

You used the terminology to suggest that that he was treating them differently, when subsequently presented with evidence that he is treating them similarly you defend he's treating them differently by differentiating them. How about he's using shorthand for illegal drugs and alcohol which isn't illegal.

It's pointless I'm done.

If the pope had just used the word "drugs" as a catchall for everything , including alchohol, and not specifically mentioned alcohol at all, you would still be going "well, he didnt even mention alcohol, so its a double standard"

I kind of see your point, but I dont think its a double standard, because he ( the pope) believes that alcohol and marajuhana are different. Yes, he is possibly wrong about that, but that doesnt make it a double standard. A double standard would be if he believed that they were the same, but applied different rules to each.

We already established that the legality isn't the real issue, it certainly hasn't been the main thrust of your argument, that the issue is in fact one of morality. No one has given a good argument for why the pope considers marijuana 'evil' and alcohol' not evil. Do you have one?

Your evidence that he treats them similarly is actually evidence that he treats them dis-similarly, he even uses different terminology and calls for them to be treated differently, when both are a recreational drug. I don't understand why you can't see this.

If you're really done, then I guess thank for the chat, I enjoyed it.

Maybe I would, given that the false distinction between the two has been used to the point where it's now the commonly understood way of referring to them, he would have to clarify that he was including alcohol. Had he done that I would be impressed but it won't happen because it puts the CC in very difficult position, that of having to explain why they use an 'evil' drug in their ceremonies.

This is the crux of the double standard part of it, and I don't think this has been addressed enough. The pope uses the phrase 'recreational drug' but doesn't seem to consider that alcohol is a recreational drug (inferred from his behaviour), and so you're arguing that it's not a double standard because he isn't deliberately and knowingly applying different principles to the same thing right? (Does it matter of the perpetrator knows what they're doing, are they not doing it anyway? If I were employing a double standard, my lack of awareness of that wouldn't change that it was a double standard)

But... I think that actually he is, and here's why. He's judging marijuana to be a recreational drug, and therefore evil, presumably because of the effects that it has, it's a drug ("a medicine or other substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body.") etc etc, and he must be aware that alcohol has effects and is also a drug, so he's knows that they're the same in that regard. I simply don't believe that he's too stupid or ignorant to see that they're both drugs and both used recreationally. So he does know that they're the same thing, both recreational drugs, and therefore he's knowingly treating them differently.

Also, the issue of legality isn't pertinent. He barely mentions it and instead stresses the evil of marijuana. It's amoral issue for him.

you said

and I was just pointing out that even if he described them as the same thing ( ie "drugs" as a catchall) you would still object.


Yes. the pope believes that alcohol and recreational drugs are different, and he can therefore apply different standards to them.
A standard is a subjective thing, applied by people depending on what they believe about the thing they are applying the standard to.

Its only a double standard from your point of view.

I guess it all depends on what category you put each thing in. You seem to be saying here that alcohol and marijuana are both "recreational drugs".
But you also have put them in different categories, alcohol in "harmful recreational drugs" and marijuana in " mostly harmless recreational drugs". I guess people can recategorise things when its convenient for them, and the pope is no exception.

Given that the pope believes what he believes, I dont really see how he can be accused of applying a double standard. He believes that alcohol and marijuana are in different categories.

Is it such a big deal? The pope is flawed, so what? Are you demanding papal infallibility?

We can infer from his behavior that he considers them to be different yes, if we take him at face value.


More accurately, it's only a double standard from 'this' point of view, no matter who holds it.

Yes, because that's the phrase the pope used.

But he hasn't, if anything, he appears to have lumped all the drugs that aren't alcohol together in a sweeping statement about drug addiction. The issue of level of relative harm is a minefield that I don't blame him for not wanting to walk through.

Again, this is the major question, how can he describe marijuana, a relatively harmless drug when compared to alcohol, as 'evil', but not consider alcohol as evil too? They are in different categories and alcohol is a far more serious harmful category but not only is he not judging it by the same principles he's applying to marijuana, but he actually uses it himself. Hence, the double standard. Think about why the pope thinks marijuana is evil.


Does it matter why I want to talk about it?

Yes, I understand that, you're repeating yourself unnecessarily. My answer, was that if he had only said 'drugs', I would assume that he wasn't including alcohol unless otherwise stated. This is because the false distinction between drugs and alcohol is such a prevalent attitude that I would have to assume that the pope was also guilty of it.

So yes, I agree with your original assertion, that I would probably have assumed, with no info to the contrary, that he wasn't including alcohol and still have felt that a double standard was in play. However, the CC is in a position where they can't call alcohol 'evil' can they, so they have to distinguish between alcohol and something that they are calling 'drugs' but which doesn't include alcohol precisely because of the double standard.

Ok? I think is kinda a digression really, either way, I think there's a double standard so it's irrelevant how I would have reacted to something he didn't say which is why I've moved this to the bottom of my reply.

I can think of lots of ways how he can do this. I would think he was wrong, but that doesnt mean that its not possible to do it. Plus , if they are in different categories, as you state, then its not possible for him to be applying a double standard, is it?


So what you are saying is that, whether he describes them as the same thing, or different things, you are going to find issue with him either way?

Perhaps the reason why he said "drugs and alcohol" is because he wanted to make sure that both were included, and as you have agreed, if he had just said "drugs", then people, including you, would have leapt to the conclusion that he was leaving alcohol out.

Would you agree that marijuana must be evil from the pope's perspective because of the harm it causes? What else could the criteria be? It grows naturally, the legal status doesn't seem to be the major issue. So, if it's the harm it causes that makes it evil, then how is he not classifying alcohol as a more harmful, and therefore even more evil drug? (along with Heroin, Cocaine, Magic mushrooms, Acid etc etc)

The double standard is that the principles he's applying to describe marijuana as 'evil', are not being applied to alcohol in the same way. Alcohol is being treated differently. With alcohol, he's not calling it evil and asking for us to stop using it, he's using it himself, he just doesn't want us 'in thrall' to it.

What are the lots of ways you think that he could classify marijuana as evil but not alcohol?

This is causing confusion. Putting alcohol and marijuana in separate categories according to how much harm they cause wouldn't be a double standard. Calling for the less harmful drug to be banned because of the harm it causes without applying the same principles to the more harmful drug, that's a double standard.

Yes, but they're different issues.

1) 'he describes them as the same thing'. Then treat them the same and don't apply the double standard.

2) 'or different things'. If they're different things, then by what criteria is he judging marijuana as evil that don't apply to alcohol? Or do they in fact apply to alcohol too but he's treating them differently. Double standard.

Dunno if anyone would have 'leapt' but yes, it would be an reasonable conclusion to draw. We live in a time where the false distinction has become prevalent. I thought it might because of the legal status, but we call medicines 'drugs' without clarification. If you were going to the drug store, or if you said you were on drugs, I wouldn't assume that you meant illegal/controlled subtsances.

Why is alcohol considered a separate thing from 'drugs'?

Essentially you are arguing argumentatively on why arguments are unnecessery.

I'll requote the Pope because I think this has gotten lost in translation:

I do not see him claiming that marijuana (the drug) is evil.

I'm quite certain that the Pope classifies alcoholism as evil.