Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana
I don't find the argument compelling but it's an argument that I think is often central to the debate around alcohol. People who drink socially see the benefit not only in drinking but in the benefits that derive from being in a social situations where alcohol is present. Cannabis isn't associated with the same benefits and given that smoking cigarettes is often banned in public places I don't know that cannabis consumption in public would be allowed even if legal.
If this means not being able to make all recreational drugs illegal, then perhaps it's an argument for making them all legal?
To answer an earlier question from MB a variety of drugs taken voluntarily that result in some physiological or psychological effect can be used recreationally. Cannabis, alcohol. heroin, cocaine, painkillers, valium ketamine are all used recreationally, some are available legally, some on prescription while one is a horse tranquilliser. We may not associate drug use that results in a dependency recreational but that's generally how it starts.
If you want to advocate for cannabis use you have to account for the dangers/damage and you do that by tackling the questions relating to cannabis not by pointing at the legal status of alcohol and shouting unfair. Personally I find the strongest argument in favour of legalisation is that prohibition doesn't work. we already bear the costs of cannabis use without deriving the benefits of having that economy pay tax and provide tax paying jobs.
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.
As with so many people who are 50+ my guess is Pope Francis does not make much of a distinction between various types of drugs. Drugs are drugs and drugs are bad...
Pope Francis is really an outsider looking into a world he doesn't know much about (my hunch).
If culture had progressed differently it is possible that the CC use marijuana in communion and forbid alcohol.
Pope Francis is advocating a moral argument. From his perspective, whether its medically accurate or not, drugs lead to addiction which is evil. If he had the chance to speak out about preventing alcohol from being legal maybe he would, who knows.
I don't think Pope Francis is being hypocritical he just doesn't know what he is talking about. He is obviously not presenting a nuanced argument about the addictive nature of cannabis.
Pope Francis is really an outsider looking into a world he doesn't know much about (my hunch).
If culture had progressed differently it is possible that the CC use marijuana in communion and forbid alcohol.
Pope Francis is advocating a moral argument. From his perspective, whether its medically accurate or not, drugs lead to addiction which is evil. If he had the chance to speak out about preventing alcohol from being legal maybe he would, who knows.
I don't think Pope Francis is being hypocritical he just doesn't know what he is talking about. He is obviously not presenting a nuanced argument about the addictive nature of cannabis.
Unless of course he has some argument for why alcohol isn't a recreational drug.
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?
[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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 much pain is caused in families because one of their members – often a young person - is in thrall to alcohol, drugs, gambling or pornography!
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.
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.
It's pointless I'm done.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It's pointless I'm done.
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.
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.
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.
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.
How about that he describes them as 'alcohol' ,[AND] 'drugs' as if they were two different things?
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)
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.
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.
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?
More accurately, it's only a double standard from 'this' point of view, no matter who holds 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Why is alcohol considered a separate thing from 'drugs'?
Essentially you are arguing argumentatively on why arguments are unnecessery.
Originally Posted by Pope
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.
What are the lots of ways you think that he could classify marijuana as evil but not alcohol?
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE