Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana

07-08-2014 , 12:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
This is a misunderstanding. My point was: The criticism of Pope Francis for failing to delineate between drugs and alcohol is misplaced. If we want to make a criticism on this basis it should be applied to culture at large and not placed on Pope Francis alone.
I do make it of culture at large but this is RGT and so I restricted the thread to the pope's speech.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
This is a "mistake" that everyone makes. UM makes the point that Pope Francis should be held to a higher standard of awareness which is probably fair.
Yes, he should. He needs better advisors, a better education, or to be more honest and less manipulative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LEMONZEST
I think my criticism of Pope Francis is actually harsher than yours. Your point is that there is a double standard here. My view is that the Pope should not be providing commentary on public policy at all.
My bad.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
What is your basis for saying pot has a low risk of addiction and alcohol having a high risk of addiction?
By all means have at it, if Uke can be bothered to respond, but this isn't the pertinent question TD, especially since no one needs alcohol to be 'worse' than marijuana to support the position that they can't be separated so easily. As I already said to you earlier ITT, we can treat them equally in terms of impact if you want and my point about the double standard still stands.

A better question, given the context of the thread, might be 'why doesn't the pope consider alcohol to be a drug?'
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
As a point of process, I don't mind if you don't expect us or anyone to agree. What I care about is being able to see that someone else has a cogent justification for their views. I may not end up agreeing with it - I might, for instance, reject various premises in an argument - but at least I can say they have a valid argument. It is through understanding different arguments that we progress on this forum. I am pointing this out because I have seen you use phrases like this a bit like a shield, sort of immunizing you against needing to fully explain and justify your thoughts. I am interested in seeing the justification, even if we don't anticipate ever agreeing on the conclusion!

As to the comments themselves, firstly note that you haven't provided any hint of justification for why being "drunk" or "high" is morally bad. That remains an assertion.

What you have done is said that you can consume small amounts of alcohol to get only a small effect from the drug, but somehow for pot you can't. Just as a point of fact, I don't think this is true. People do consume small amounts of pot to experience only a small effect from the drug and do so for a variety of different reasons, so this sharp asymmetry between the two you provided is just wrong. But even supposing it was true, you haven't spelled out how this makes the one moral and the other immoral. You have claimed a difference between the two drugs that I rather question but okay, let us accept that there is this difference. How do you get to it being immoral?
I'll say it like this, I believe that being intoxicated is a sin. If you can find a way to smoke pot and not get high, maybe you found a loophole, but I think that's a silly idea.

As to why I think it is immoral, both from experience, and biblically. There are many verses that say to "not give into drunkenness" and to "remain sober", to "not indulge in too much wine" and so on. Drunkenness is clearly spelled out as improper behaviour. Also, unlike what MB has said, I do believe marijuana is addictive. Maybe it does not create a physical dependance, but I could not go a day without getting high or I would be in mental despair. I believe it creates a mental dependance, and that dependence and abuse is also improper behaviour, and likely the real issue, not the actual getting high, even though sobriety is praised.


Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Do you think catching a buzz form one beer or glass of wine is immoral? Cause i cant drink one, unless my tolerance is high form high usage, without catching a buzz.
I think it depends on your intentions. If you decide to have a glass of wine at dinner and become a bit tipsy without you meaning to, then perhaps not. If you are aware that it will make you tipsy, and you drink it for that alone, then yeah. Obviously if you keep having wine with dinner with full knowledge that you can't handle it, then it's probably biblically incorrect.

It's not all black and white, but the general idea of being drunk is improper, and these things also create in you a dependence and/or abuse which is also improper, they become idols in your life.

My main point is that you can have alcohol in moderation, a glass of beer here and there, and if you are not doing it out of need, to get drunk, or to make yourself feel better, then it's not a problem. Don't get me wrong, I think alcohol has an extremely destructive potential, one I'm familiar with, but the potential for abuse does not make it bad in itself.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
What is your basis for saying pot has a low risk of addiction and alcohol having a high risk of addiction?
I'll save you the 10 seconds of going to wikipedia:
Quote:
Research has shown the overall addiction potential for cannabis to be less than for caffeine, tobacco, alcohol, cocaine or heroin, but slightly higher than that for psilocybin, mescaline, or LSD.
Not really interested in a literature search to be more precise than that - since equality is sufficient for anything I have said - but if you want to look it up by all means go ahead and post the links.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude



I think it depends on your intentions. If you decide to have a glass of wine at dinner and become a bit tipsy without you meaning to, then perhaps not. If you are aware that it will make you tipsy, and you drink it for that alone, then yeah. Obviously if you keep having wine with dinner with full knowledge that you can't handle it, then it's probably biblically incorrect.

It's not all black and white, but the general idea of being drunk is improper, and these things also create in you a dependence and/or abuse which is also improper, they become idols in your life.

My main point is that you can have alcohol in moderation, a glass of beer here and there, and if you are not doing it out of need, to get drunk, or to make yourself feel better, then it's not a problem. Don't get me wrong, I think alcohol has an extremely destructive potential, one I'm familiar with, but the potential for abuse does not make it bad in itself.
Intentions shouldnt really come into it. If i drink a drink i will get a little high. So if getting high is immoral it should be immoral for me to drink a drink.

Or anyone really. Since the only way not to get a little high is to raise your tolerance by drinking more often.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:15 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by batair
Intentions shouldnt really come into it. If i drink a drink i will get a little high. So if getting high is immoral it should be immoral for me to drink a drink.

Or anyone really. Since the only way not to get a little high is to raise your tolerance by drinking more often.
Intentions obviously matter. If it so happens that you cannot drink at all without becoming drunk, then you shouldn't drink.

Not everyone has this "problem", I can drink and not feel it.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I'll say it like this, I believe that being intoxicated is a sin. If you can find a way to smoke pot and not get high, maybe you found a loophole, but I think that's a silly idea.
I'm not really following this. If you take a small amount of either substance, you experience a small amount of the physiological effects, right? Your complaint reads to me like if you smoke a whole joint you get a greater physiological effect then if you sip on a beer over an hour...well yes...but you don't have to consume a whole joint just as you don't have to consume several drinks in short succession.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
I'm not really following this. If you take a small amount of either substance, you experience a small amount of the physiological effects, right? Your complaint reads to me like if you smoke a whole joint you get a greater physiological effect then if you sip on a beer over an hour...well yes...but you don't have to consume a whole joint just as you don't have to consume several drinks in short succession.
I can have a drink and feel no effects, but I can't smoke a bit of weed and feel nothing.

If it so happens, that you cannot drink without feeling it, then that's a different story. The answer is likely that you shouldn't drink at all.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I'll say it like this, I believe that being intoxicated is a sin. If you can find a way to smoke pot and not get high, maybe you found a loophole, but I think that's a silly idea.
So moderate use of a hard drug is ok?
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
So moderate use of a hard drug is ok?
I was being facetious, obviously the only reason to take drugs is to get high, or feel the effects. To smoke weed and not get high is illogical.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I can have a drink and feel no effects, but I can't smoke a bit of weed and feel nothing.

If it so happens, that you cannot drink without feeling it, then that's a different story. The answer is likely that you shouldn't drink at all.
So if you feel any physiological effect of drinking whatsoever that makes it immoral? (You still haven't explained why feeling a physiological effect is moral, but whatever) If you don't feel any such effect, why are you drinking? Alcohol is a drug that people like to consume because they like the physiological effect, it is pretty weird to defend it based on the premise that you can consume it in small enough amounts that the physiological effect isn't very large. Besides, not that I have tried this, but I presume one can consume a proportionally small amount of weed to experience proportionally small physiological effects as consuming a single drink.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 01:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
So if you feel any physiological effect of drinking whatsoever that makes it immoral? (You still haven't explained why feeling a physiological effect is moral, but whatever) If you don't feel any such effect, why are you drinking? Alcohol is a drug that people like to consume because they like the physiological effect, it is pretty weird to defend it based on the premise that you can consume it in small enough amounts that the physiological effect isn't very large. Besides, not that I have tried this, but I presume one can consume a proportionally small amount of weed to experience proportionally small physiological effects as consuming a single drink.
I've said that it's biblically immoral. This makes sense in that drugs and alcohol when abused can create a dependance, which then become idols in your life. Also, there are usually reasons for people to abuse drugs and alcohol in the first place, they are avoiding something.

I don't know what culture you're from, but many cultures have wine with dinner, and it has absolutely nothing to do with getting drunk. It's like drinking juice instead of water. You drink wine with a nice meal, it tastes good and pairs well. You don't have to do it to get a buzz. With pot, the ONLY reason is to get high. You're trying to say you can only get a little high, and it's comparable, but it's not. Intoxicated is intoxicated. A little intoxicated is just splitting hairs.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 02:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
I was being facetious, obviously the only reason to take drugs is to get high, or feel the effects. To smoke weed and not get high is illogical.
I wasn't including weed, I don't consider it a hard drug. Presumably if you drink, even if you don't get drunk, you support the moderate use of hard drugs?

Whether or not you register the effects, alcohol is affecting you. I think you're on very dodgy ground here.

Last edited by Mightyboosh; 07-08-2014 at 02:15 PM.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 02:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyboosh
I wasn't including weed, I don't consider it a hard drug. Presumably if you drink, even if you don't get drunk, you support the moderate use of hard drugs?

Whether or not you register the effects, alcohol is affecting you. I think you're on very dodgy ground here.
Why would I support the use of hard drugs? I can get behind drugs that serve as medication, but not when it's only about getting high for recreation.

Everything we put in our bodies affect us, the specific examination of "affect" in this context is inebriation, and I maintain that someone can drink for other reasons than intoxication, and is not necessarily immoral, although it often is.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 02:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
I'll save you the 10 seconds of going to wikipedia:


Not really interested in a literature search to be more precise than that - since equality is sufficient for anything I have said - but if you want to look it up by all means go ahead and post the links.
I asked for your reasons, I can't find that on Wikipedia. How many regular users of Marijuana do you think become addicted?
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 02:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Note that gender and race are explicitly given in the stub on double standard in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard) which contains no mention that a double standard is ONLY judged from the perspective of the person prescribing the standard. Used in this way, how could we ever successfully accuse someone of using a double standard. If they treat the races, genders, etc differently they can always say "I'm not using a double standard, the races actually are different".
I'm certainly not opposed to externally judging someone as having applied a double standard. But what it does is it requires the external perspective to be imposed on someone else.

Basically, it's one person saying "These things are different!" and someone else saying "They're the same!"

The challenge comes at the level of deciding how similar is similar enough. For example, MB is more or less treating all drugs as the same, so anything that distinguishes between drug types could qualify as a double standard to him. Others may make distinctions based on physiological effects, medical applications, legality, or whatever else.

Quote:
Not only is this interpretation of the word unorthodox, if true it rather robs us of a useful expression. I want to be able to have a short hand for claiming the pope is applying two different standards to two similar things. If I can't say double standard (because I can't rule out that he doesn't believe in some unspecified difference between them) what phrase would you prefer me to use instead other than double standard?
I'm of a similar perspective to tame_deuces in post #27 in the application of the application, and in general about labels. A couple examples of things I've held a similar position on:
* Labeling people "bigots" on the basis of policy positions regardless of the logic by which that policy position was taken
* Calling something a "coping mechanism" or labeling it as "placebo effect" as a means of denying the legitimacy of an outcome

In general, labels add emotional impact to arguments without increasing the quality of the argument. In your position, I'd just call it an error in medical judgment, or accuse him of being wrong about the social impact of the legalization of marijuana. Because that's really the meat of your accusation. Trying to argue that he's holding a double standard requires you to get too much inside of his head and make too many conjectures to be a truly tenable argument.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 02:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uke_master
Meh, looks like you are trying your hardest to read things in a way that makes him right.

When he says "No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use.", I don't think this is correct to read it as ONLY "contextually speaking to and about drug addicts." The plain reading of this is that "any kind of drug use" is bad, not just drug use from addicts. Besides, the context right before this is the legalization of recreational drugs generally so I think it is quite correct to read this generally as well.
Would you say that the Pope is against taking a Tylenol? Probably not. So there is a clear need for contextualization.

Since the quote is sandwiched between the sentence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope
To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem.
and the sentence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope
If we say ‘yes’ to all these things, there will be no room for illicit drugs, for alcohol abuse, for other forms of addiction”.
I would argue that contextually he's focusing on the problem of addiction.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 02:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
* Labeling people "bigots" on the basis of policy positions regardless of the logic by which that policy position was taken
Just to be clear this wasn't my assertion if it was your disagreement with me this refers to. I was very specific about the presence of a prejudice and a resultant inequality derived from the policy position.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 03:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tame_deuces
I asked for your reasons, I can't find that on Wikipedia. How many regular users of Marijuana do you think become addicted?
Must I really google this stat for you too? Fine, here is one stat saying 9 or 10% of users and there I'll even include the link for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_dependence

Next time you are interested in a stat, look it up yourself. I have no idea why you are asking what bold faced my guess as to the number is.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 03:05 PM
My marijuana addiction rivaled my alcohol dependancy. Mental dependancy can be just as powerful. I think it's an error to conclude that because you are able to casually smoke pot and not let it consume you, that everyone can.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 03:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by dereds
Just to be clear this wasn't my assertion if it was your disagreement with me this refers to. I was very specific about the presence of a prejudice and a resultant inequality derived from the policy position.
We can revisit this in the other thread if you want, but you were the one who stated that holding a policy position against gay marriage is tautologically bigotry.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 03:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Would you say that the Pope is against taking a Tylenol? Probably not. So there is a clear need for contextualization.
Think it is fairly obvious we are talking about "recreational drugs" (his quotes) here not Tylenol. That your particular attempt at interpreting a meaning violating the plain meaning through contextualization was lolbad doesn't mean we get to throw out any hint of contextualization and get to include Tylenol in the comparison.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I would argue that contextually he's focusing on the problem of addiction.
Really, really, hard to see how "No to any kind of drug use" magically becomes "no to any kind of drug use for people with drug addictions". Particular right after he talks about legalizing recreational drugs generally. It seems about as clear as I can imagine anything being that he thinks these same recreational drugs shouldn't be used in any way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope
If we say ‘yes’ to all these things, there will be no room for illicit drugs, for alcohol abuse, for other forms of addiction”.
Btw, the phrasing here really reinforces the picture we've been painting. Illicit drugs (ie pot) are always bad, but alcohol is only bad when it is abused. It isn't "no room for illicit drugs, alcohol, or other substances that can cause addiction". Illicit drugs are put on an equal weighting with alcohol abuse and addiction.

Going down the rabbit whole of interpreting a third person's relatively short remarks does have diminishing returns, and if you want to throw our hands up since we can't exactly know what connotations he is implying with every word then fine. But trying to twist the words to be something far removed from their plain meaning is just silly.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naked_Rectitude
My marijuana addiction rivaled my alcohol dependancy. Mental dependancy can be just as powerful. I think it's an error to conclude that because you are able to casually smoke pot and not let it consume you, that everyone can.
Thanks?
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 03:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
We can revisit this in the other thread if you want, but you were the one who stated that holding a policy position against gay marriage is tautologically bigotry.
You're right but during subsequent discussions when we considered, and disagreed over my rewrite of the wiki definition, it was made absolutely clear that bigotry by my definition required a prejudice. It was my assertion that this, rather than your focus on the operatives, was the most important part of the definition of a bigot.

While we may have disagreed and ultimately found the discussion fruitless you should really accept that your positing of my position in this thread is inaccurate. It wasn't regardless of the logic if a prejudice is necessary.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote
07-08-2014 , 03:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
Basically, it's one person saying "These things are different!" and someone else saying "They're the same!"
For the record the Pope hasn't delineated any way yet posted ITT in which they are different. In fact, his comments point more to the fact that they are similar. Despite this, he advocates for only one of them being illegal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron W.
I'm of a similar perspective to tame_deuces in post #27 in the application of the application, and in general about labels. A couple examples of things I've held a similar position on:
* Labeling people "bigots" on the basis of policy positions regardless of the logic by which that policy position was taken
* Calling something a "coping mechanism" or labeling it as "placebo effect" as a means of denying the legitimacy of an outcome

In general, labels add emotional impact to arguments without increasing the quality of the argument. In your position, I'd just call it an error in medical judgment, or accuse him of being wrong about the social impact of the legalization of marijuana. Because that's really the meat of your accusation. Trying to argue that he's holding a double standard requires you to get too much inside of his head and make too many conjectures to be a truly tenable argument.
Okay. Don't really think "double standard" has remotely comparable emotional impact to "bigot" or whatever. Its use in the conversation is to identify a particular fallacy the same way I might accuse you of using a post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacy or whatever. It is useful to be able to identify the specific manner of the criticism. In this case, using the word double standard is meant to convey the idea of different treatments for similar things. If you prefer not to use the shorthand and just type that out every time then sure. But it shouldn't be interpreted as the same kind of emotionally charged accusation that being a racist is. I maintain that this is both an orthodox and useful use of the word.
Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana Quote

      
m