Pope Francis Condemns Legalization Of Recreational Marijuana
LEMONZEST
UM,
Okay. I guess it does come down to expectations. I don't expect much from the CC leadership. I am more willing to accept and forgive the mistake in thinking but (theoretically) restrict the CC's comments on public policy.
In other words it is fine for older people to be conservative, traditional and ignorant but they should not be affecting public policy. It is still possible for these same conservative somewhat ignorant elderly people to be effective as spiritual leaders.
I agree the discussion of legalizing substances should include both pot and alcohol. However, the reason Pope Francis doesn't talk about making alcohol illegal is because that is not even something which is on the horizon. I think he is just commenting on current events if you can see it that way.
Sure. FWIW, I don't think the Pope is giving more of a double standard than much of western culture en masse. I do expect more from a pope then from the random guy at a bar who would vote against pot legalization - because he is advocating public policy as the spiritual leader of a billion people - but it is the same basic mistake.
In other words it is fine for older people to be conservative, traditional and ignorant but they should not be affecting public policy. It is still possible for these same conservative somewhat ignorant elderly people to be effective as spiritual leaders.
I rather think the opposite. It would be very weird to me to decide to comment on what the legal status of one drug ought to be without any shred of thought about what the legal status of very similar drugs to be. The comparison with alcohol is so immediate and so obvious - as in, it is incredibly hard to give compelling arguments for banning pot that don't immediately apply to alcohol - that to blind ourselves of the comparison seems ridiculous. But that is what we have done, and why a century later we still have this ridiculous asymmetry in laws.
Hehe well in terms of what I think is likely, no I don't expect much from. But in terms of what I think such an important leader should do? Yes I have high expectations the same way I think Obama ought to be held to a higher standard than you and I. But this is a said issue, I'm quite happy to just treat the position as unjustified blinding ourselves entirely to the fact that it was the Pope who said it.
I think it is much more likely that he is asymmetric because he actually thinks it is okay for alcohol to be legal and he actually thinks it is okay for pot not to be. Deregs suggested something like this earlier, that it was just a tactical argument since prohibition of alcohol is such a nonstarter. Well perhaps this is true. He hasn't indicated in any that it is, and I rather doubt it, but perhaps it is. But if he was, there is something a little distasteful in this moral and spiritual leader hiding his true feelings for the sake of tactics.
I think it is much more likely that he is asymmetric because he actually thinks it is okay for alcohol to be legal and he actually thinks it is okay for pot not to be. Deregs suggested something like this earlier, that it was just a tactical argument since prohibition of alcohol is such a nonstarter. Well perhaps this is true. He hasn't indicated in any that it is, and I rather doubt it, but perhaps it is. But if he was, there is something a little distasteful in this moral and spiritual leader hiding his true feelings for the sake of tactics.
I posed it but I agreed with you it's unlikely to be tactical. If it were I think it's alright like I think it's okay to be pragmatic and pick your battles.
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.
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.
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.
I'm not even sure what else it is you think he means. The words are "No to any kind of [recreational/illicit] drug use". What else but the plain and obvious meaning could this be? Yes his justification for this statement certainly has something to do with drug addiction, but I don't see what other meaning this statement could have. In particular, it is clear the Pope wants pot made illegal which fits exactly with "no to any kind of drug use". So what other meaning - and be precise - are you droning on about?
Did you notice that you felt compelled to include recreational in the bracket? Did you notice that the Pope referred to "so-called recreational drugs" and not "recreational drugs"? Are you unable to see the categories he's working with?
Way to not answer the question. I ask - again - for you to state - and be precise - what other meaning outside of the plain meaning is possibly meant by the "no to any kind of drug use"?
I felt the need to include the brackets because last time you went off on some bizarre tangent and started talking about tylonel. I have no idea what you think the difference between "so called recreational drugs" and "recreational drugs" is meant to imply. Perhaps if you actually stated your precise interpretation this whole post could have been avoided.
I felt the need to include the brackets because last time you went off on some bizarre tangent and started talking about tylonel. I have no idea what you think the difference between "so called recreational drugs" and "recreational drugs" is meant to imply. Perhaps if you actually stated your precise interpretation this whole post could have been avoided.
I felt the need to include the brackets because last time you went off on some bizarre tangent and started talking about tylonel. So this time I included the exact words of "recreational" and "illicit" he used. We don't disagree that this is clearly what is being talked about.
ANSWER THE QUESTION. Replace the statement "no to any kind of drug use" with whatever you think it means. Don't just wave your hands and say "about drug addiction". What - specifically - do you think he is implying? We both agree that we aren't talking about tylonel but about illicit drugs/recreational drugs so I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. I have no idea what the "so called" changes in the statement iun your mind. For instance, pretty clear he means to include pot and we can understand it as "no to any kind of pot use" in that context. If you disagree give a precise statement of what else it is you think it means.
Also, please give examples of drugs that are "so called recreational" but not "recreational" or vice versa. You clearly think I have made some form of error by ignoring the so called. So state a specific drug that the one phrase includes but the other doesn't.
I will 100% tell my children to stay away from weed and pot. There are so many reasons. For one, it is not regulated for mass-production. Most weed is bought off the guy living in the motel room. You have no idea what you are smoking or what it might be laced with.
Secondly, my family has a history of anxiety disorder, from my grandfather, to uncle to brother to me. The first time I ever had a panic attack was the second time I smoked pot (nothing happened the first time). If you know anything about panic attacks, the first one usually steamrolls into hundreds of others. I would never want them to wake up a latent mental disorder with a few puffs from a joint.
Thirdly, I have never gotten drunk with a friend and walked down the street and then suddenly stopped in wonderment, saying: "did we just walk down that street? I don't remember that sh** at all, dude! That was like 3 hours ago!"
Pot is a mind-altering drug, like alcohol. But it is still a drug. You don't drink it. It can mess you up...FOR LIFE. It is not an uncommon story to hear people with GAD state that their first one came from smoking pot. It can absolutely release a latent, hiding monster into your life that will plague you till the day you die.
Having a drink leads to having another drink, which could lead to all sorts of incidents and dramas. But if the pot you are smoking is laced with dust or if you have a history of mental illness in your family, you might wish you had never taken a single puff.
Secondly, my family has a history of anxiety disorder, from my grandfather, to uncle to brother to me. The first time I ever had a panic attack was the second time I smoked pot (nothing happened the first time). If you know anything about panic attacks, the first one usually steamrolls into hundreds of others. I would never want them to wake up a latent mental disorder with a few puffs from a joint.
Thirdly, I have never gotten drunk with a friend and walked down the street and then suddenly stopped in wonderment, saying: "did we just walk down that street? I don't remember that sh** at all, dude! That was like 3 hours ago!"
Pot is a mind-altering drug, like alcohol. But it is still a drug. You don't drink it. It can mess you up...FOR LIFE. It is not an uncommon story to hear people with GAD state that their first one came from smoking pot. It can absolutely release a latent, hiding monster into your life that will plague you till the day you die.
Having a drink leads to having another drink, which could lead to all sorts of incidents and dramas. But if the pot you are smoking is laced with dust or if you have a history of mental illness in your family, you might wish you had never taken a single puff.
I believe in some places the lower limit on dwi is if you have had even one drink and dont give it an hour you can be charged. Could be wrong on this.
And if intentions do matter all you are saying is it would be ok for me to get a little high if i didnt drink for the intention of that high. Which would mean the same should apply to pot.
If i like the taste of a beer now and then. And get a small buzz as a side effect and thats morally acceptable. It should be ok for me to smoke a little pot for the taste and get a little buzz.
Nah i like the taste and miss it. I dont smoke anymore but i have friends that do and when i smell it i miss the taste.
Id agree an anxiety disorder is a good reason not to smoke erb. But why would a drug dealer lace pot they are selling to make money put something like dust in it, which aint cheep and would decrees their profit substantially. Makes no sense. More then likely if that were to happen that would happen with a friend or acquaintance. Not a random drug dealer. And you really shouldn't be going ro randoms anyway...
Also if it were to be true, this is more of a good argument for legalization and regulation then anything. Just like bathtub gin was.
I will 100% tell my children to stay away from weed and pot. There are so many reasons. For one, it is not regulated for mass-production. Most weed is bought off the guy living in the motel room. You have no idea what you are smoking or what it might be laced with.
Secondly, my family has a history of anxiety disorder, from my grandfather, to uncle to brother to me. The first time I ever had a panic attack was the second time I smoked pot (nothing happened the first time). If you know anything about panic attacks, the first one usually steamrolls into hundreds of others. I would never want them to wake up a latent mental disorder with a few puffs from a joint.
Thirdly, I have never gotten drunk with a friend and walked down the street and then suddenly stopped in wonderment, saying: "did we just walk down that street? I don't remember that sh** at all, dude! That was like 3 hours ago!"
Pot is a mind-altering drug, like alcohol. But it is still a drug. You don't drink it. It can mess you up...FOR LIFE. It is not an uncommon story to hear people with GAD state that their first one came from smoking pot. It can absolutely release a latent, hiding monster into your life that will plague you till the day you die.
Having a drink leads to having another drink, which could lead to all sorts of incidents and dramas. But if the pot you are smoking is laced with dust or if you have a history of mental illness in your family, you might wish you had never taken a single puff.
Secondly, my family has a history of anxiety disorder, from my grandfather, to uncle to brother to me. The first time I ever had a panic attack was the second time I smoked pot (nothing happened the first time). If you know anything about panic attacks, the first one usually steamrolls into hundreds of others. I would never want them to wake up a latent mental disorder with a few puffs from a joint.
Thirdly, I have never gotten drunk with a friend and walked down the street and then suddenly stopped in wonderment, saying: "did we just walk down that street? I don't remember that sh** at all, dude! That was like 3 hours ago!"
Pot is a mind-altering drug, like alcohol. But it is still a drug. You don't drink it. It can mess you up...FOR LIFE. It is not an uncommon story to hear people with GAD state that their first one came from smoking pot. It can absolutely release a latent, hiding monster into your life that will plague you till the day you die.
Having a drink leads to having another drink, which could lead to all sorts of incidents and dramas. But if the pot you are smoking is laced with dust or if you have a history of mental illness in your family, you might wish you had never taken a single puff.
Also if it were to be true, this is more of a good argument for legalization and regulation then anything. Just like bathtub gin was.
We both agree that we aren't talking about tylonel but about illicit drugs/recreational drugs so I have no idea why you keep bringing this up. I have no idea what the "so called" changes in the statement iun your mind. For instance, pretty clear he means to include pot and we can understand it as "no to any kind of pot use" in that context. If you disagree give a precise statement of what else it is you think it means.
Now, drawing the line between someone who is addicted to such drugs and someone who is taking such drugs under control is like the conversation about cigarettes about 50 years ago. Cigarette smoking was considered normal. It was a habitual part of everyday life. You smoked one to calm you down. It made you feel better. Today, we look at it very differently.
The Pope's underlying belief is probably that people who think they are recreational drug users are more frequently addicts than they are willing to admit.
Of course the connotations of the words are different, how does this refute anything? Everyone and their dog understands him to be talking about a class of drugs of which pot is a member of. I have absolutely no idea why you threw up a huff that I put "recreational/illicit" into the quote opposed to "so called recreational/illicit". What difference does this make to understanding it? Do we understand the phrase differently with the two different qualifiers? Is there a single drug that fits into the "recreational" but not "so called recreational"? Of course not. It is your normal inane splitting nonexistence hairs for the purpose of hair splitting.
Whatever, keep your bizarre and unorthodox attempt at semantics if you must, but remember, the pope said EVERY type of drug use is to be rejected. So whether it is taken for enjoyment or taken as an addiction surely fits into "every" right?
Now, drawing the line between someone who is addicted to such drugs and someone who is taking such drugs under control is like the conversation about cigarettes about 50 years ago. Cigarette smoking was considered normal. It was a habitual part of everyday life. You smoked one to calm you down. It made you feel better. Today, we look at it very differently.
Nice baseless speculation.
Not talking about drunk, talking about buzzed. A small buzz. And if you didn't drink for a year i think you would get a small buzz from one drink. Most i know who dont drink much do. Maybe not all but its a safe guess that most would.
I believe in some places the lower limit on dwi is if you have had even one drink and dont give it an hour you can be charged. Could be wrong on this.
And if intentions do matter all you are saying is it would be ok for me to get a little high if i didnt drink for the intention of that high. Which would mean the same should apply to pot.
If i like the taste of a beer now and then. And get a small buzz as a side effect and thats morally acceptable. It should be ok for me to smoke a little pot for the taste and get a little buzz.
I believe in some places the lower limit on dwi is if you have had even one drink and dont give it an hour you can be charged. Could be wrong on this.
And if intentions do matter all you are saying is it would be ok for me to get a little high if i didnt drink for the intention of that high. Which would mean the same should apply to pot.
If i like the taste of a beer now and then. And get a small buzz as a side effect and thats morally acceptable. It should be ok for me to smoke a little pot for the taste and get a little buzz.
If you like the taste of weed, but you know that when you smoke it you'll get high, then you should recognize that you shouldn't smoke if you don't want to be high. It doesn't make sense for me to say, well, I'll just smoke a bit because some Christians can drink a little and they claim it's okay.
A lot of Christians I know don't drink because they'd rather not risk it, and to set a good example. I should not drink if I'm being honest, because I've had a problem with it in the past, and I still sometimes get tempted to get high and whatever, but I can have a beer and not be affected at all.
I guess if you really like the taste of weed, and it was legal, you could just Bill Clinton it, I guess that could be alright, but it seems like you're just dancing on the line, when it'd be better to just avoid it.
I asked.
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.
If you can't handle your alcohol, and you get buzzed or tipsy or drunk, then you should avoid it altogether if you want to not sin. When you start rationalizing it, you're already looking at it the wrong way.
If you like the taste of weed, but you know that when you smoke it you'll get high, then you should recognize that you shouldn't smoke if you don't want to be high. It doesn't make sense for me to say, well, I'll just smoke a bit because some Christians can drink a little and they claim it's okay.
If its ok to have a beer and get a little high without that as the main intention then the same should go for pot.
=A lot of Christians I know don't drink because they'd rather not risk it, and to set a good example. I should not drink if I'm being honest, because I've had a problem with it in the past, and I still sometimes get tempted to get high and whatever, but I can have a beer and not be affected at all.
I guess if you really like the taste of weed, and it was legal, you could just Bill Clinton it, I guess that could be alright, but it seems like you're just dancing on the line, when it'd be better to just avoid it.
I would guess he's not against prescription pain killers in all situations. I would also guess that he's not against having a glass of wine with dinner.
Okay? Are you just saying words because you like their sound or is this supposed to be relevant to something ITT?
Nice baseless speculation.
Note the dates of the articles. This isn't new news for the Pope to be talking out against drug addictions.
http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-fran...of-drug-depend
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pop...deau-campaigns
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today...g-legalization
Id also just like to say has no one met any Catholic priests...
Some of them do more then have a beer with their stake. I remember one back in the day that chain smoked and drank like a fish.
Wonder if the Church would except them to confess for smoking cigs and drinking.
Some of them do more then have a beer with their stake. I remember one back in the day that chain smoked and drank like a fish.
Wonder if the Church would except them to confess for smoking cigs and drinking.
Didn't say it was.
I asked.
You said.
Which the best i can come up with means is ok as long as the intention is not to get high.
Dont think you or most can unless they build a tolerance. One drink will generally cause a small high. Unless a regular user. But to get to that point....
If its not my prime intention then it should be perhaps ok from what you posted before.
If its ok to have a beer and get a little high without that as the main intention then the same should go for pot.
Is be surprised if thats true. Even if its just a small buzz.
Nah i dont have any moral issues with rec drug use.
I asked.
You said.
Which the best i can come up with means is ok as long as the intention is not to get high.
Dont think you or most can unless they build a tolerance. One drink will generally cause a small high. Unless a regular user. But to get to that point....
If its not my prime intention then it should be perhaps ok from what you posted before.
If its ok to have a beer and get a little high without that as the main intention then the same should go for pot.
Is be surprised if thats true. Even if its just a small buzz.
Nah i dont have any moral issues with rec drug use.
I believe that the sin comes from the abuse of it, being dependent on it, and general drunkenness. If you can't drink alcohol without this happening, then I would say the moral thing would be to not drink.
I personally grew up taking sips of wine with dinner, and as I got older a little more. It was cultural for me. I later went on to abuse alcohol, and I am suffering from some liver ailments because of drug and alcohol abuse. It is obvious I shouldn't be drinking at all, but I can have a beer and besides the ache in my liver, I feel no effect.
Edit: I agree with the priests drinking and smoking when I was a kid, I thought it was funny. Something about a priest sitting on the curb having a cig that cracked me up.
It would be truly bizarre for someone to say "no to every type of drug use", to go on and advocate for all drug use to be illegal, and then to actually mean "some types of drug use is okay". Basically the exact opposite of the plain reading of the sentence.
Of course, this is just a guess as to what your position is because you refuse to answer the question directly.
I have absolutely no idea why you threw up a huff that I put "recreational/illicit" into the quote opposed to "so called recreational/illicit". What difference does this make to understanding it?
Do we understand the phrase differently with the two different qualifiers?
Is there a single drug that fits into the "recreational" but not "so called recreational"? Of course not. It is your normal inane splitting nonexistence hairs for the purpose of hair splitting.
I think the main point we disagree with is that it's impossible to not feel the effects of alcohol. A lot of people are able to drink small amounts with a meal and not feel it, a view I agree with. If someone is unable to do that, because the alcohol affects them and they get drunk, then I would say to avoid it, it's easy as that.
Not saying there are not exceptions and maybe you are one. Just that they are exceptions.
And this isn't the main point, the main point was what i posted. I asked if it was ok for me to have a drink even though i would catch a buzz. How it effects you or others is kind of besides the point.
You said perhaps not on my question depending on intention. Then perhaps not for pot.
Fwiw i am just nit picking and in general get your point. People do drink without getting high. Drinking a beer over an hour or something similar. Thats not done with pot. But it could be. Let me smoke some kind for a month or two then give me some ditch from the 80's and ill take a small hit and not feel it.
But you shouldn't go with the high anyway. Cigs dont give one really but we can all agree the are bad. Runners say the get a high and i dont think anyone would say thats bad.
It should be about the negative consensuses. But that lets some rec users use.
I believe that the sin comes from the abuse of it, being dependent on it, and general drunkenness. If you can't drink alcohol without this happening, then I would say the moral thing would be to not drink.
I personally grew up taking sips of wine with dinner, and as I got older a little more. It was cultural for me. I later went on to abuse alcohol, and I am suffering from some liver ailments because of drug and alcohol abuse. It is obvious I shouldn't be drinking at all, but I can have a beer and besides the ache in my liver, I feel no effect.
Edit: I agree with the priests drinking and smoking when I was a kid, I thought it was funny. Something about a priest sitting on the curb having a cig that cracked me up.
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE