Hey, don't mention it, I'm here to help.

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.

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 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.

It's sufficient to exhibit the need for contextualization.

Again, I believe the sandwiching of that statement between two other statements that explicit talk about issues pertaining to drug addiction makes it clear that he's focusing his attention on drug addiction.

The label "illicit drug" I believe carries with it the connotation of "illegal." You seem to want to avoid the legal status of the drug as being relevant, but it's an explicit reference to it. So I don't really know how you want to parse that.

Right, but that's why you should always extend your context to at least the statements preceding and following the statement in question to understand it. In doing so, I find two explicit references to drug addiction, hence it seems to me quite clear that contextually he's talking about issues pertaining to drug addiction.

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.

The plain meaning is that you shouldn't take Tylenol. The contextualized meaning is that he's talking to and about drug addiction.

The exact phrasing was "so-called recreational" and you don't seem to be able to understand what that means in terms of the categories he's using.

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.

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.

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.

He's saying that drug addiction is a problem, and that offering legal opportunities for people to take drugs is a problem for these people. The answer for those people is simply no drugs. Period. Changing laws does not change the problem of addiction.

Are you aware of the function of the phrase "so-called" in the English language? It means that he's using a phrasing which he doesn't really accept for himself. Do you not understand the distinction between the connotations of the words "recreational" and "illicit"?

Basically, you're saying you really don't understand the distinction in drug usage. The label of "recreational" drugs means "drugs I take for my enjoyment" and "so-called recreational drugs" means "drugs I used to take for my enjoyment but now I take because I'm addicted." It's not a distinction in drug types, but in the nature of drug usage.

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.

You didn't answer the question. I asked you to replace the phrase "no to every type of drug use" with what you thought this means. Is your reading something like "no to every type of drug use if you are an addict but some types of drug use from non addicts are okay"? 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.



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.

Wat. That is a bizarre interpretation of "so called recreational drugs". Like most of your attempts at semantics, yet another rather bizarre and highly unorthodox interpretation of words. Your first attempt was better, the use of "so called" is a rejection of the terminology of recreational, but that doesn't mean "so called recreational drugs" are applying to a situation where in the past it was for enjoyment and in the present it is for addiction.....lordy.

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?

Okay? Are you just saying words because you like their sound or is this supposed to be relevant to something ITT?

Nice baseless speculation.

It's not about trying to get drunk inadvertently, to both get high and not sin. 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.

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.

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.

Re: Bolded -- No. He's not against Tylenol. So contextualization of his comments is necessary.

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.

Both. It sounds quite nice to be talking quite plainly about something that's quite obvious.

It's not baseless. The Pope has a broad experience working with drug addicts and views it as a very, very widespread problem. He has beliefs about the economic toll on the individual lives of addicts, and he's got beliefs about the larger societal tolls due to drug trafficking. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if he believes that addiction rates are much higher than what self-reporting would yield.

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.

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.

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.

If you want to phrase it awkwardly like that, sure. As I said in my previous post, I doubt he's against a glass of wine with dinner. But I would suspect he's against a glass of wine with dinner for an alcoholic.

As I said, the plain reading of the text would suggest that he doesn't want anyone to take Tylenol. That's almost certainly wrong.

I told you what I think he's saying. If you don't agree with me, that's fine. Maybe you think I've added too many words to explain the meaning. I only need to do so because you're blind to contextual reading.

Do you really not know the difference between trying to combine "recreational" and "illicit" instead of combining "so-called recreational" and "illicit"? That one suggests a style of usage and the other suggests an error in the style of usage?

Yes. Don't you understand the role of adjectival phrases in language?

That's because the classification of drugs is not about type, but about usage. Do you not think that the term "recreational" is an adjective that suggests a type of usage? Do you think someone who is taking strong pain medications during recovery after a very invasive and painful surgery is taking "recreational drugs"?

I dont think its that easy and some of the laws would agree with me. And like i said i think if you didn't drink for a year and then had a glass of wine you would get a small buzz. A lot more would feel it imo.

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.
Oh i can do all that with both pot and alcohol.


Sorry to here that. You should probably just have some milk with your food. Not being sarcastic just saying.
Yeah even doctors smoked....in hospitals.