I read the OP as MB applying his own logic to the pope, "by my perspective" as he states.

If his argument is that this is the actual logic as lain out by the pope, then the paraphrase is clearly overextended as the pope is a very vocal opponent of alcohol, even small amounts.

Sorry but if you can't answer the question as put I can't continue.

Which isn't really surprising because of it's prevalence. What would be more interesting would be the % of users that would be classed as problem users.

I think there are really good reasons to legalise pot fwiw but I really don't think the claims are helped by contrasting its legal status with alcohol.

I think the reality is that people who oppose legalization and people who propone it aren't overly interested in arguments. I think most of the shift in public opinion is due to a generation shift.

I don't have much of an argument neither for or against. I have no problems with legalization, but there are some realities that would have to be accounted for. The quite long-lasting effect effect of cannabis on the nervous system compared would have to be considered for many vocational groups. I think the the legality of vocational-specific bans should be considered. I would also like to know if the mode user of cannabis in my country (young man on welfare) is merely due to cultural factors, or if there is causation. Some research indicate cannabis can damage dopamine production. If this is the case it should be accounted for in socio-economic analyses of the drug.

I also don't like it when people use terms like "low risk" or "least dangerous". The "least dangerous" drug can be quite dangerous exactly because it is seen as the least dangerous. Marijuana might not be as dangerous as alcohol on many metrics, but it is not benign.

I can't answer the question as you put it.

No, did you read the speech he made? He wants all recreational drugs to be illegal, of which one is marijuana. Since I consider alcohol to be a recreational drug (the 'from my perspective' bit that you quoted from my OP), I think he should be including it and since he's actually ok with alcohol being legal, I think he's applying a double standard.

Before you ask, it's my assumption that he's ok with alcohol being legal based on the fact that the CC uses it in their ceremonies and believe that Jesus made some out of water etc etc. Heck, they even believe that an ethanol laced fruit juice turns into the blood of christ, or maybe it's metaphorical, I've never really understood Transubstantiation.

Why not it's pretty straightforward.

If the Pope condemned a policy to legalise heroin would you be accusing him of a double standard?

Ok I'll try to answer it but the problem is the question is much more limited in scope than the situation that we're actually discussing and I have to qualify my answer which I didn't imagine you'd like very much.

IF the pope's stance wrt to other recreational drugs were the same (i.e. he wants all recreational drugs to be illegal and for us not to use them ), then yes, I would consider that he was applying a double standard.

The drug in question is irrelevant, it's that he's not including alcohol in his general condemnation of recreational drugs that's the double standard.

Clearly, the Pope should want to ban Coke (the thing you drink, not the thing you inhale) because he wants all recreational drugs to be illegal (one of which is caffeine).

All means all, right uke?

He should also have mentioned it in his speech.

No, he wants illegal drugs to remain illegal on the grounds that he is opposed to drug use and feels that legalization makes currently illegal substances easier to acquire. This on the basis that he thinks abuse leads to suffering.

Your paraphrase is way out of whack, and is a fine example of why "double standard" has become next to a meaningless term. There are many things in the pope's expressed view you could have argued against, but you chose the lazy route. I'll happily assume the pope is not three standard deviations below the mean in intelligence.

I understand what you are driving at, if his condemnation was because heroin was a recreational drug his failure to include alcohol would be a double standard. I get that and that's good for you because it's consistent. I still think if these comments had been made on the back of a law passed legalising heroin not cannabis we wouldn't be having this conversation.

I think you are wrong because I think the Pope is using recreational drugs interchangeably with illicit ones. I also think his position is consistent with the different status alcohol and other recreational drugs have. He doesn't actually mention cannabis he's not calling it out he's talking about the evils of drug use and not distinguishing between them and he's speaking of the evils of alcohol abuse without calling out that it can be used responsibly.

I've re-read the statement from the Pope and I don't see any specific reference to cannabis. We've all assumed, rightly, that that's part of what he's talking about because of the recent legalisation of cannabis in Uruguay and the Washington/Colorado state laws. But he's speaking in generalities and I don't know he can speak more specifically.

This debate would have more clarity if people would share their own arguments as to why or why not one could be accepted and not the other, instead of trying to ascertain and dispute the pope's justifications.

Well hooray and yes we would because I think all drugs should be legalised, or all made illegal.

Did you catch that I meant 'irrelevant' in that last sentence and not 'relevant'?

Well, I've already addressed this point. I don't think the legality of the drug is his issue, the closest he comes to mentioning it is to say that the legal status in places like Colorado is 'highly questionable' but he's not making his case based on that. He uses the word 'evil' and that's a moral judgement.

I agree that he's being consistent, but I've already said that I consider this to be a false distinction.

I don't know if he mentions it by name but I don't need to because he specifically references Colorado and Washington where Marijuana has recently been legalised. As you've said below, he's clearly referring to marijuana when he talks about efforts to legalise recreational drugs.

Yes, he talks about 'dug use' and 'alcohol abuse'. But it's ok to use alcohol, even though it's a recreational drug. double standard.

As above.

Everyone should have access to war grade mustard gas and other toxins because those are also drugs.

Obviously wine plays a role in the church and a very different role in society so while I think it's understandable to consider alcohols function as a recreational drug it's also understandable to consider it distinct from illegal drugs. The legal issue is relevant to the status each holds in society and the way in which we address them.

I don't recall the Pope actually stating that alcohol can be used responsibly.

I think a position that you either allow or disallow all recreational drugs without regard for their effects very difficult to defend.

Here's a question for you, I support the legalisation of cannabis, alcohol remaining legal and heroin remaining illegal. Do you consider me guilty of a double standard?

Although the pope is not proposing alcohol be illegal, despite opposing legalization of any illicit drug however limited. So different treatment (wildly different legal standards) for drugs where pot isn't identifiably worse on the measures the pope mentioned (addiction).

Although, is this actually true? I have no idea, but in what has been posted thus far I don't see evidence that he is vocal opponent of small amounts of alcohol. Indeed, in the main paragraph being quoted he puts on equal terms "illicit drugs" and "alcohol abuse".

Correct, the only reasonable interpretation of the word "all" is, in fact, all. Crazy, I know. The difference is that caffeine pretty clearly isn't in the class of drugs the pope is rejecting all use of, regardless of his bad terminology. However, in the class he is speaking of (for instance pot) the only reasonable interpretation of him rejecting all use of pot is that he is actually rejecting all use of pot and not some.

Language is a lot less tricky when you realize that when someone says a word, they actually mean that word, and not the opposite of that word. All means all, not some. And so on. See how easy that was?

Right this is why he can't advocate making it illegal, because they use it. Even if the arguments about drug addiction used to make pot illegal would certainly also apply to alcohol. Hence the double standard.

Agreed. Shame on the pope for doing this.

Oh come on, this has been made very clear. If you held that heroin was significantly worse and thus required different treatment that would NOT be a double standard because then you would be comparing two different things (heroin worse than pot) and got two different treatments.

It is the Pope - not mightyboosh - who made the categorical claim against drugs. The Pope is doing a double standard because alcohol should be included in the Pope's argument against recreational drugs. But since mightyboosh doesn't maintain that argument, he isn't held to it.

Bolded is false. If you insist on it being identical, you can never use the expression.

The point is that on the factors the Pope identifies as relevant - drug addiction - the two are similar. Identical? No. Pot it worse, but similar. So based on his justifications, he is given a wildly different legal prescription for two things very similar on the factors he has chosen to identify. To identify this particular criticism I am going to use the shorthand "double standard". As long as you are perverting the expression to be something about "identical" you will never think it applies.

My apologies, English is not my first language and I sometimes use the wrong words. I meant equivalent.

Great, so then you surely agree that for the purposes of the arguments the Pope gives, pot is equivalent to alcohol and so the double standard is indeed in place.

You're english is pretty damned good if you are not being facetious, impressive for a second language.

Do we know this? Did the pope deliver his speech in English? In my language the word for "drugs" ("stoff") does not necessarily include alcohol.

In other words, he pretty clearly doesn't mean "all."

So here, "all" means "all." But when we talk about other drugs that can be used both as a prescription and recreationally, then "all" probably doesn't mean "all."

Except, as you've pointed out explicitly above, there are "reasonable interpretations" in which all doesn't actually mean all.

Hold on, did you finally admit that when it comes to pot he IS indeed rejecting every single type of use? Ditto every other form of illicit drug? It is just you are equivocating about tylonel and soda still?

VICTORY IN EUROPE.