One sec, you don't think he is including pot in whatever the italian that got translated into "so called recreational drugs" and "illicit" drugs and legalization "however limited"? Because if so the world press - first page of googling "pope legalization marijuana" is all articles from major news papers using that phrase in the title - has just entirely misreported a story without any attempt at correction from the Vatican. I'd put the chance that he is not meaning to refer to pot at less than 1%, although I suppose we can't rule it out entirely that somewhere in translation he didn't mean to include pot.

Its served in his churches.

You keep missing the objection. The drugs under consideration were already qualified. It is clearly referring to "so called recreational drugs" and "illicit drugs". An imprecise description of a class, to be sure, but sufficient for our purposes. That tylonel isn't included in the class doesn't prevent "every use in this class" from still meaning every. It is just a restricted class. None of your answers seem to process this.

You have ignored it every time - since it decimates your argument - but when we restrict our class to be, say, pot, the only possible interpretation of "every type of pot use" is that it really means every.

For instance: "Consider the bounded subsets of the real numbers. Every subset has a least upper bound". The second sentence is only true where the class of sets has been described in the first sentence. Every still means every- shocking, I know.

At the end of the day green still means green, every still means every, moron still means moron. See how easy English is when words* mean what they actually mean?

*by words I mean words and not horses.

So just because he grants a single unjustified exemption to his otherwise categorical rejection, you are not going to criticize him for making exactly the type of categorical rejection you said you didn't like? As in, if he included alcohol it would clearly fit your criticism, right? So how is he exempted from your criticism just because he makes an unjustified exemption? Seems that it makes it doubly bad.



Okay. Seems like you are giving him a lot of benefit for the doubt. As in, in what we have seen in this thread he has NOT articulated a justification that pot is worse than alcohol for various reasons and thus we should ban the one and not the other. If he did, I would probably find his justification rather flawed, but he hasn't even started on this - at least in the quotes given thus far in the thread.

Thanks? Back at ya.

Seems like you are mainly annoyed that I spoke for MB...which I was mainly doing because it seemed you were not representing his arguments properly. But since it seems you want me to but out of the exchange, consider it done.

Its always good to have your own personal ounce. You wont run out so quickly

I don't think he's making an unjustified exception. As I said I think the current legal status is a valid distinction and as someone has mentioned he doesn't actually refer to recreational drugs but illicit ones. I've also said I think there are very legitimate reasons to legalise cannabis and that I don't consider the legalisation of cannabis as likely to generate harm given the failure of prohibition pretty much everywhere. I just don't consider the legal status of alcohol a valid reason to legalise cannabis.

I'm just trying to understand his perspective, it seems consistent with the theme of his papacy that the mission of the church is to protect the weak and I suspect that he considers weakness manifests in drug and alcohol abuse. As I said I'm prepared to cede the double standard but at the expense of thinking a double standard particularly meaningful.

I'm not annoyed, I just thought you were too quick to dismiss my question regarding my own double standard when I was interested in MB's response because it was he that posted all recreational drugs should be either illegal or legal.

If I am being honest the legal status of cannabis is probably the cause of greatest inconvenience in my life*. I prefer not to have to replenish that frequently

*Outside of having to get up and go to work.

As are you. You seem perfectly content to contextualize in some ways, but in other ways you're absolutely and resolutely unwilling to contextualize.

There are drugs that are recreational drugs and prescription drugs. And there are recreational drugs that are illicit drugs. Imprecision in classification is part of the problem, but not really the problem at all. If you want to play the "every means every" game, you can't keep giving yourself exceptions by redefining the classes to suit your purposes.

They have. Your "every means every" is clearly saying that "every doesn't mean every" and you keep making various types of sub-clarifications of class in order for "every means every" to actually be true. This is very similar to your foray into the English language talking about "double standards." You want to define categories in a certain way, and that particular way is precisely so that you can hold "every means every" and say what you want it to mean. But if someone else's categories look different, then you just repeat "every means every" as if that's a meaningful criticism of something.

Right... which is why the Pope *must* be against using certain prescription drugs, because those are recreational drugs. What? The restricted class of recreational drugs doesn't include all recreational drugs?

Right... so that if the pope is talking to and about the effect on drug addicts in both the sentence prior and following, he's clearly taking this one sentence to suddenly make an "every means every" and extend the class to people outside of the original class of persons. It really is shocking what happens when you read contextually, isn't it?

It's not such a surprise to find that, in the end, words mean what they mean but only in context.

Sorry, this isn't complicated. I spent 20 minutes finding the transcripts and checking the translations. I linked all this in a post and explained my findings. When most of the claimed points aren't actually in the speech (no reference to "recreational", speaking of illicit drugs rather than drugs, not excluding alcohol abuse from drugs, no specific mention of Colorado or Urugay, no specific mention of Marijuana, the speech being about prevention of abuse more so than condemning legalization) I would expect some humility from the ones having made the strongest claims.

It seems some posters have married their stance on Marijuana to the misinterpretation of this speech, and therefore are not willing to revise their earlier claims - which is unfortunate.

I don't really have much more to say.

Hope im not included in the ones.

I think you made a valid point, the pope could still reasonably be accused of a double standard. Though that debate I think is less related to the speech.

Bolded is exactly correct. He is, admittedly, imprecise about what exactly the class he is talking about, what exactly the class is that he is applying "every". But it also isn't really a problem at all, since it is pretty easy to guess what he intends to be in this class. Surely the illicit drugs like heroin and pot are in there, and while he didn't specify presumably he includes prescription drugs when used in a recreational manner. And surely he doesn't mean to include soda and tylonel. This isn't *my* redefined class, it is just a reasonable guess as to the class the pope is talking about, even if he was imprecise.

Whatever is or is not included, you have this class. Now the every applies to this class. Every still means every - what else could it mean? "not every"? - but it applies to the restricted class we have to determine from context. Your mistake is to confuse the restrictions on the class with a word meaning the opposite.

You didn't meaningfully address (again!) the situation when we specify pot. Let me ask point blank: do you think the pope is against every use of pot or against only some uses of pot? Why do you think whatever you think?

I have an answer. He is against every type of pot use, and against legalization of pot however limited. This is the only obvious meaning of his statement. But if this isn't your answer, how do you even know what types of pot uses he is for and what types he is against?

If you read his statement as "every type of pot use for addicts is to be rejected" I think you are wrong - the "for addicts" part is an unjustified contextualization - but notice that in that case every would still mean every. It is just that the class of uses we are talking about is restricted from context to be uses by addicts. Thankfully our faith in the English language is not thrown aside by words magically meaning their opposite.

If it took 20 minutes of checking translations, I would submit it IS complicated. Until your objection late in the thread I don't think there was a single person - and certainly not the world press - who thought for a moment he wasn't meaning to include marijuana.

Now if he doesn't mean to include it, well okay then. The thread is void. But I still don't quite see from what you have posted why we should think he isn't meaning to include pot. Sure, there is no specific mention. But at least in the English translation, he talks about "illicit drugs" and rejects legalization "however limited" which to me would mean he is rejecting, say, just legalizing pot. As in, there seems to be no reason why pot wouldn't be included in his rejection of legalization of drugs. Maybe I am not seeing the translation error that you see since you put in the leg work, but can you state why you don't think he is meaning to include pot?

Why not? It is sort of trivially true in the sense that in the quoted remarks he hasn't actually provided a justification to have the one be legal and the other not. So the exemption is unjustified in the trivial sense that a justification hasn't been provided. But more meaningfully, if this is going to be one's position (that one drug ought to be legal and the other not) then there needs to be some compelling reason that explains the asymmetry.

For the most part, this thread has been void of justifications that they should be treated differently. In fact, nobody with the exception of NR has even stated that this is their view. While it is true that alcohol being legal on its own doesn't in and of itself mandate that pot should be legal, anytime we have a situation where two very similar things are treated very differently we have a substantial burden to try and justify this asymmetry, a burden that has not been - and I don't think can be - justified in this case.

I'm not arguing that they should be treated differently I am claiming that they should be considered separately. One of the reasons for this is that it seems the consequences of criminalising a currently legal substance differ from decriminalising a currently illegal one.

I think that the merits of the case to legalise pot should stand with reference to pot not with reference to alcohol. I don't know what the roadside cannabis tests are, I'm not motivated to go look at the moment, but alcohol is woven into the fabric of our social life in a way that cannabis isn't and is unlikely to be in even if it were legal. I also think the problems associated with problem alcohol use aren't always the same problems associated with problem cannabis use and I suspect the psychological impacts differ though I'll defer to you here.

I'm not that interested in the Pope's opinion, I think it's wrong and I think it symptomatic of political and religious leaders speaking to a wide audience on subjects they either seem under informed on or are subject to populist constraints. I think against that backdrop his position is understandable.

This post is going to be a bit of a ramble, but something a bit new nonetheless.

There are (at least) two broad categories by which people might consider this issue of what drugs to make illegal, a libertarian deontological view and a utilitarian view. The utilitarian view might be something that tries to analyze the costs and benefits given the current constraints of society, something like this:
In contrast, the libertarian deontological view might be something like this: people generally subscribe to some notion of freedom that baring significant harm, we ought to generally allow people to do as they wish. We just differ on what that level of harm is.

Okay, so what about this:
I said (but forget to whom) earlier in this thread that the comparison between pot and alcohol was instructive against certain types of arguments. As in, yes, we should make it legal or illegal on the merits, but it might help us flush out the arguments by doing the comparison.

I think the comparison is useful against people making the libertarian deontological arguments, but much less so against people doing the utilitarian arguments. As in, if you say that the risks from pot are comparable to that of alcohol, if you have deduce that this puts alcohol into a category insufficient to ban one would also get that it puts pot into a category insufficient to ban. But this depends on accepting the deontological premise that the government shouldn't ban things that don't cause sufficient harm. Deontological arguments are sort of insensitive to messy details like "is this currently legal?" But this is exactly the kind of thing the utilitarian arguments depend on, exactly as you typed out.

The other thing I might say is that when two things are similar but we giving different treatments, we should apply some level of heightened scrutiny. As in, a good heuristic to have is to generally try to have consistency in our prescriptions where similar things get similar treatments. A heuristic is only a heuristic, so you are certainly right it doesn't make it a lock, but we should take care to scrutinize our arguments and make sure we really can justify this difference on our utilitarian or whatever grounds. In particular, we shouldn't just blind ourselves to these instructive comparisons simply because of the idea that everything should be independently justified.

Ya certainly. Part of the issue also isn't differences between the drugs themselves, but differences in the types of people who use them.

And after all of this, one might finally realize that "every means every" is a terrible starting point, yet...

You still won't let it go. You still won't accept that "every means every" argument is a galactically stupid one. "Every means every except for the exceptions" is simply a bad starting point.

I suspect he's against recreational pot. I don't know whether he's explicitly against medicinal pot, but I think it's likely.

Primarily, the things that impact the population under consideration in his speech are not medical uses, and I think it has more to do with the type of images smoking pot brings up (basically, cultural images of pot glamorization as shown on TV and movies, and possibly historic images of smoking like opium dens). There's a sense in which mainstreaming pot usage very much hides those types of images which hides the plight of the addicted, much like the imagery of people drinking at sports bars during games hides the true image of the consequences of the true alcoholic.

However, I don't think the Pope would be against tonic and topical forms of cannabis. Why? Because the picture is far more sterile and probably doesn't have the same type of negative impact on the communities he's concerned about. The imagery of topical forms of cannabis is likely similar to the imagery of the patch for smokers. Cleaner, healthier, and focused on health outcomes like recovery.

Right. Every means every except for the things we're not including with every.

Your faith in mathematics as an effective framework of communication should be commended. However, you understanding of the English language is fatally flawed. The fundamentalist perspective on "every means every" is just as bad for fundamentalists as it is for whatever group you want to associate yourself with.

I know, how shocking that I would stick to the idea that word actually means what the word means! Although I think I will presume you were complimenting me as "stupid" may well mean "not stupid" or in fact "intelligent" in Aaron fantasy land.

This is not what is happening. Again, your post is devoid of even acknowledging the basic framework under consideration. You are confusing a restriction on the class under consideration with a change in the meaning of a basic english word. Having a restricted class - to which every applies - hasn't meant that every means anything else than every. For instance, if I say that "every male has a Y chromosome", I've restricted the class under consideration from all humans or all animals to just males.

You simply can't escape the fact that the functional role of "every" in a sentence is precisely to quantify the objects under consideration. People may use it hyperbolically, people may be imprecise on what exactly those objects are, people may use it without considering whether it is literally true or whether there are various silly exceptions not thought about. But the functional role as a quantifier remains.

Why would you think that? You told me his comments were contextually only about drug addiction. Why would that imply anything about smoking a joint occasionally with a few friends? If we read it as "no to some types of recreational drug use" then how have you somehow come to the conclusion he is against recreational pot in all circumstances? I'm sure you are correct, but that is because the pope is on record as being against legalization however limited and saying no to every type of drug use in a class that unquestionably includes pot. I get the conclusion by reading his words. You get to the same conclusion but can't justify it because you refuse to accept the only reasonable meaning of his words.



The common experience is a rich source of examples. I'm curious, have you ever seen a \forall in math used in a way where it actually means some? Unless, perhaps, \forall actually means \forall. What can I say, I'm a fundy mathematician.

Mind if I reply to some of this?

Do you think that the legal status of the drugs is a significant criteria for the pope wanting people not to use them? Since he didn't ask for them to be made illegal again, simply said that the legalisation was highly questionable, is it reasonable for me to suggest that in fact his primary motivation comes from his morality and is not an issue of legality?


That someone would be TD, despite that I posted an entire transcript of the address a few posts back, taken from the Vatican radio website, and which includes the word 'recreational'. In any case, the implied meaning is clear. If not recreational, then what type of drug would he be referring to? This issue of the word recreational is a red herring.


I would agree that it's consistent, but I think it's a consistent double standard. But now I'm curious, do you think alcohol should be legal or illegal?


I said that in response to your question. If I didn't want all drugs legalised or controlled, I would be guilty of a double standard myself wouldn't I?

Yeah I'm broadly speaking sympathetic to consequentialism so you're right my preference is for the cost / benefit of different drugs to be considered discretely.

I do think there are solid consequentialist grounds for defending personal liberty and any constraints on liberty should be considered a cost within the wider cost benefit analysis. Quantifying it is going to be tough but I think it's an important consideration.

I'm okay with this, I think it's okay to counterpose our treatment of certain drugs as long as we are careful not to conflate them.

I agree the consequentialist/utilitarian grounds for considering the benefits of a change in policy will account for the current legal status. I suspect any analysis of cannabis would find in favour of legalisation and as per our earlier exchange that it would bring jobs and taxes into the legitimate economy is a benefit that should be considered.

My concern is that I don't know how superficial their similarities are. Take my own position. Where pot is legal I'm in favour of it remaining so, where it's not I'm in favour of legalisation, I'm not sure my position is the same regarding alcohol. I wouldn't advocate for the legalisation of alcohol where it is currently illegal though I'd defend it's legal status where it is. This is also subject to whatever notions I have about the autonomy of states and the fact that most states where alcohol is illegal are Islamic.

I am definitely open to the idea of banning tobacco however but as you've stated I don't think I'm guilty of a double standard precisely because my support for banning tobacco would be based on an analysis of it's cost.

You're always free to respond.

His probably does but then I suspect his understanding of the moral concerns are set against a legal framework. There exists a cultural context. I've said I'm not particularly interested in the Pope's position I think it's wrong but it's understandable why he holds it.

I read the transcripts and the use of recreational wasn't a quote from the Pope but I think it's clear he's distinguishing on the grounds of legality further down.

I'm okay with it being legal where it's legal and illegal where it's illegal.

No, I think it's perfectly reasonable to hold a position that coffee should be legal and heroin illegal without being guilty of a double standard. Even if we extend it to less a benign substance I think it's also reasonable to defend alcohol being legal and cocaine being illegal without being guilty of a double standard. If you want to consider it a double standard feel free but it only serves to make the accusation of double standards meaningless.

Did you read this transcript from the Vatican Radio website? Quoted in my post here.

He's being directly quoted as saying "so-called “recreational drugs”". TD's issue is that he's being mistranslated but I think it's hairsplitting of the highest order. Clearly the pope is referring to recreational drugs and that inference is only strengthened by the context in which the word is used, that of reference to 'attempts to legalise XXXX drugs'.

Are you ok with marijuana being legal where it's legal and illegal where it's illegal?

Did you look up Andrew Mellon? The greed motivated effort that resulted in marijuana's illegal status is quite breathtaking in it's arrogance and scope. Almost 100 years later, people are still being influenced by it and have a knee jerk 'marijuana is the devil's drug!' reaction to mention of it. I'm still astonished when drinkers in my local react like that without realising that they were sold a line by an American politician almost 100 years ago that they're still swallowing.

I think this isn't true. I would say that alcohol and cocaine are comparable on a scale of 'impact' with alcohol being the harder drug of the two, would you agree? On what grounds then is one legal where the other isn't? If I can drink myself into an early grave, why not allow me the same choice with Cocaine? Do you know why cocaine is illegal?

A double standard is where a principle is applied unfairly in different ways to different things (simply making sure I'm using the definition). Since cocaine and alcohol are different drugs, and the principle being applied is that one should be illegal because of the harm it causes, while the other is legal despite the harm it causes, that seems like a textbook example of a double standard.

I'm not particularly interested in discussing the Pope's position specifically so I'm dropping it, the wider question of double standards is more interesting. If he used recreational drugs fine there's a clear use of illicit and I think he's using them interchangeably but it's not important to me.

I've posted numerous times in this thread that I think cannabis should be legalised.

The point is that there is are harms caused by a drugs legal status. If the harms of legalisation are greater than the harms of criminalisation then a drug should be illegal if the harms of criminalisation are greater than the harms of legalisation then it should be legal. This isn't a double standard. What you are doing is focusing on one property of a drug, it's use recreationally, and deciding that all drugs with this property should be treated similarly despite them being harmful in significantly different ways.

Fine with me, the primary issue for me is the double standard, not necessarily that the pope is guilty of it. But this is RGT and the thread had to be related to religion. He is a good example of the false distinction that I believe exists wrt to alcohol and other recreational drugs.


Nor to me. I think his primary objection is a moral one. The pope has no business being involved in legal issues in countries where he has no other influence or connection than that some of the population might be Catholic anyway.

Yes that was how I understood your view, but you didn't really answer the question which was about whether or not you're ok with it being legal where it's legal and illegal where it's illegal? Is it a wrong assumption, given that you would prefer it to be legal, that you're not ok with it being illegal?


Gonna come back to this, need to consider my answer more and I have to go out.

This is still a misrepresentation/misunderstanding of my position. I'm not suggesting that they should be treated equally, because in every other respect than being recreationally used, they're not equal. I'm suggesting that not to include alcohol in a blanket condemnation of recreational drugs, no matter their individual properties, is a double standard.

I understand your point that to criminalize alcohol would be extremely difficult and would have severely negative consequences, but I don't think alcohol should be made illegal, I think all the recreational drugs should be legalised, so it doesn't present a problem for my position.

The distinction is not false. Marijuana is not Alcohol.

You think it is a double standard, it does not have to be. Regulating drugs is a understandable policy. You and many others in this thread have pointed to alcohol as a drug with very negative effects, which is a good argument for not allowing Marijuana. Why repeat past mistakes?

This is not my position on the issue. But is a completely fine position that does not represent a double standard. You (and others) have latched yourself onto this rhetorical device, probably because the debate is much more comfortable if you void any disagreement.

What you should do is debate Marijuana on its own merits physiologically and socio-economically. The only relevance of Alcohol being legal is the judicial presedence for allowing a drug.