Criminalization of drugs

[mikekle]

Alcohol was banned once before and it was an utter failure. It’ll never happen again.

I agree, but they have been doing the same exact thing with their ‘war on drugs’, its basically drug prohibition, strange that they think it would work, when alcohol prohibition literally proved it did not…yet they keep it going for decades…??

 

[Captain_America]

Why would you want to degrade your bodily and mental functions by using any “recreational” drug? I suggest you read the following:

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFDRUGS.HTM

Best,
Ed

Good answer. I’m totally against legalizing pot. I’ve met many pot smokers who were just bystanders in their own lives, if not waste cases. Our society doesn’t need this; we need doers, thinkers, dreamers, helpers and makers.

 

[Captain_America]

With respect to prohibition, I ran across a few years ago a very interesting article by an economist who showed that prohibition actually WAS working. I’m of a mixed mind about whether it was successful: perhaps not, but perhaps it was.

For me, the real question is this: if Captain America was given the choice, right now, whether to introduce for the first time, alcohol to society, would he consider this a good thing overall or a bad thing.

My impression is that the negatives of alcohol outweigh the positives. It’s interesting that the women’s movement began with temperance, and looking further, we realize that average people went on many more serious binges that modern american adults.

But I’d probably say, “yeah, it’s not good for you, when all is said and done.”

 

[Timothysis]

Cheeseburgers don’t have chemicals that makes people become addicted to them, they don’t impair a person’s reason, etc

No but some people will continue to eat them until it adversely affects their health. Food addictions can be just as real as substance addictions.

 

[cena]

No but some people will continue to eat them until it adversely affects their health. Food addictions can be just as real as substance addictions.

While gluttony is sinful, usually drugs and getting drunk on purpose are worse because it impairs the person’s reason

 

[Quapawpers]

Is it possible marijuana is a gate way drug? Also, I said earlier alcohol is bad if it’s too much. People who intend to get drunk are committing grave sins.

I’d have to argue that tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, over-the-counter, and prescription drugs are our country’s well-established, and legal, gateway drugs.

Our catechism describes any nontherapeutic use of drugs as being a grave sin. Unfortunately it fails to identify or define “drugs.”

So, if a peasant in the Andes chews a coca leaf to energize him in his work, is that a therapeutic use? When the Air Force prescribed uppers for pilots during the Gulf War, was that a therapeutic use? Is anything prescribed by a doctor therapeutic? When an eight-year old sneaks a smoke from their parent’s pack, have they really sinned gravely?

The age-old recommendation of moderation in all things makes a lot more sense than condemning all nontherapeutic use of drugs.

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

With respect to prohibition, I ran across a few years ago a very interesting article by an economist who showed that prohibition actually WAS working. I’m of a mixed mind about whether it was successful: perhaps not, but perhaps it was.

How does that explain America going from 3/4’s of the states approving the 18th Amendment to 3/4’s of the states approving the 21st Amendment? Maybe there was an economic improvement in there somewhere, but the American voter decided that whatever improvement that was gained with Prohibition was not worth the costs in violence, organized crime and corruption. Quite a turnabout in public opinion if you ask me.

For me, the real question is this: if Captain America was given the choice, right now, whether to introduce for the first time, alcohol to society, would he consider this a good thing overall or a bad thing.

My impression is that the negatives of alcohol outweigh the positives. It’s interesting that the women’s movement began with temperance, and looking further, we realize that average people went on many more serious binges that modern american adults.

But I’d probably say, “yeah, it’s not good for you, when all is said and done.”

I’ll ask you again, is banning drugs worth the cost of violence and corruption that will follow the granting of tax-free incomes to willing suppliers with no legal adjudication of disputes? Do you really want to stand there in some poor neighborhood suffering from illegal drugs-oriented gang violence and tell them that banning drugs is a good thing? Do you really think the incipient civil war in Mexico triggered by the War on Drugs is a good thing? As a Catholic, I’m against the personal use of illegal drugs, but I have to be realistic about the costs of enforcing that morality on society.

 

[mikekle]

Im kind of surprised Mexico has not tried take some kind of diplomatic ‘legal’ action against the US, after all, the US is where all the demand for mexican illegal drugs are, if it wasnt for americas appetite for these drugs, mexico would not have any problems, but currently the cartels in many cases, are better armed, more money than police or even mexican military, the violence is almost unbelievable, but all these drugs continue to make it across the borders every single day, enough to supply every small to large city in the US!!!

Think about it, alot of people are benefiting from drugs being illegal, number one the dealers and cartels, they are making BILLIONS, then there are the for profit prisons in the US, they know a whole bunch of people are going to violate drug laws consistently, this ensures cells are kept full, then theres the big pharmaceutical companies, if people could buy opiate painkillers legally without a prescription, they would be out of business, I think they and the prison industries are making sure drugs remain illegal, but Id also bet the US govt is somehow benefiting from this too.

In the end, back when alcohol prohibition was in effect, it did not take long for them to realize it was NOT working and could never work, but with ‘drug prohibiton’, they just keep it going and going, even though its common knowledge it is a miserable failure…why havent they repealed all the drug laws by now…are they just more dumb than people back in alcohol prohibition days or what? LOL Has to be some reason, and I guarantee, public health and safety are not the concern, if it was, tobacco and alcohol would be more heavily regulated.

 

[lerapt78]

I believe the reason they keep this 'drug prohibition going is ‘for profit’ prisons, in short, they have to ensure majority of the cells are kept occupied all the time, so they have to have certain laws in place that enough people will violate regularly.

Interesting perspective. But, with drugs such as marijuana, aren’t violators normally given misdemeanor fines, as opposed to jail time (depending on the amount they have on them)? (that’s my impression - I don’t have the stats) Wouldn’t having people sitting in jail be a drain on the federal budget (both the daily cost of keeping prisoners housed/fed/medically treated, and the removal of a citizen from society that can work and pay federal taxes)? I can’t imagine that they would view keeping prison cells full as a moneymaker. I can, however, see the profit angle with regard to illegality when it comes to offenders having to pay fines and bails to stay out of jail.

Id say the other reason is competition with big pharma, they dont want the average person being able to go buy a comparable pain killer from a street dealer instead of having to go thru a doctor/ pharmacy…on the other hand, it kind of surprises me big pharma sits idle while the DEA and govt make prescription painkillers more difficult to even write scripts for…that doesnt make sense to me, seems like they would fight tooth and nail to make their products available to anyone with as little hassle as possible.

I can GUARANTEE, if the DEA were to even suggest new laws, regulations concerning tobacco or alcohol, those industries would be up in arms, having teams of lawyers ready to fight it in court…but big pharma sat by and watched nearly all prescription pain pills become harder and harder to get…even though they surely know what some of these drugs sell for on the street, this shows them what people would be willing to pay for them without a prescription, this could mean billions if not more for them…yet still, they sit by and do nothing…??

Pharmaceutical lobbies are among the most powerful in our nation – I don’t doubt they’ve got a dog in this fight. If I had to guess at this, I would say that Big Pharma could lean pro-criminalization in order to (as you said) remove the “competition” from the streets. With regard to why they don’t fight against strict regulation of script-provision, I would again guess two reasons here, just based upon my experience working in a pain management clinic:

In the first place, there are a lot of clinics that *aren’t *strictly regulated (even though they’re supposed to be), and in those cases the pharmaceutical companies can sit back and collect revenue while transferring the responsibility to the federal and state authorities when there are complaints. I believe this has to do with the state in question. Some states are harsher with regard to how clinics are run than others. Florida is pretty tough on pain clinics nowadays, from what I hear. The state in which the clinic I worked in was located, OTOH, had pretty lax regulation. There were competing clinics that would get shut down, but it would often only be after a problem with some of the patients was discovered (like a patient overdose) – that is, something had to happen for the clinic to be brought to the attention of the authorities.

So the pharmaceutical companies might make no protest against strict regulation because they figure that such regulation is “on paper only” and not actually carried out according to official guidelines; hence, the easy profits would still come rolling in despite however strict the laws on the books appear.

Secondly: Having witnessed the threats from some patients’ families who thought that their relatives/spouses were getting overly generous prescriptions (usually high dosages), it could be (only speculating here) that pharmaceutical companies fear expensive lawsuits from the families of prescription users who have either intentionally or unintentionally overdosed on their drugs. Theoretically speaking, I would think that claims would only be valid against the medical professionals that are prescribing the amounts, but then all it takes is a class action lawsuit with a really clever lawyer (and negative publicity) to make possible the liability of Big Pharma, and as such, they may feel that supporting stricter regulation is less risky for them in the long run. They’re covering their bases, in a sense, by formally siding with regulation as a legal defense.

 

[on_the_hill]

I dont know about anyone else, but I think something is strange when certain opiate based pain killers are illegal to have, BUT if you have went thru an expensive doctor, expensive pharmacy, they are completely legal to have!

for instance, if someone can not afford to see a doctor or pay hundreds of dollars for one prescription, why is it illegal for them to grow their own (opium poppies),for personal use when the big drug companies have 1000s of acres of these exact same plants for their products???

In the end, Jesus tells us to use plants for medicine, NOWHERE does it say they should be heavily regulated, so doctors and big pharma companies can make millions LOL

This seems like a big conspiracy to me, over the years some powerful people have made sure people MUST go thru doctors and pharmacies if they want pain relief…utterly ridiculous imo.

Well…as for why opiates/opioids are controlled–they’re highly addictive. Dangerously addictive, even when taken according to the prescription.

I know a drug abuse counselor. A patient was a high school girl. She was prescribed opioid analgesics for a sports injury. He asked her when she became addicted. She said, “I knew as soon as the first prescription ran out.”

On top of all that, opioids are effective against certain types of pain. They are not effective for all types of pain. Yet, MDs prescribe them for everything. So we have whole groups of people popping Vicodin, Percocet, Oxycontin for pain that won’t be alleviated by them.

Anyway, regarding the legalization/criminalization issue: the opioids are already legal, and we are still losing the battle against misuse, abuse, and death. What would happen if we turned them loose?

As for the Big Pharma control of the market–I have no useful comments, other than to say the industry is largely driven by corporate greed.

 

[MyLittlPwn13]

The point is not whether cannabis and other recreational drugs are a good idea. They aren’t. The question is whether arrest and incarceration are good solutions to the problem. I would argue that this is a health issue, not a law enforcement problem. If we’re arguing that drug use tears families apart, how is incarceration going to help that family? They’re only going to be further into poverty, because now Mom or Dad can’t get an education (no federal aid for drug offenders), can’t get a job (no one will hire a drug offender), and can’t get a place to live (no one will rent to a drug offender).

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Is it possible marijuana is a gate way drug? Also, I said earlier alcohol is bad if it’s too much. People who intend to get drunk are committing grave sins.

What is and is not a sin shouldn’t matter here. We’re discussing the law, and people have a right to do all sorts of things you might consider sinful.

 

[exnihilo]

can i be a catholic in good standing(when i convert of course) and be for drug legalization?

I don’t see how you could not be in good standing. If you have to be for drug criminalization to be a Catholic then there probably hasn’t been a Catholic until maybe a couple hundred years ago. It seems to me jailing people for possessing certain plants or chemicals is a thoroughly modern concept. Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?

There have been mind altering drugs since ancient times. King George was not good but only our modern democracies could come to believe jailing people for plants was a very worthy thing to do. Most moderns, both liberals and conservatives, want the government to intrude into areas of our lives that were thoroughly off limits not long ago.

 

[edwest2]

What is and is not a sin shouldn’t matter here. We’re discussing the law, and people have a right to do all sorts of things you might consider sinful.

I think it’s appropriate, on a Catholic forum, to discuss sin as well as the law.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFDRUGS.HTM

Aside from medicines we need, we should not be using other drugs. And eating right, with exercise, is all I’m hearing from health care providers. Finally, should drug users go into treatment instead of paying a fine and/or going to jail, who pays for the treatment?

Be creative, be informed, do good things, and healthy things for your mind and body.

Ed

 

[pnewton]

I know where the catholic church stands on recreational drug use.I agree wholey.but the idea of putting someone in jail for doing something(getting high) that is no different(IMO) than what can be achieved with alcohol(getting drunk) just rubs me the wrong way.can i be a catholic in good standing(when i convert of course) and be for drug legalization?

Yes, you can support drug legalization. While “drugs” (I find the word too vague to be useful) are sinful, whether they should be legal or not is never defined as a matter of faith and morals.

As to the whole issue, I am of the mind that anything politicians call “The War on…” will act as an attractant for the most politically-expedient and the most idiotic legislation. The phrase is a call to enact laws while wearing blinders to the ramifications outside their next campaign. While I am against legalization of most drugs, I do believe in de-criminalization of most drugs, as well as drastically downgrading penalties for all drug possession.

 

[pnewton]

I think it’s appropriate, on a Catholic forum, to discuss sin as well as the law.

There are many threads for the discussion of sin. While the morality of drugs is close enough here to be included, we need to be careful not to get the two topics crossed, if they are both discussed here.

 

[edwest2]

There are many threads for the discussion of sin. While the morality of drugs is close enough here to be included, we need to be careful not to get the two topics crossed, if they are both discussed here.

Too many people think that something becoming legal suddenly makes it OK in every sense of the word. It doesn’t.

We do not live in the United Do Whatever You Want States. The Catholic person can never abandon the truth and our voices need to be heard in the public square. I’m already seeing way too many lame arguments about legalizing certain drugs that range from “it’s too vague” to “and cheeseburgers aren’t good for you either.” WAKE UP! My fellow Catholics!

Legal does not always equal good, especially when it comes to illegal drugs. And sin? What’s that? “We want what we want” is all that matters? No.

Ed

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I think it’s appropriate, on a Catholic forum, to discuss sin as well as the law.

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFDRUGS.HTM

It’s a catholic forum, but if you’re proposing laws for a non-theocracy, the two are still separate.

Aside from medicines we need, we should not be using other drugs. And eating right, with exercise, is all I’m hearing from health care providers. Finally, should drug users go into treatment instead of paying a fine and/or going to jail, who pays for the treatment?

It’s a catholic forum, but if you’re proposing laws for a non-theocracy, the two are still separate. Are we going to criminalize missing mass next?

And I’d assume the taxpayer is covering the bill for treatment, since they’d otherwise be paying for prison. I suspect they’d get far more for their money too.

Be creative, be informed, do good things, and healthy things for your mind and body.

Ed

Which works so long as you’re the one in charge of what’s healthy and won’t not. If I was in charge and imposed rules like this, there might be some very unhappy people next Sunday…

 

[kittyplant]

i was just thinking about this the other day. it makes me very sad that people get into drugs but i think it is a waste of effort and a misdirection of effort criminalizing them. if anything they need rehab, therapy, some kind of help. it is disgusting that there is all this effort to catch them as if theyre the bad guys meanwhile advertisers who make money lying, movie makers who spend millions while people starve, white collar crimes - none of those people are held accountable for anything yet some poor soul unfortunate enough to get hooked into drugs gets roughed up and thrown around by society.

 

[Quapawpers]

It doesn’t make sense, and it’s immoral. It’s going to be up to the laity to observe the obvious and to make changes in secular society.

The institutional Church will follow after slowly–allowing a patina of time to develop over its flip/flop in position. Along the lines of its past support of slavery to its current condemnation of human trafficking.

The institutional Church can be counted on to follow the Pauline practice of accommodating the State whenever possible.

Our institutional Church’s continuing reluctance to follow the Gospel message of tolerating the use or even abuse of “drugs” for non-therapeutic purposes amounts to a form of habitual sin. We’re so used to the sin that we don’t even recognize it as such.