Illegal drugs

[Miles_Mariae]

Here is a policy that I hear proposed by libertarians, and I would like to get your (name removed by moderator)ut on it.

1. The government does not regulate nor limit the distribution of mind-altering drugs such as marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc. (Note that you may want to argue for only part of this policy - deregulating marijuana but still regulating some of the harder substances)
2. All persons who distribute mind-altering drugs must explicitly and unequivocally make known all relevant information regarding the effect of the drug, including addictiveness, health concern, stimulation, incapacitation for work, etc.
3. The government maintains the right to make illegal such actions as driving under the influence of these substances, appearing in public while under the influence of the substances, and all other actions that put others in direct danger

I would like to comment that such a policy offers the population the right to freely conduct trade, allowing people to choose for themselves what substances they want in their body. This right to perform nonaggressive acts, and the guarantee of personal responsibility instead of government interference, seems to uphold liberty and the dignity of the human person.

If this is a heresy/against Church social teaching, please correct me immediately. Otherwise, I am interested in what you think about the merits and downfalls of this system.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Bump. Not interesting, or no one knows? 17 views, come on, don’t be shy…

 

[Meathead]

Merits? The drugs would be regulated, so we could keep track of all the addicts.

Downfalls? Allowing the drugs to get into the hands of the users in the first place. Its already bad enough that people by them illegally, I imagine it would only get worse if you bought them from someone authorized by the government.

I would like to know the position of the church when it comes to drugs though.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Here is a policy that I hear proposed by libertarians, and I would like to get your (name removed by moderator)ut on it.

1. The government does not regulate nor limit the distribution of mind-altering drugs such as marijuana, heroin, LSD, etc. (Note that you may want to argue for only part of this policy - deregulating marijuana but still regulating some of the harder substances)
2. All persons who distribute mind-altering drugs must explicitly and unequivocally make known all relevant information regarding the effect of the drug, including addictiveness, health concern, stimulation, incapacitation for work, etc.
3. The government maintains the right to make illegal such actions as driving under the influence of these substances, appearing in public while under the influence of the substances, and all other actions that put others in direct danger

I would like to comment that such a policy offers the population the right to freely conduct trade, allowing people to choose for themselves what substances they want in their body. This right to perform nonaggressive acts, and the guarantee of personal responsibility instead of government interference, seems to uphold liberty and the dignity of the human person.

If this is a heresy/against Church social teaching, please correct me immediately. Otherwise, I am interested in what you think about the merits and downfalls of this system.

My understanding is that taking controlled substances is a sin because excatly because they are prohibited under civil law.

Frankly, I am of the opinion that marijuana should be legal and regulated like alcohol (over 21 to use and DUI laws apply).

 

[Mirdath]

I have a hard time believing that the second point is a serious libertarian proposal It’s completely unenforceable – and any attempt to enforce it would be so invasive and balloon the government to such a size that one would think libertarians would run screaming.

I would rather see some regulation, especially on the harder drugs – quality control would be a lifesaver. Right now in the unregulated black market, you can find unscrupulous distributors cutting heroin with chalk (mostly harmless) and fentanyl (hear a news item about a string of overdoses? That’s probably why), cutting crack cocaine with extra baking soda or crystal meth, and so on and so forth. The variance of potency in uncut drugs is also troubling – users never quite know how powerful the stuff is. Better to have hard drugs checked and sold at pharmacies or by licensed dealers instead of from just anyone on the street. Marijuana not so much, since pretty much anyone can grow it and you’re not going to die from a mismeasured dose.

But make drugs a legitimate, licensed business, and in one swell foop you’ve saved lives, eliminated a ton of government waste and overhead, seriously diminished the incidence of related crimes, solved the prison overcrowding problem, and cut the deficit off at the knees with the influx of new tax monies (some of which could/should go toward spreading accurate information instead of the laughable DARE program and funding NA-type groups without really putting a noticeable dent in it). You can even spin it as hurting terrorists: most of the world’s heroin comes from Afghanistan and the surrounding areas, and it’s a huge cash cow for certain organizations. Same with cocaine and Colombia. There really isn’t a downside to a well-thought-out plan for decriminalization.

I do agree with keeping DUI/OUIN on the books. That’s about public safety, not whether or not someone can ingest something.

As for the Catholic perspective, there’s the whole body as temple of the Spirit thing – but the Church generally does quite like its booze, and alcohol is just as much a drug as anything else we’re talking about. The only difference is that it’s legal.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

I have a hard time believing that the second point is a serious libertarian proposal It’s completely unenforceable – and any attempt to enforce it would be so invasive and balloon the government to such a size that one would think libertarians would run screaming.

Right now, it’s illegal to sell tobacco without a warning which describes the harmful effects. I am not suggesting anything far more drastic than that.

The principle of a free market requires that information be readily available to persons who may wish to engage in a contract. The idea of a free market is to provide all possible information, and then let people make the choice.

On the other hand, any law is difficult to enforce 100%. In fact, your argument from practicality is one to which I am not qualified to respond. However, any time I see a package of cigarettes, I notice that apparently the law aligns incentives well enough so that every pack has the Surgeon General’s warning.

As for the Catholic perspective, there’s the whole body as temple of the Spirit thing – but the Church generally does quite like its booze, and alcohol is just as much a drug as anything else we’re talking about. The only difference is that it’s legal.

I respectfully disagree. While alcohol has depressant effects and may become addictive, it is not hallucinogenic and is much less likely to cause addiction than many harder drugs like heroin. It also does not involve as high a risk as LSD, especially in reasonable doses. I think that the degree of effect is important to consider here - if the Church were to teach that government should regulate drugs because its effects are far more severe than alcohol, I would agree with the reasoning.

Regarding the sanctity of the body, it is no doubt that drug use is sinful. That’s not my question here, though. The question is whether government (particularly the US government under the Constitution) has any legal right to regulate morality when it does not deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Merits? The drugs would be regulated, so we could keep track of all the addicts.

Actually, they wouldn’t be any more than tobacco is. Unless I’m misinformed, we do not keep track of all cigarette users.

Downfalls? Allowing the drugs to get into the hands of the users in the first place. Its already bad enough that people by them illegally, I imagine it would only get worse if you bought them from someone authorized by the government.

You do not believe that adults should be able to conduct trade as they see fit when it does not damage others directly? How far are you willing to go in order to legislate morally against nonaggressive actions?

I would like to know the position of the church when it comes to drugs though.

As far as I know, drug use is considered sinful and for good reason. I am also curious as to what the Church teaching on government intervention is, if any leader in the hierarchy has seen fit to publish an opinion. If what I’ve been saying is different from Church teaching in any way, please let me know - I will surely retract any such statement.

 

[Mirdath]

Right now, it’s illegal to sell tobacco without a warning which describes the harmful effects. I am not suggesting anything far more drastic than that.

So are you proposing printing a warning in very small text on every plastic bag, scrap of aluminum foil, cigarette wrapper, and lottery ticket? From what you said, it sounded more like the dealer has to warn you every time you buy of the various hazards associated with whatever drug, which is just as unworkable if drug dealing is kept on the street and outside the pharmacy.

I respectfully disagree. While alcohol has depressant effects and may become addictive, it is not hallucinogenic and is much less likely to cause addiction than many harder drugs like heroin. It also does not involve as high a risk as LSD, especially in reasonable doses. I think that the degree of effect is important to consider here - if the Church were to teach that government should regulate drugs because its effects are far more severe than alcohol, I would agree with the reasoning.

Heroin’s addictive nature is quite simple and at the same time incredibly interesting. Morphine, the chemical into which heroin breaks down after ingestion, is a perfect mimic of endorphins, the hormone released by the human body to kill pain. Once the body becomes used to a constant supply of fake endorphins (which takes 3-4 days usually), it stops producing them on its own – and takes its own sweet time starting production up again. That’s the problem of heroin and all other opiates and opioids: in all other respects when it’s carefully dosed, it’s a wonder-drug, a perfect painkiller.

Sure, it’s a lot easier to become addicted to heroin or cocaine than to alcohol – I never said it wasn’t. However, that doesn’t make alcohol any less a drug or any less a thing to be concerned about regarding its immoderate use. And even the immediate effects of alcohol can be far more socially deleterious than those of several other drugs: you always hear about the belligerent, angry drunk, but have you ever heard of an angry junkie or pothead? No! They’re too busy in their own little worlds!

LSD is not particularly high-risk. The lethal dose is ludicrously high; I seem to recall that in all the colorful history of that particular drug six actual deaths from overdose have been recorded. Granted, that isn’t counting deaths from thinking you can fly, but as you said, information: nobody should trip without a sitter who knows what to expect, just like people should have designated drivers for nights out at the bar. The Temperance movement isn’t making a comeback over lethal drunk-driving accidents.

Regarding the sanctity of the body, it is no doubt that drug use is sinful. That’s not my question here, though. The question is whether government (particularly the US government under the Constitution) has any legal right to regulate morality when it does not deprive others of life, liberty, or property.

Drug use (as opposed to abuse) is not considered a sin, as far as I’m aware – so long as said use does not involve breaking the law. I do agree that the government is stepping well over the line when it makes particular substances illegal for non-minors.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

So are you proposing printing a warning in very small text on every plastic bag, scrap of aluminum foil, cigarette wrapper, and lottery ticket? From what you said, it sounded more like the dealer has to warn you every time you buy of the various hazards associated with whatever drug, which is just as unworkable if drug dealing is kept on the street and outside the pharmacy.

Presumably the drugs, once legalized, will be distributed just like tobacco is. The warning on cigarette packs seems to be working well enough, is it not? Very few people smoke without knowing the harm. I’m not sure why this is such a big deal.

Certainly this is done without going overboard, printing warnings on plastic bags, etc. Just on the package would be enough. The idea is to have the purchaser know to a reasonable degree what he is buying.

Indeed, most people today know what drugs will do, so this is even less of a concern. There will not need to be extreme measures taken to ensure this.

Heroin’s addictive nature is quite simple and at the same time incredibly interesting. Morphine, the chemical into which heroin breaks down after ingestion, is a perfect mimic of endorphins, the hormone released by the human body to kill pain. Once the body becomes used to a constant supply of fake endorphins (which takes 3-4 days usually), it stops producing them on its own – and takes its own sweet time starting production up again. That’s the problem of heroin and all other opiates and opioids: in all other respects when it’s carefully dosed, it’s a wonder-drug, a perfect painkiller.

I defer to your knowledge on this. It seems that this property of heroin makes it worthwhile to treat it separately from alcohol, although if my proposed policy is followed, it will not make a difference. My point, as I’m sure you recall, is that the Church would be justified in stating that more regulation is needed for these harder drugs.

Sure, it’s a lot easier to become addicted to heroin or cocaine than to alcohol – I never said it wasn’t. However, that doesn’t make alcohol any less a drug or any less a thing to be concerned about regarding its immoderate use. And even the immediate effects of alcohol can be far more socially deleterious than those of several other drugs: you always hear about the belligerent, angry drunk, but have you ever heard of an angry junkie or pothead? No! They’re too busy in their own little worlds!

This can’t be true, people on mind altering drugs are capable of violence and crime. The Church even gives this as a reason for condemning use of these drugs. I’ve heard plenty of anecdotal evidence for this, too. If you think there’s enough evidence to assume that drugs do not cause violence, then we can do that, but I don’t think it’s very accurate.

Drug use (as opposed to abuse) is not considered a sin, as far as I’m aware – so long as said use does not involve breaking the law. I do agree that the government is stepping well over the line when it makes particular substances illegal for non-minors.

Well using mind-altering drugs is considered a sin, I believe. Medicinal use, I don’t know, my guess is that it wouldn’t be. The sinful nature of drugs is not in whether it breaks the law of man, but that it disposes the person to committing crime.

One thing I would like to note: if a welfare state is maintained, then the government has a right and indeed a substantive interest to keep people off of hard drugs. After all, it (taxpayers, specifically) pays for the mistakes of others. If a libertarian drug policy is put in place, then there can be no use of taxpayer money to subsidize the care of drug users. This is the meaning of personal responsibility, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

Clearly, this policy cannot be put into place without significant changes in other areas.

 

[Mirdath]

Presumably the drugs, once legalized, will be distributed just like tobacco is. The warning on cigarette packs seems to be working well enough, is it not? Very few people smoke without knowing the harm. I’m not sure why this is such a big deal.

Depends on how you set it up. If distribution is made the domain of the pharmacies, I could see this working. If it’s a more street-level operation, it won’t.

Indeed, most people today know what drugs will do, so this is even less of a concern. There will not need to be extreme measures taken to ensure this.

Misinformation is still rampant. DARE is still around – that program isn’t designed to inform, it’s designed to scare. And it all-too-frequently does so by lying. So people get out of the program, and find out the principal or whoever lied about one thing – that doesn’t mean they find out the truth! And then, as often happens, they figure ‘well, I was lied to on that… why should I trust them on anything else?’ and end up in way over their heads, entirely ignorant.

In a bizarre, twisted way, DARE et al make the ludicrous ‘gateway drug’ accusation leveled at marijuana a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I defer to your knowledge on this. It seems that this property of heroin makes it worthwhile to treat it separately from alcohol, although if my proposed policy is followed, it will not make a difference. My point, as I’m sure you recall, is that the Church would be justified in stating that more regulation is needed for these harder drugs.

And I agree with it. Heroin should be well behind the counter. Codeine cough syrup and Tylenol-3 (acetominophen/codeine pain reliever) I could see making generally available with ID, but the stronger opiates – no. Too dangerous: somebody who knows what’s what needs to dose it out.

This can’t be true, people on mind altering drugs are capable of violence and crime. The Church even gives this as a reason for condemning use of these drugs. I’ve heard plenty of anecdotal evidence for this, too. If you think there’s enough evidence to assume that drugs do not cause violence, then we can do that, but I don’t think it’s very accurate.

Abuse of drugs like cocaine and PCP can lead to violence, yeah – they’re stimulants. Straight-up depressants like opiates produce a sense of calm and peace of mind in addition to the euphoria. Some people get mean when they get drunk, but I’ve never heard of anyone getting mean on smack. I’m much less familiar with the category of hallucinogens (marijuana is a very mild example), but consider that people now at least generally know better than to hold Reefer Madness to be gospel truth, and the pothead as popularly imagined is a person only Doritos need fear violence from.

Junkie crime comes from desperation as dopesickness sets in: not from the use of the drug but from its sudden withdrawal. I’d actually support clinics giving the stuff away to people on skid row, with a heavy focus toward getting them free of it and back in the workforce.

Well using mind-altering drugs is considered a sin, I believe. Medicinal use, I don’t know, my guess is that it wouldn’t be. The sinful nature of drugs is not in whether it breaks the law of man, but that it disposes the person to committing crime.

Catechism 2290-2291 is the relevant part:
*2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.*

Firstly, at least three of the four things mentioned in 2290 are drugs, whether the writers had that in mind or not. So we can see that it is not a psychoactive nature that makes cautiously moderated use of a substance immoral.

Secondly, the use of drugs, again as opposed to abuse, does little, if any, damage to health and life. You might get cancer (but everything causes cancer), you might get scars over your veins – but all in all, you could still live a long, full, happy, righteous life in all respects.

Thirdly, the objection of the Catechism to drugs regarding acts associated with them is not in how they predispose a person (if so, alcohol would be on the Naughty list) but in how they lead to the production and consumption of the substance. As I mentioned above, a very large fraction of the world’s heroin funds terrorist organizations, most of its cocaine fuels groups of Not Very Nice people in Central and South America. This is the problem, not ‘ganja makes you an unstoppable killing machine’. If it’s resolved, which is certainly possible, this objection would disappear.

One thing I would like to note: if a welfare state is maintained, then the government has a right and indeed a substantive interest to keep people off of hard drugs. After all, it (taxpayers, specifically) pays for the mistakes of others. If a libertarian drug policy is put in place, then there can be no use of taxpayer money to subsidize the care of drug users. This is the meaning of personal responsibility, as I’m sure you’ll agree.

I am neither a nanny-stater nor a libertarian, so I don’t have a problem with it.

Clearly, this policy cannot be put into place without significant changes in other areas.

Definitely.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

It seems that we are quite in agreement when it comes to the principle behind the policy as well as its possible effects. It remains,then, to settle the morality.

Secondly, the use of drugs, again as opposed to abuse, does little, if any, damage to health and life. You might get cancer (but everything causes cancer), you might get scars over your veins – but all in all, you could still live a long, full, happy, righteous life in all respects.

To make sure I understand you correctly, do you believe that there is a factual error with 2291? I read it to mean that the use of such drugs does direct damage to human health and life. After all, if the Catechism meant indirect damage through trafficking (which is described later in the paragraph), it would not be the use per se which “inflicts grave damage”.

 

[Mirdath]

To make sure I understand you correctly, do you believe that there is a factual error with 2291? I read it to mean that the use of such drugs does direct damage to human health and life. After all, if the Catechism meant indirect damage through trafficking (which is described later in the paragraph), it would not be the use per se which “inflicts grave damage”.

Rereading it after a good night’s sleep, the second paragraph isn’t really necessary. The Catechism’s objection in 2291 is entirely with the criminal actions associated with the manufacture and distribution, and thus the ‘direct co-operation in evil’ is the sticking point. Get Bayer to start up manufacture again (‘heroin’ was actually their brand name for diacetylmorphine before it was made illegal) and that objection is out of the way.

Whether drugs ‘dispose a person toward committing crime’ isn’t so much an issue. As I’ve said before, alcohol can dispose someone toward assault, property damage, or drunk driving, yet its moderated use is both legal and moral in the eyes of the Church. All other things being equal, I see no reason for the moderated use of other substances to be considered in any different light.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

It seems to me that 2291 is discussing two different aspects of using drugs. On the one hand, the use of drugs immediately and directly deals damage to life and health. On the other hand, trafficking and clandestine production of drugs brings in the “direct cooperation with evil”.

All emphases in quotes are mine.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense.

This half of the paragraph discusses the act of using drugs. It does not have to do with the issues discussed in the second half, except in the most indirect way. Furthermore, the exception granted to “therapeutic grounds” supports my interpretation. Medicinal marijuana is illegal in many places, and to obtain it would require illicit means, such as illegal trafficking. Nonetheless, such use is therapeutic and therefore is not prohibited by this part of 2291, because it does not directly cause “grave damage” to health and life. It follows, then, that it is the direct effect of usage on the user that motivates this part of 2291.

Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. **They **constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Only here does 2291 begin to address production and trafficking. Clearly, “they” here refers not to the use of drugs, but the production. Thus, it seems that the use of drugs presents one set of problems (grave damage), and production and trafficking another set (direct co-operation in evil).

So, since the first part of 2291 discusses the use of drugs linked to “grave damage” to health while the second part links production and trafficking to “direct co-operation with evil”, it seems that 2291 addresses two distinct issues with drug use. At least, it does not seem self-evident that the two are to be merged into one, as your quote here would suggest:

The Catechism’s objection in 2291 is entirely with the criminal actions associated with the manufacture and distribution, and thus the ‘direct co-operation in evil’ is the sticking point.

 

[trustinyou]

All other things being equal, I see no reason for the moderated use of other substances to be considered in any different light.
How can you moderatly use pot,coke,meth,whatever,that can get you high?? you can drink a beer or 2 and not get high,but try one of the above and see what happens!! Dont let ourselves be fooled! Doing drugs to get high opens yourself up to the evil one…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I have a hard time believing that the second point is a serious libertarian proposal It’s completely unenforceable – and any attempt to enforce it would be so invasive and balloon the government to such a size that one would think libertarians would run screaming…

It would be the base for civil lawsuit, I strong support the original post. It has been good enough for over 95% of all human history. This current regulation was to rid society of drug abuse. Have you seen any drug abuse? is it rare today? The current system only began in ~1930

 

[stinkcat_14]

Didn’t Augustine once argue that prostitution should be legal? The idea the best I can tell is that although it was a grave sin, society was better off with it legal than having it illegal. To be fair, I have not read a Catholic analysis of what he allegedly said, but perhaps, it he did say it, it could help shed some light on this issue.

 

[Mirdath]

It seems to me that 2291 is discussing two different aspects of using drugs. On the one hand, the use of drugs immediately and directly deals damage to life and health. On the other hand, trafficking and clandestine production of drugs brings in the “direct cooperation with evil”.

Mere use does not damage life and health, if done properly. Like anything else, drugs can be abused. The latter part of 2291 reads like an explanation of why drug use is considered a grave offense – otherwise, the Catechism has just left the reader dangling with no reasoning given for its statement. I’d expect better than that from an institution that has contributed so much to learning!

trustinyou:

How can you moderatly use pot,coke,meth,whatever,that can get you high?? you can drink a beer or 2 and not get high,but try one of the above and see what happens!! Dont let ourselves be fooled! Doing drugs to get high opens yourself up to the evil one…

And why do you drink a few beers now and then, or do a shot with your friends on a night out? If you just wanted to satisfy your thirst, you’d be drinking water. That buzz, that warm fuzzy glow you feel after a bit of booze – that’s you, high.
Texas Roofer:

It would be the base for civil lawsuit, I strong support the original post. It has been good enough for over 95% of all human history. This current regulation was to rid society of drug abuse. Have you seen any drug abuse? is it rare today? The current system only began in ~1930

Seen? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, quit while I was ahead.

If distribution of currently-controlled substances is left at the pharmacy level, #2 becomes feasible – much like every other pack of cigarettes I buy comes with a little leaflet ‘if you’re thinking about quitting…’. Mandating street dealers to read off a bulleted list of possible side effects just won’t work.

The ‘current system’ actually began in 1914 with the Harrison Act, but it’s been tightened ever since.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Seen? Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, quit while I was ahead.

If distribution of currently-controlled substances is left at the pharmacy level, #2 becomes feasible – much like every other pack of cigarettes I buy comes with a little leaflet ‘if you’re thinking about quitting…’. Mandating street dealers to read off a bulleted list of possible side effects just won’t work.

The ‘current system’ actually began in 1914 with the Harrison Act, but it’s been tightened ever since.

First I did not intend it to be on such a personal level

Second "Mandating street dealers " that is one of the main issues there would not be street dealers. Reputable sources would simply under price them, additionally most people would pay for medical advice (not prescriptions). It really is simple :

Who cares about me more? ( me or government)
Who knows better for me? ( me or government)
Who serves me better? ( me or government)

 

[Mirdath]

Second "Mandating street dealers " that is one of the main issues there would not be street dealers. Reputable sources would simply under price them, additionally most people would pay for medical advice (not prescriptions).

That’s fine for those drugs which are more complicated to produce – heroin, powder cocaine, and so on – but anybody can grow a plant. I don’t think there should be any kind of restriction on that: if you want to grow poppies or cannabis or coca, you should be able to. That’d lead to a completely different economic model for the drug market: instead of a hierarchy of dealers getting the stuff from a few sources, you’d have the pharmacies operating on one ‘side’ and Joe with his backyard garden on the other. The street side would be a lot less, shall we say, ‘business-oriented’, and that, I think, is an undeniable positive. But one can’t really pass laws regarding who says what in that situation; it’d be like the IRS going after lemonade stands.

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Mere use does not damage life and health, if done properly. Like anything else, drugs can be abused. The latter part of 2291 reads like an explanation of why drug use is considered a grave offense – otherwise, the Catechism has just left the reader dangling with no reasoning given for its statement. I’d expect better than that from an institution that has contributed so much to learning!

Perhaps, we might just have to differ on this.

And why do you drink a few beers now and then, or do a shot with your friends on a night out? If you just wanted to satisfy your thirst, you’d be drinking water. That buzz, that warm fuzzy glow you feel after a bit of booze – that’s you, high.

I don’t. But point taken. I am sure the Church has some sort of explanation for differentiating between drugs and alcohol, though I don’t know what it is. I’ll be the first to admit that any discussion about the Church’s opinion on this matter is speculation from me.