F
fakename
Guest
Or how magisterially authoritative are our current drug laws? Would any other laws be allowable? Would any degree of regulation no matter how small, be okay?
- Status
M
manualman
Guest
Prudential judgements like laws not related to fundamental human rights are, by definition, outside the infallible teaching authority of the Church.
That said, you’re a dummy if you simply ignore the advice of bishops on the matter. Just because God didn’t establish the Church for the purpose of having her be “big brother” on all matters doesn’t mean she’s irrelevant either. Our society is clueless on the deeper meaning of what being human is really all about and it is in this sense that illicit drugs truly violate our human dignity. Infallible or not, you’d be wise to listen.
That said, you’re a dummy if you simply ignore the advice of bishops on the matter. Just because God didn’t establish the Church for the purpose of having her be “big brother” on all matters doesn’t mean she’s irrelevant either. Our society is clueless on the deeper meaning of what being human is really all about and it is in this sense that illicit drugs truly violate our human dignity. Infallible or not, you’d be wise to listen.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
This has nothing to do with Church teaching, but may be considered applicable to the subject.
Two European countries, Holland and Switzerland had extremely liberal drug laws and even more liberal drug law enforcement. Both Marijuana and Hashish were openly sold and there were even cafes that sold and permitted open usage. In both countries, law enforcement looked the other way with respect to hard drugs.
In both countries, their major cities became international magnets for drug users and sellers, and the death rates due to overdose and their crime rates soared. After more than 10 years of this, the legislatures in both countries had to reinstitute their drug laws and insist on strict enforcement of them.
The more than 10 years of liberality in both countries has prooved that a lack of drug legislation and strict enforcement is a hazard to public safety.
A
aragonjohn1
Guest
Pope Jp II on overuse of drugs
Faced with today’s problems and disappointments, many people will try to escape from their responsibility. Escape in selfishness, escape in sexual pleasure, escape in drugs, escape in violence, escape in indifference and cynical attitudes. I propose to you the option of love, which is the opposite of escape."
pope Jp II on using the earths goods chiefly for mankink and that all plants and creatures are for the use and discovery of man
- In the Book of Genesis, where we find God’s first self-revelation to humanity (Gen 1-3), there is a recurring refrain: “AND GOD SAW IT WAS GOOD”. After creating the heavens, the sea, the earth and all it contains, God created man and woman. At this point the refrain changes markedly: “And God saw everything he had made, and behold, IT WAS VERY GOOD” (Gen 1:31). God entrusted the whole of creation to the man and woman, and only then—as we read—could he rest “from all his work” (Gen 2:3).
- Christians believe that the Death and Resurrection of Christ accomplished the work of reconciling humanity to the Father, who “was pleased … through (Christ) to reconcile to himself ALL THINGS, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross” (Col. 1:19-20). Creation was thus made new (cf. Rev. 21:5). Once subjected to the bondage of sin and decay (cf. Rom. 8:21), it has now received new life while “we wait for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells” (2 Pt 3:13). Thus, the Father “has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery … which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite ALL THINGS in him, all things in heaven and things on earth” (Eph. 1:9-10).
- These biblical considerations help us to understand better THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN ACTIVITY AND THE WHOLE OF CREATION.
God Bless
Hope this helps:bounce:
C
CopticChristian
Guest
H
Holly3278
Guest
I have wondered for some time if the Church would have a problem with medical marijuana. The reason is because while I have never used it, I have heard that using marijuana for medical purposes can be quite effective for various forms of severe chronic pain as well as for nausea and such caused by cancer. There may be other medical uses for it that I am unaware of.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Jesus doesn’t like murder.
Tens of thousands of people have been murdered because some drugs are prohibited, and therefore attract people who use violence as a main aspect of their business model to that business.
Drug dealers don’t murder each other because of ‘drugs’. They murder each other because the drug market is a black market, unregulated, and these people can not bring disputes to the courts or police.
I’m also against murder. And I know that the war on drugs is responsible for tens of thousands of murders over the years…and will be directly responsible for tens of thousands of more murders in the coming years/decades.
So while I detest drugs and drug use, I realize that the war on drugs is responsible for these murders and would like to see the market regulated to stop the murders.
Jesus doesn’t like murder. It’s as simple as that for me.
God Bless,
Bill
M
manualman
Guest
Oh Bill look at your argument for a second. You can say that about nearly ANYTHING that large numbers of people will pay money for.
Shall we legalize dogfighting then? Those events where people train dogs to kill each other and bet on it? It’s illegal now and gangs organize and hold events where they make quite a bit of money on it. They guard their turf and don’t hesitate to kill off rivals or perceived threats to their income.
Therefore, we must legalize dogfights, right? Hey, it’s YOUR logic!
How about child prostitution? It happens quite a lot in Thailand, I hear. Plenty of money in that, so likely plenty of murder to protect the racket. Must need to legalize it. How far you going to take this? Anytime people are willing to kill for something, they must be allowed to have it? No thanks. We do nobody any favors by condoning inherently destructive and exploitive behaviors. Highly addictive substances are used to exploit people. Making it legal will only give social respectability to the pushers.
Shall we legalize dogfighting then? Those events where people train dogs to kill each other and bet on it? It’s illegal now and gangs organize and hold events where they make quite a bit of money on it. They guard their turf and don’t hesitate to kill off rivals or perceived threats to their income.
Therefore, we must legalize dogfights, right? Hey, it’s YOUR logic!
How about child prostitution? It happens quite a lot in Thailand, I hear. Plenty of money in that, so likely plenty of murder to protect the racket. Must need to legalize it. How far you going to take this? Anytime people are willing to kill for something, they must be allowed to have it? No thanks. We do nobody any favors by condoning inherently destructive and exploitive behaviors. Highly addictive substances are used to exploit people. Making it legal will only give social respectability to the pushers.
J
JIB
Guest
The logic is that greater evils occur due to the prohibition of drugs than from the drugs themselves. Same line of thinking that St. Augustine used. We saw how awful alcohol prohibition was for the United States, most people just can’t see how bad drug prohibition is for the US now.
Anyone that supports drug prohibition but doesn’t support alcohol prohibition is exercising severe cognitive dissonance.
Anyone that supports drug prohibition but doesn’t support alcohol prohibition is exercising severe cognitive dissonance.
M
manualman
Guest
Nice sweeping generalization. As those go, I prefer “Only dopeheads want legalized drugs.” About as fair and accurate.
There is zero cognitive dissonance in the principle of banning cocaine/meth/crack, etc and having legal alcohol. Alcohol is morally neutral by itself and most people (not all) have an inherent ability to control themselves to safe, moderate social use. More complex mind alterting drugs like meth and cocaine form addictions extremely quickly and are almost impossible to use in a manner that does NOT form addictions. Utterly different substances.
The alcohol prohibition failed because it was a ban on something that was NOT inherently immoral and the majority knew it. Thus, they had contempt for the law and created a vast market for the product. The majority of people in the US are not (yet) so degenerated that they are regular users of drugs, so the situation simply isn’t the same.
To claim there is a principled inconsistency is like claiming that a country can’t hold moral principles against unjust war while maintaining a military for defense purposes: apples and oranges.
There is zero cognitive dissonance in the principle of banning cocaine/meth/crack, etc and having legal alcohol. Alcohol is morally neutral by itself and most people (not all) have an inherent ability to control themselves to safe, moderate social use. More complex mind alterting drugs like meth and cocaine form addictions extremely quickly and are almost impossible to use in a manner that does NOT form addictions. Utterly different substances.
The alcohol prohibition failed because it was a ban on something that was NOT inherently immoral and the majority knew it. Thus, they had contempt for the law and created a vast market for the product. The majority of people in the US are not (yet) so degenerated that they are regular users of drugs, so the situation simply isn’t the same.
To claim there is a principled inconsistency is like claiming that a country can’t hold moral principles against unjust war while maintaining a military for defense purposes: apples and oranges.
J
JIB
Guest
Why is alcohol morally neutral but marijuana isn’t?
More people are addicted to alcohol than any illicit drug. More people die from overuse of alcohol than any illicit drug. More people are killed by people “high” on alcohol than any illicit drug. More families are destroyed by alcohol abuse than any illicit drug.
There are many people that use drugs like cocaine and marijuana but don’t become addicted.
These facts lead me to believe only cognitive dissonance can explain someone believing alcohol should be legal and marijuana illegal.
More people are addicted to alcohol than any illicit drug. More people die from overuse of alcohol than any illicit drug. More people are killed by people “high” on alcohol than any illicit drug. More families are destroyed by alcohol abuse than any illicit drug.
There are many people that use drugs like cocaine and marijuana but don’t become addicted.
These facts lead me to believe only cognitive dissonance can explain someone believing alcohol should be legal and marijuana illegal.
M
manualman
Guest
You’ll notice I didn’t mention MJ because I’m not entirely sure on that one where the science falls. IMO, we just don’t know enough yet to be sure and prudence suggests it should not be legal until we do. (my limited anecdotal experience with regular MJ users suggests to me that it’s both addictive AND makes long term changes in behavior) Personally, I think smoking ANYTHING is a dumb move to be avoided. Unlike alcohol, you never see an example of Jesus condoning the smoking of substances at all.
If you fail to recognize the difference between how addictive alcohol is and how addictive cocaine is, you must already be smoking SOMETHING!
If you fail to recognize the difference between how addictive alcohol is and how addictive cocaine is, you must already be smoking SOMETHING!
F
fakename
Guest
Is it just a prudential decision? I ask because the CCC says: “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.”
So to me it seems that this implies that the Church has the authority to both define what a drug and its proper effects are, and to say which drugs are good and others bad (namely medicinal vs non). So to what extent is the above quotation magisterial and etc.? (that is, I now ask my original questions about the quotation I now posted).
S
Steve80
Guest
I think recreational drug use or anything that can alter spiritual reasoning should be avoided. Just as fasting and Lent teach us to control human desires (it’s not just about giving up meat or candy), the use of drugs and alcohol tend to lead to excess. It’s ok to have a glass of wine or a beer with dinner, but when it turns to excess, it alters that person’s ability to reason. With regard to drugs, most people use them because of their psychological effects, which generally impact reasoning in a negative way. How many more sins are committed when someone is in an altered state of reasoning, such as being drunk or high?
I realize this doesn’t directly answer your question, but whether a drug is legal, illegal, or controlled, I think you have to ask whether it has the potential to lead you to sin or lead someone else to sin as a witness to your actions. Sometimes it’s hard to quiet restless human desires, but the Holy Spirit is always there to guide those ready to listen.
I realize this doesn’t directly answer your question, but whether a drug is legal, illegal, or controlled, I think you have to ask whether it has the potential to lead you to sin or lead someone else to sin as a witness to your actions. Sometimes it’s hard to quiet restless human desires, but the Holy Spirit is always there to guide those ready to listen.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Manual,
You are generalizing for no reason. The issue is the war on drugs.
You cannot snort a dog fight.
You cannot drink prostitution.
You believe that there will be pushers if drugs are legal? If they were legal they would be dispensed bought and sold.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Holly,
My grandmother way dying of terminal cancer back in the early 80’s. This was when there were 5 people in the whole of the USA legally allowed to use medical mj. This was back in the day when police would kick in the doors of aids patients growing mj to smoke it so they could have some type of appetite to counteract their ‘waisting away syndrome’.
My grandmother’s doctor, who was treating her with chemo, but she was terminally ill, advised her to smoke mj to counteract the severe neausea one gets from chemo. Since I grew up in a very disfunctional family none of my grandmothers children were stepping up to the plate to take her to her chemo treatments. I was in high school and took days off to take her.
I also procured mj for her as her doctor recommended she smoke it, but wasn’t able to prescribe it. He even let her smoke it in the hospital in a room before she got her chemo treatments.
This was the beginning of the shaping of my views on mj and whether or not it should be illegal, and under what circumstances. Here I am a boy, not yet 18, effectively being made into a criminal in order to assist my dying grandmother to find a degree of aleviation of her extreme neasuea as her doctor recommended. And my dying grandmother, who wasted away to 60 lbs before she died was also made into a criminal. She didn’t drink or do any drugs before this.
I found it to be a travesty of justice and outright abuse of basic human rights for her situation to be dealt with this way legally. It was also the beginning of the time when I started to develop contemp for government. It’s my understanding that there were and are many cases similar to my grandmothers, however nowadays the gov’t isn’t kicking in the doors of dying people who are in possession of marijuana under the recommendations of a doctor in order to make their last weeks or months less filled with suffering.
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
No. Because dogs don’t have the ability to consent to the activity.
No, it is NOT my logic. Dogs don’t have the ability to consent to this forced training and fighting.
With drug sales 2 people both consent and there is not complainig victim.
With dogs, just like with babies, it’s adults responsibility to have a voice for them as they don’t have the ability to consent. 2 adults engaged in a drug sale transaction both have the ability to consent and there is not a complaining victim.
Sorry, not my logic. See why now?
Again, as children they don’t have the ability to consent. Therefore it’s our job to speak for them.
Again, children don’t have the ability to consent to such things. That is the critical difference. Get it yet? If not, feel free to keep throwing examples at me that you (incorrectly) think aligns with my logic and I will continue to demonstrate why it does not.
You honestly believe that is my position? Feel free to keep trying to make it seem that my reasoning applies to these things you are bringing up, I will keep demonstrating why they do not. Until you understand the difference as you clearly do not as of yet.
With drugs there are 2 adult people engaged in a transation, neither wants the police involved. There is no complaining victim.
With the war on drugs it turns drugs into a black market item. This means people who kill as part of their business model take over. Moreover, it has been proven through the laws of supply and demand that people continue to use drugs despite the war on drugs. And thousands are murdered because it’s turned into a black market business.
If the drug war stopped drugs, or only a handful of people were murdered each year while drug use dropped by 10% each year I might reconsider my postion. As it stands drug use doesn’t decline, costs to the public are enormous, and tons are murdered. So the drug war isn’t effective. Therefore I suggest another approach, possibly one that WILL be effective in reducing drug use. Understand yet?
We agree on the fact that neither of us condones destructive or exploitative behavior.
Highly addictive substances (including cigarettes) are SOUGHT out by adults deemed to be competent. The only reason drug dealers exist is because there is a DEMAND for drugs.
If it were legal the gov’t would take control and major pharmacutical companies would be the ones producing them. They could be sold in pharmacies like some other highly addictive drugs are.
One could argue that by making them legal it takes away the ‘forbidden fruit’ element, the rebelious element, and possibly drug use would decline over time as a result.
Look at the difference between alcohol use in the USA where it widely abused and the legal age is 21 and other countries where it is not widely abused and the legal age is lower. I believe this is because children are introduced to alcohol, such as wine, in the company of family and loved ones on special occasions and used in moderation at times of celebration where the children are included in consuming wine to some extent.
In the usa children are introduced to alcohol by their friends, when it’s illegal for them to have it, and they abuse it. Look at the drunkeness that happens at college and is seen as normal.
This doesn’t happen in countries where the drinking age is 15 and the first 25 experiences of consuming alcohol is in the company of parents and other loving family members where the child takes a small ammt, effectively learning to use it in moderation at special family gatherings.
In the USA it’s beer kegs and beer bongs and chugging contests, etc. I contend it’s because at least in part it is a forbidden fruit to teens in the usa and they go behind their parents backs to drink it (because it’s illegal).
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
Alcohol abuse is a major problem in the USA and is behind more calls for police assistance than drug use is. It’s also behind domestic violence and other types of violence moreso than other drugs.
Yet it is not illegal to posses or drink. We target the behavior of CERTAIN people who use it. The same should be true for drugs. This way we criminalize violent behavior not the possession of some substance. We condem violent behavior, not the possession of some substance.
B
Bill_7154
Guest
JIB,
I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately the US population has been indoctrinated through propaganda over the past 40 years to support the drug war. So they don’t even realize their cognitive dissonance and can’t even allow themselves to look at the issue with an open mind and take in information that is different that that which has been rammed down their throats as the absolute truth for the past 40 years.
I pray that the populace become more open minded and develop the ability to reason better when subjected to overwhelming ammt’s of propaganda, in order to save many thousand more from being murdered neeedlessly. In order to prevent millions and billions of dollars to be put in the hands of people who are responsible for ordering mass murders and who are responsible for terrorism.
God Bless,
Bill
B
Bill_7154
Guest
We can be sure where medical info falls on the # of deaths attributed to mj and the # attributed to alcohol. We can be sure about the # of calls police get because of disturbances of one type or another because of alcohol compared to the # of calls because of mj.You’ll notice I didn’t mention MJ because I’m not entirely sure on that one where the science falls. IMO, we just don’t know enough yet to be sure and prudence suggests it should not be legal until we do. (my limited anecdotal experience with regular MJ users suggests to me that it’s both addictive AND makes long term changes in behavior) Personally, I think smoking ANYTHING is a dumb move to be avoided. Unlike alcohol, you never see an example of Jesus condoning the smoking of substances at all.
If you fail to recognize the difference between how addictive alcohol is and how addictive cocaine is, you must already be smoking SOMETHING!
We know alcohol kills people who use it to excess over a period of years. We know it damages the body when used in excess. Yet it is legal.
Do you think the government actually engages in studies that are open minded where they are seeking the honest truth about mj and are open to learning that it is only minimally harmful rather than from the outset having the agenda be results that lead to negative reports around marijuana?
I have read that in states where mj is either decriminalized or legal for medical reasons (I forget which or if it was both) that in a governments own study the results were in those states there was a slight DECLINE in teen use of marijuana compared to states where it is outright illegal.
How come they are not putting out the results of this study en mass to expose people to ‘the truth’?
How about dragnet and how they showed mj users behaving in dramatically crazy ways that we know are not even close to the truth about mj users behavior? Have you watched one of those episodes recently or one of those movies or whatever that shows mj users behaving in extremely bizzare and dangerous behavior when we know that it is not even close to the truth? Yet these shows/movies were used to shape public opinion back in the 50’s or whenever they came out.
Jesus doesn’t condone murder either, but the drug war creates mass murder.
God Bless,
Bill
- Status