The Legalistation/decriminalisation Of Cannabis.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1297103152' post='2209703']
As someone pointed out before, alcohol [b]is[/b] a drug.
[/quote]

Technically alcohol is hydroxyl group (-OH) that is attached to a carbon atom...just saying. Alcohol may be a drug but I find it a bit dishonest to lump it in with what we normally call drugs, though one obviously must still use alcohol prudently.

[Papist]

[quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1297103152' post='2209703']
As someone pointed out before, alcohol [b]is[/b] a drug.
[/quote]

Oh I see. Alcohol is legal. Alcohol is a drug. Therefore, all drugs should be legal. Am I getting the logic now?

[Nihil Obstat]

Just as an experiment, I took that document cited above, took the section about why drugs, illegal or legal, are harmful, and I replaced "drugs" with alcohol.


14. Because alcohol dependence among young people is due to the weakness of our educational system, it is not apparent how the legalization of these substances promotes greater control of them by young people and, above all, how could it help them understand what they are seeking through these substances.
15. The legalization of alcohol implies the risk of causing the opposite effect to that sought. In fact, it is easy to admit that what is legal is normal and therefore moral. Through the legalization of alcohol, it is not the product that is thereby legalized, but rather the reasons leading to the consumption of this product that are justified. Now, no one will deny that alcohol use is an evil. Whether alcohol are illegally purchased or distributed by the State, they are always harmful to man.
16. On the other hand, should the law recognize this behaviour as normal, one might wonder how the public authorities would deal with having to educate and care for persons as a result of the risks this legalization would involve. We are faced with a further contradiction of the modern world, which trivializes a phenomenon and then attempts to deal with its negative consequences.
17. The social repercussions of this legalization must also be considered. Will the spread of crime and illnesses linked to dependence as well as the increase in traffic accidents resulting from easy access to alcohol be courageously examined? Are we ready to entrust ourselves professionally to the alcohol dependent? Must we guarantee them job security? Furthermore, does the State really have the financial means and personnel for dealing with the growth of health problems that the legalization of alcohol would inevitably entail?
18. In view of these problems, the primary duty of the State is to safeguard the common good. This requires it to protect the rights, stability and unity of the family. By destroying a young person, alcohol destroy the family, both the family of the present and that of the future. Should this vital and primordial cell of society be threatened, society as a whole will suffer. On the other hand, as the Pontifical Council for the Family stresses, alcohol dependence is one of the reasons for the weakening of the family and the break-up of homes:[7] "<The experience of those who work with special competence in the world of alcohol dependence ... unanimously confirms that the Christian model>" of the family based on "<authentic love: the unique, faithful, and indissoluble love of spouses remains the primary point of reference upon which to insist in any action for the prevention, treatment and recovery of the vitality of the individual">.[8]
19. Thus in ensuring the common good, the State also has the task of watching over the citizens' well-being. The State's assistance to its citizens must correspond to the principle of impartiality and subsidiarily: that is, it must first protect the weakest and poorest of society's members, despite themselves. It cannot therefore relinquish its duty to protect those who have not yet reached maturity and are potential victims of alcohol abuse. Furthermore, if the State adopts or maintains a consistent and courageous stance on alcohol, combating them regardless of their type, this attitude will at the same time help in the struggle against alcohol and tobacco abuse.
20. The Church wishes to draw attention to the repercussions of this phenomenon. She emphasizes the fact that, in the event of the legalization of the sale and use of products encouraging alcohol dependence, the future of individuals is at stake. The lives of some will be diminished, that is, marred, while others, perhaps without falling into real dependence, will waste their youth without fully developing their potential. Experiments must not be carried out at people's expense. The behaviour that leads to alcohol dependence has no chance of being corrected if the products that encourage this behaviour are sold without restriction.
21. On the contrary, as the Holy Father said:[9] "<the possibility of recuperation and redemption from the heavy slavery>" of alcohol with methods based on acceptance, respect, education in freedom and love "<has been proved concretely, and it is significant that this has taken place with methods which strictly exclude any granting of alcohol, legal or illegal>" whether these are alcohol themselves or substitutes. Pope John Paul II added: "<alcohol abuse cannot be conquered with alcohol>".
22. Various attitudes are possible towards the problem of alcohol abuse and they can all be justified. However, rather than a policy of simple "limitation" or "reduction" of the damage, accepting as a fact of civilization that part of the population uses alcohol and is heading for destruction, would it not be preferable to opt for a policy of true prevention, aimed at building (or rebuilding) a "culture of life" in this "marginalization" of our civilization of efficiency?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1297103955' post='2209710']
Oh I see. Alcohol is legal. Alcohol is a drug. Therefore, all drugs should be legal. Am I getting the logic now?
[/quote]
No, it means we need to seriously reexamine our terminology. If we want 'drugs' to be illegal because they;re 'harmful', why is alcohol magically exempt?

[Papist]

.[img]http://catholiceducation.org/images/miscellaneous/MARIJUANA.JPG[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

Apply your own logic to alcohol and caffeine and show me, with valid logic, why they are moral and marijuana absolutely cannot be.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297104592' post='2209716']
Apply your own logic to alcohol and caffeine and show me, with valid logic, why they are moral and marijuana absolutely cannot be.
[/quote]

I think I provided a fairly good logical reasoning of why a society can choose to ban marijuana and not alcohol (and then explained certain points in a later post in order to be clearer). I think that reasoning is solid, though no one has really argued with it...minus saying I would rather give authority to the government rather than parents. A fact, which is just blatantly untrue.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1297106465' post='2209730']
I think I provided a fairly good logical reasoning of why a society can choose to ban marijuana and not alcohol (and then explained certain points in a later post in order to be clearer). I think that reasoning is solid, though no one has really argued with it...minus saying I would rather give authority to the government rather than parents. A fact, which is just blatantly untrue.
[/quote]
The way I interpreted your argument was that
-legitimate authority may restrict certain substances (as parents do with children)
-therefore state government may restrict substances such as marijuana and alcohol.

I agree with the first, not the second. You miss a second proposition that "state government has the same authority as a parent over their child". I do not cede that. Legitimate authority may restrict the consumption of something such as alcohol, and especially to minors. Parents have that authority. Our state governments have no moral authority.
The State is not a giant common parent. It wants to be, but it is not and cannot be such.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297106731' post='2209734']
The way I interpreted your argument was that
-legitimate authority may restrict certain substances (as parents do with children)
-therefore state government may restrict substances such as marijuana and alcohol.

I agree with the first, not the second. You miss a second proposition that "state government has the same authority as a parent over their child". I do not cede that. Legitimate authority may restrict the consumption of something such as alcohol, and especially to minors. Parents have that authority. Our state governments have no moral authority.
The State is not a giant common parent. It wants to be, but it is not and cannot be such.
[/quote]

Isn't this contrary the how Christianity has historically viewed the state?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1297106865' post='2209735']
Isn't this contrary the how Christianity has historically viewed the state?
[/quote]
I don't really think so. We've always talked about "legitimate" government. Right now, I think that's not a reality. It may have been in the past (I'm no historian), but I can't think of an example of legitimate government today.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297107028' post='2209737']
I don't really think so. We've always talked about "legitimate" government. Right now, I think that's not a reality. It may have been in the past (I'm no historian), but I can't think of an example of legitimate government today.
[/quote]


How was the feudal system that Aquinas vested with the power to try heretics any more legitimate than the representative government in place today?

The Pope and Church speak about the moral duties that states have. The qualifications that I have always seen have been in regard to particular laws passed by the state as per Augustine.

[4588686]

I think my view has even more weight given the, as I recall, very high standards that must be met before a revolution can be considered legitimate.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297106731' post='2209734']
The way I interpreted your argument was that
-legitimate authority may restrict certain substances (as parents do with children)
-therefore state government may restrict substances such as marijuana and alcohol.

I agree with the first, not the second. You miss a second proposition that "state government has the same authority as a parent over their child". I do not cede that. Legitimate authority may restrict the consumption of something such as alcohol, and especially to minors. Parents have that authority. Our state governments have no moral authority.
The State is not a giant common parent. It wants to be, but it is not and cannot be such.
[/quote]

It is foolishness to assume that the State does not have an interest in morality or that there is no moral character to the laws or even to say that the laws in some respects do have a moral authority. A moral citizenry is good for society and therefore the government has a natural and vested interest in fostering virtue in society. Ideally, laws should foster the development of virtue in society and should punish large vices (this must be distinguished from Legislating morality in that the goal here is to "foster virtue" with good laws and tax breaks for charities and such and punish large vices like murder and theft). Also there is a moral component to law in that if one disobeys a law which is in accord with Justice, appropriate to time and place, one has willed evil. It is immoral to break certain laws a certain times and therefore there is a kind of moral authority or aspect to law. But this is stuff you already know. Anyway, this notion of law and authority, combined with the idea that the people can make society, allows for THE PEOPLE to ban certain things in society by vote. I am not talking about some leviathan that wills to remove things from society. I am talking about something like a state-wide vote on whether the people of society want to allow something. This to me seems legitimate and would an example of how a government may achieve authority over individuals concerning regulated substances.

I agree parents have the authority to regulate things in the home and that should really not be tampered with, but if all the parents got together and voted not to allow porn or something else in society would we balk at it? No. I wonder then why the same principle cannot be said of something similar (though clearly different than porn)?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297107028' post='2209737']
I don't really think so. We've always talked about "legitimate" government. Right now, I think that's not a reality. It may have been in the past (I'm no historian), but I can't think of an example of legitimate government today.
[/quote]

I believe that in the argument I was making, the government I set out for the thought experiment was "legitimate." I grant that perhaps in many parts of the world, governments do not have legitimate authority, but that doesn't preclude us talking about a just society or a perhaps a more realistic idea is a society where the people speak and form their own society, even if they may do some things wrong. I agree with you that the State is not some giant common parent and that it should not be; however, I fail to see why we can't think about this problem in the context of a legitimate authority that is derived from the will of the people and allows them to vote on such a thing as to whether to allow it or ban it within their specific context and society.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1297107552' post='2209740']
How was the feudal system that Aquinas vested with the power to try heretics any more legitimate than the representative government in place today?

The Pope and Church speak about the moral duties that states have. The qualifications that I have always seen have been in regard to particular laws passed by the state as per Augustine.
[/quote]
A legitimate state first and foremost has to work for the common good. I don't know of any state that does this. Abortion, as one example, de-legitimizes any State which not only allows, but encourages it.
I haven't studied Aquinas, so I don't know if his conception of a State would have been all that great or not. No saint is infallible.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297110175' post='2209760']
A legitimate state first and foremost has to work for the common good. I don't know of any state that does this. Abortion, as one example, de-legitimizes any State which not only allows, but encourages it. I haven't studied Aquinas, so I don't know if his conception of a State would have been all that great or not. No saint is infallible.
[/quote]

So Parents who fail in some aspects of their moral duties as parent's have no right to tell their children that they cannot do cocaine? Since they have lost their legitimacy?