Questions About Catholics Smoking Marijuana

[Chestertonian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykvc20YpXAQ&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[havok579257]

Then believe I don't have strong convictions.

 

You've shown very little understanding of my position. Not long ago, you were under the delusion that I believed people deciding to not sell stuff to me was a violation of my rights. I doubt you have any more understanding of the job than you do of my moral positions.

 

 

that was not my belief, that was a jab at you.  I was simpling acting like you.  saying random stuff the person doesn't believe in and attributing it to them. 

 

my point is simple.  if you are so against an organization like you are and yet you work for the organization it seems kind of funny.  it would be like Michael moore who rails against Wallstreet tomorrow go and try to get a job in Wallstreet.  See what I mean.  Kind of hypocritical to condemn something , yet you work for that something and are more than willing to do their so called dirty work.

[Winchester]

I would say nearly everyone at "some point" when their on pcp will become violent.  maybe not initially with fire or police but in the ambulance to the hospital or the hours in the hospital er they will.  its why a lot of people will as a preventative measure restrain people in ambulances who are on pcp.  cause there is a big chance they will become violent.  now I am sure you are absolutely against this.  although I guess I just don't see it the same way for a 110lb female medic by her self in the back of a moving ambulance with a 300lb pcp person.  I am fine if they want to restrain this person even though at the time they have not been violent.  you probably think this is absurd.  although what chance does a 100lb female have against a 300lb pcp person who can't feel pain(even bullet)?

 

 

my position is the same as the catechism.  that if its a mind altering drug that is not used strictly for medical reasons it is wrong.  it should be illegal.  pcp users have physically hurt and killed many people just in America.  to me if something is deemed dangerous and has "no" positive effects from it, it should be illegal.  I am against any person or country having nuclear bombs because there is nothing positive that can come from it.  so unless you have legit studies that show pcp has any positive value to it, then your never going to convince me it should be made legal.  to many people get hurt on a daily basis from pcp users.    

 

Actually, I'm not against restraining someone who has taken a mind altering substance and chosen to walk out amongst everyone else on "public" property (that's a situation of reality. There is "public" property, and we have to work around that reality. Fact is, public property isn't like private property). We've very little choice in the matter, anymore. Considering the legal penalties available to those who might hurt themselves when under the influence, it's arguably enough of a threat that transport to a hospital is a form of self defense. It is not a form of self defense to sentence such people to time in a cage. It's certainly not when other mere mortals decide to detain the person and search their private property for substances banned by other mere mortals, and punishing such possession with time in a cage. That's called assault, battery, and kidnapping.

 

Seeing as we all understand how public property works, if we choose to put ourselves in such a situation, we are bound to pay for the damage we cause, including the bills incurred to see to our care. That's a matter of justice.

 

Your position is the same as your interpretation of the catechism. The idea that the catechism somehow justifies entering someone's property on the suspicion that they may be indulging in sinful behavior seems bizarre, to me. Preemptive strikes are, in my opinion, immoral. The drug war is based on preemptive strikes. It is probably never licit to use certain drugs. It's also never licit to jack off. It's never licit to look at pornography, or cheat on your wife, or do the wild monkey dance with a member of the same sex. But none of those actions should be subject to penal law (if indeed there should be such a thing, at all, as distinguishing it from restorative justice). Read Randy England's book. I agree with the Cathechism, too. It never does get around to describing a justly constituted government. And there are many other documents out there outside of the Catechism. I've availed myself of many. I did not abandon statism lightly, or in ignorance of the Catechism. A Catholic feudal government could be morally involved in prohibition, and that could even fit into the non-catholic concepts of anarchism, since feudalism is society by contract (ideally).

[Winchester]

that was not my belief, that was a jab at you.  I was simpling acting like you.  saying random stuff the person doesn't believe in and attributing it to them. 

 

 

Sure. Totally believe you.

[havok579257]

Sure. Totally believe you.

 

 

ok, don't believe.  no sweat of my back.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

honesty this is a stupid argument.  you can get an abortion easily also even if it were illegal.  should we just keep that legal since people are going to do it one way or the other.  maybe we should listen to the abortionist who say its safer and better controlled if we keep it legal.

 

You made the argument, not me. Abortion is a different issue. You know this. Stop diverting.
 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

It causes tummy aches, sometimes. Of course, making it illegal has encouraged an increase in potency, and the development of other, more powerful drugs. But let's pretend prohibition works.
 

 

Your kidding me right. Let's legalize drugs and remove the social stigma,which somehow is going to reduce the psychotic symptoms caused by drug addiction,how ? Legal drugs if you had any future sight like the angels,which you do if partaking of the precious body and blood of Christ in a state of grace. Than surely you can see that legalizing drugs such as heroin,cocaine,marijuana etc etc, that at first there will be no real increase of users but obviously in time as the general population gets used to this law more people are going to start using and abusing drugs. Which will lead to an increase of mental and emotional illnesses associated with drug abuse, which in turn will make people unemployable that will increase unemployment which will increase crime. I really can't believe you can't see this. Have a think about it and pray for the answer to this debate. I believe you will see i am correct with my foresight on this matter. Legalizing drugs will only remove the paranoia of cops, and not the paranoia that every one is out to get you. And also i don't believe this whole predisposition to mental illness, it's hogwash.  When you wash pigs there clean for like 2 seconds and than they jump back in the mud, legalizing drugs is not a real solution. Evangelizing with faith,hope,love and peace, will, which of course requires sacrifice and sometimes to spend 1 dark night tending to the poor soul.

 

JESUS IZ LORD

[Winchester]

Your kidding me right. Let's legalize drugs and remove the social stigma,which somehow is going to reduce the psychotic symptoms caused by drug addiction,how ? Legal drugs if you had any future sight like the angels,which you do if partaking of the precious body and blood of Christ in a state of grace. Than surely you can see that legalizing drugs such as heroin,cocaine,marijuana etc etc, that at first there will be no real increase of users but obviously in time as the general population gets used to this law more people are going to start using and abusing drugs. Which will lead to an increase of mental and emotional illnesses associated with drug abuse, which in turn will make people unemployable that will increase unemployment which will increase crime. I really can't believe you can't see this. Have a think about it and pray for the answer to this debate. I believe you will see i am correct with my foresight on this matter. Legalizing drugs will only remove the paranoia of cops, and not the paranoia that every one is out to get you. And also i don't believe this whole predisposition to mental illness, it's hogwash.  When you wash pigs there clean for like 2 seconds and than they jump back in the mud, legalizing drugs is not a real solution. Evangelizing with faith,hope,love and peace, will, which of course requires sacrifice and sometimes to spend 1 dark night tending to the poor soul.

 

JESUS IZ LORD

 

No, I'm not. Other people are not your property, prohibition has not diminished drug abuse, nor has it reduced violence associated with drug use. Look up the results of Prohibition in the US. Read about the economics of prohibition.

 

Sacrifice all you want on your own. You have no right to stick a gun in someone's ribs over the matter, nor may you recruit others to do so on your behalf.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

I had alot of respect for you winchester but on this matter i have none. And sorry for judging about angles and foresight and stuff please forgive me. I just think if you really think and pray about this the Lord will show you i am correct about what exactly will happen if such drugs are legalized. 

 

JESUS is LORD.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

have alot of respect*...

This is my last post in this forum, after another quick think about the matter of prohibition on drugs. 1.How long have drugs been illegal. 2. Were they legal in the dark ages. 3. If such drugs weren't illegal in the dark ages than why do you wan't to go back to the dark ages.? 

I certainly don't wan't to go back to the dark ages, i'm pretty certain if there where records for that time that crime per capita was worse than then it is now. More rape, more murder, more stealing etc etc. I think as a civilization we are getting better, we have just taken a step backwards somewhere along the line,hopefully only to take two steps forward. Are you really sure 100% that you wan't to go back to the dark ages.?

Edited May 26, 2013 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[havok579257]

Actually, I'm not against restraining someone who has taken a mind altering substance and chosen to walk out amongst everyone else on "public" property (that's a situation of reality. There is "public" property, and we have to work around that reality. Fact is, public property isn't like private property). We've very little choice in the matter, anymore. Considering the legal penalties available to those who might hurt themselves when under the influence, it's arguably enough of a threat that transport to a hospital is a form of self defense. It is not a form of self defense to sentence such people to time in a cage. It's certainly not when other mere mortals decide to detain the person and search their private property for substances banned by other mere mortals, and punishing such possession with time in a cage. That's called assault, battery, and kidnapping.

 

Seeing as we all understand how public property works, if we choose to put ourselves in such a situation, we are bound to pay for the damage we cause, including the bills incurred to see to our care. That's a matter of justice.

 

Your position is the same as your interpretation of the catechism. The idea that the catechism somehow justifies entering someone's property on the suspicion that they may be indulging in sinful behavior seems bizarre, to me. Preemptive strikes are, in my opinion, immoral. The drug war is based on preemptive strikes. It is probably never licit to use certain drugs. It's also never licit to jack off. It's never licit to look at pornography, or cheat on your wife, or do the wild monkey dance with a member of the same sex. But none of those actions should be subject to penal law (if indeed there should be such a thing, at all, as distinguishing it from restorative justice). Read Randy England's book. I agree with the Cathechism, too. It never does get around to describing a justly constituted government. And there are many other documents out there outside of the Catechism. I've availed myself of many. I did not abandon statism lightly, or in ignorance of the Catechism. A Catholic feudal government could be morally involved in prohibition, and that could even fit into the non-catholic concepts of anarchism, since feudalism is society by contract (ideally).

 

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 please tell me what this means then since you imply I understand it wrong

[jeffboom]

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 please tell me what this means then since you imply I understand it wrong

 

Whatever the Catechism says about "drugs" does not completely apply to marijuana. It has never been found to inflict any damage on human health/ life. I do not think the Catechism is an end-all for debates...and it seems that is how it is used in many debates around here. 

[Winchester]

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 please tell me what this means then since you imply I understand it wrong

 

None of that disagrees with my belief, either. Where's the throwing in a cage part?

[Winchester]

I had alot of respect for you winchester but on this matter i have none. And sorry for judging about angles and foresight and stuff please forgive me. I just think if you really think and pray about this the Lord will show you i am correct about what exactly will happen if such drugs are legalized. 

 

JESUS is LORD.

 

As regards history, you're wrong.

[Jesus_lol]

question for every person(looking at you havok) who asserts that you cant legalize marijuana, otherwise you would end up legalizing all these other dangerous drugs like PCP?

 

Why cant that go in the other direction? How can we have dangerous drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and over the counter medicines be legal, when the comparitively much less dangerous marijuana is illegal?

 

Anyone remotely informed on the topic knows that marijuana is much less harmful than those. And yet these other dangerous drugs are legal? kind of a loophole eh? If college kids cant smoke weed and eat cheetoes in their basement, how about instead they get to drink alcohol, throw up, pass out, get alcohol poisoning, and drive drunk? sounds like a good trade off to me.

 

There is no way to say alcohol is less harmful than weed without revealing yourself to be a complete fool. Hell, even the consequences of quitting alcohol addiction is worse than many hard drugs. Many alcoholics have dropped dead from stopping drinking, even with heroin you are most likely to just be incredibly sick for a while.

 

 

So, if weed shouldnt be legal, why is alcohol? If you are a paramedic, and smart enough to have gone to school for your certification, instead of finding it in a box of cheerios, you should know the consequences of having legal alcohol in society.