Unholy Smoke: Pope Condemns Legalization of Pot

VATICAN CITY -- Pope Francis came out strongly against the legalization of recreational drugs on Friday. The pontiff told members of a drug enforcement conference meeting in Rome that even limited attempts to legalize recreational drugs "are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/unholy-smoke-pope-condemns-legalization-of-pot

Jesus stated "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to me what is mine" = a big fat no on mixing State and Religion. Jesus went on at length about judging others and would not be in favor of using state violence, threats and imprisonment for personal vice.

Then of course we have the nasty history of the Church when it got hold of the reigns of State power.

There is a difference between "having a belief" and forcing that belief on others. (Making a law is the normal way of the Church forcing its beliefs on others)

Jesus got this distinction. "Do unto others as you would have them do to you" = If you do not want others forcing their religious (or personal)beliefs on you through physical violence coercion and so on then, do not force your religious (or personal) beliefs on others.

Unfortunate that the Pope doesn't get it.

 

I did not see where he mentions POT specifically, maybe it is because POT is NOT physically addictive and that seems to be his main concern on the matter.

 

He's also dead wrong. Portugal's use rate decreased by 50% when they decrimed ALL drugs. That's half as many people using, even though they face no criminal penalty for doing so. Seems like it DID in fact accomplish the aim (less people in jail, less people using.).
Whereas the War on Drugs has never been able to claim a simple correlation on the use rate. Seems like its not accomplishing its legislative aim at all.

Maybe he should leave the legislating to the governments and stick to passing papal bulls on... whatever it is the catholics still have to argue about after 1000+ years of reading the same damn text over and over.

 

I think he is railing against all recreational drugs and likely has no clue about pot like most who rail against it. The funny thing is that Alcohol is a recreational drug and is addictive which also makes the Pope a bit of a hypocrite as the Eucharist involves the drinking of wine.

 

Well he does not drink it to get high, at least not that we know of. I agree most people seem to not understand that Alcohol in all its forms is a Drug and more people abuse it than any other hard drug and the damage it does to people, family and society far outweighs what the other drugs do. Do not get me wrong I am not for legallizing all drugs for sale in a drug store or any other store, I would like to see POT deciminalized and the other drugs handled differently than they are, no prisons for users, that is just stupid and the lazy way of dealing with the issue..

 

child abuse they are ok with, drinking wine they are ok with, eating magic brownies, they frown on...

 

. Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use (cf. General Audience, 7 May 2014). But to say this “no”, one has to say “yes” to life, “yes” to love, “yes” to others, “yes” to education, “yes” to greater job opportunities. If we say “yes” to all these things, there will be no room for illicit drugs, for alcohol abuse, for other forms of addiction.

The Church, in fidelity to Jesus’ command to go out to all those places where people suffer, thirst, hunger and are imprisoned (cf. Mt 25:31-46), does not abandon those who have fallen into the trap of drug addiction, but goes out to meet them with creative love.
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/06/20/pope_no_to_recreational_and_substitute_drugs_/1101975

 

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+1:29&version=KJV

"29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth"

 

I agree. There are good reasons for keeping drugs like heroin and crystal meth illegal. No such rational exists for Pot . The majority of the police drug budget goes towards pot. Include the cost of running these people through the court system and keeping them in jail and the figures are staggering. Then you have the loss of revenue through taxation. (Colorado is giddy right now). Instead this money is going to fund gangs which also has a societal cost.

The war on Pot is dumb and dumber.

 

If you do not like any kind of drug use (Alcohol included), then don't use them.

There is a difference between having a personal belief and forcing that belief on others through physical violence.

What part of the Golden Rule do you not understand ? If you don't want people forcing their personal beliefs on you through threats of violence, imprisonment and death then do not do the same to others.

 

I'll be interested in what this Pope has to say as soon as he announces how many pedophile priests have been arrested due to his crew's cooperation with law enforcement authorities. Until then, he's just another politician. That said, he's certainly not as evil or corrupt as Barack Obama, John Boehner, Harry Reid or Nazi Piglosi.

 

Agreed. Pot legalization should be a given by now. I can see some hesitancy and caution on harder drugs, but on pot? Sheez, what a complete waste of resources.

Oh and I have seen many violent drunks in my day, but NOT ONE SINGLE violent stoner. Apparently we haven't learned from prohibition.

 

I personally do not even really like pot. Used it when I was in high school (cause that is what everyone was doing way back in the day) and a couple times throughout the years but for me it was not really much of a social drug. Made me a bit paranoid.

What you say is absolutely true. I remember the "AAA" adage. Take an Athlete, mix Alcohol, and you get an A - Hole. Who cares about the stoners sitting in their basements getting high and philosophizing, who are they hurting ?

Every weekend you get people brought into hospitals due to alcohol overdose. This just does not happen with Pot. It is virtually impossible to OD on the stuff.

The same logic extends to personal vice in general. We have lost much of the message of the founders and it is hurting our country. The founders never intended the US to be a nanny state.

 

Good advice, so long as you do not make it against the law for some to say yes.

 

Are you talking to me or pope francis? It was his text I pulled from the whole of the speech in question, which I sited. I was just responding to your notion that he advocates alcohol abuse because they drink wine at communion.

""Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that. No to any kind of drug use (cf. General Audience, 7 May 2014). But to say this “no”, one has to say “yes” to life, “yes” to love, “yes” to others, “yes” to education, “yes” to greater job opportunities. If we say “yes” to all these things, there will be no room for illicit drugs, for alcohol abuse, or other forms of addiction.""
http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2014/06/20/pope_no_to_recreational_and_substitute_drugs_/1101975

 

I say yes to freedom and liberty because that's what it's really all about.

 

My Bad. I thought that was your comment.

 

Gosh and we all know how the Vatican has supported freedom and liberty over the years .... NOT !!

 

The Pope gets it; the only evidence of drug legalization helping anything comes from Portugal and the study was taken during the onset of the Great Recession. I've maintained that the drop in drug use there was due to people lacking the disposable income for recreational drugs and not because of their legalization policy. Leftists love to simplify everything though and will cherry pick their data if it lets them portray the status quo negatively, the possibility of real consequences seems to be unimportant.

 

Drugs are cheap especially the hard stuff. People drank heavily in the great depression etc. You have any facts to support your claim or is it supposition? We can discuss either, I'd just like to be clear on your position.


Also: Have ye any evidence for the drug war functioning as intended? Because I've got plenty that point to it being a miserable failure.

 

I'm on my ipad and can't bring up links for you. If you really care just look it up yourself. I am telling you now, you will get a lot of stuff about Portugal's policy working and nothing else that withstands the smell test. Like I said, Portugal's policy didn't actually work.

The war on drugs was never about ending drug use. It was an extension of our country's moral decision to reject recreational drug use.

 

Complete and total bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Actually, thanks to the depression Portugal's currently in, the drug usage of harder drugs, has increased among the once rehabilitated drug users.

And while we're at it, what's the date this study is from again? Because Portugal only started feeling the recession around 2010,11 when the troika came in.

 

You missed the point. There is a difference between having a belief and forcing that belief on others. This is what the Pope does not get. This was also a main part of the message of Jesus.

Ad hom nonsense terms and generalization such as " The Left does this or the Right does that" with no support to back it up is worthless.

This is not about left or right. This is about making the US a better place.

Prohibition created crime. That crime disappeared as soon as prohibition ended. Most of Europe has decriminalized pot and they boast a much lower rate of crime than the US and Pot use is no higher.

Your comments on Portugal are borderline silliness but in any case you have not backed them up with an argument so ... as with any unsupported claim, that claim is not worth much.

Reality already commented in refutation to your point but none of this really matters.

If you believe in personal liberty and freedom at all then there is no justification for keeping pot illegal.

In general we do not make laws in this country with the idea of eliminating all risk (although things are definitely trending away from personal freedom using this as an excuse).

If you think "if it saves one life, or decreases risk" is a valid argument for making a law then be prepared to ban skiing, boating, mountain climbing. Cars are huge killers so get rid of those immediately, and in fact you should probably not be getting out of bed in the morning as one might fall down stairs and break neck.

If you can get 90+ % agreement from society that Pot is some huge risk (like we could easily get for heroin) then you are somewhat justified in restricting personal freedom.

Once again. There is a difference between having a personal belief, and forcing that personal belief on others through violence, imprisonment or death.

 

Its the internet. Do it later. That's totally an option you know It's cool, I'll wait. I'd like to see EXACTLY what YOU yourself are talking about.
Show me what "doesn't pass the smell test". Portugal's policy reduced the use rate by half. That is 50% more than the drug war has ever boasted.

And it has had the opposite effect. If you want LESS people to USE drugs, make them legal take away the taboo factor and make it harder for those not of the age of majority to acquire. When I was 18 I could get you ANY drug you cared to name within an hour to 3 days, depending on the substance. And I only smoked pot, and did not associate with hard drug users. My guys? Didn't sell anything but weed. But within that time frame I could find you ANYTHING BUT alcohol. Alcohol was much much much harder to get because you needed someone with a damn good fake id (really hard to get as well) OR someone to straw purchase it.
Not only that but someone smoking a doobie, or hitting the crack pipe, or shooting meth, or rolling on mdma, or tripping on magic mushrooms etc neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg, as a necessary condition. They certainly CAN and at that point they should be charged and punished according to whether they picked a pocket or broke a leg etc. Just like ANYONE else who picks a pocket or breaks a leg. But simple use does not equate to theft, assault, rape, murder, fraud, libel, slander, inciting a riot, or any real crime. In fact our attempt to legislate morality has had an opposite effect than what was intended (to curb drug use and the costs stemming from it like gangs etc), has wasted more money than I care to count, has ruined countless lives, given the government sweeping powers that are constitutionally overreaching, has denied use tax revenue (and I aint talking only about from the dope itself. People in jail don't make money and therefore don't pay taxes.), and has generally been a giant pain in my and everyone else's nethers.
Insanity is repeating the same actions over and over and expecting a different result.

 

I like Francis. He's a much better Pope than most.

However, the Catholic line on drugs is predictably traditionalist, so it's not surprising that he'd speak against their legalization.

Thankfully, people are starting to understand that freedom of choice includes recreational substances.