Posted on 06/20/2014 9:08:47 AM PDT by xzins
Pope Francis condemned the legalization of recreational drugs as a flawed and failed experiment as he lent his voice Friday to a debate that is raging from the United States to Uruguay.
Francis told delegates attending a Rome drug enforcement conference that even limited steps to legalize recreational drugs "are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects."
Likewise, Francis said, providing addicts with drugs offered only "a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon."
"Let me state this in the clearest terms possible," he said. "The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs!"
Francis has described drug addiction as evil and met addicts on several occasions. When he was archbishop of Buenos Aires, he devoted much of his pastoral care to addicts.
To reject illegal drugs, he said, "one has to say 'yes' to life, 'yes' to love, 'yes' to others, 'yes' to education, 'yes' to greater job opportunities.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
My interest is God’s Truth, OWS. There is no recreational use of drugs in the bible.
Games, like pretending that military people or people who aspire to become part of the military quit using pot, or avoid it because of the law, HAVE to also not consider the harm of pot according to you? How does concern for the law automatically exclude worrying about drug harm in your strange world?
Why would you feel that it is confirmation of being “dull witted” for millions of Americans avoiding drugs or ending their use of them because they don’t want to be outside the law? Do you believe that about all criminal behavior?
I have sure known plenty of people who avoid or stopped using drugs, or associating with drug users, because of the laws, and many other illegal activities for the same reason.
It isn’t dull witted to avoid trying pot, or to stop using it, or to cut off social association with post users, to avoid problems with laws and the resulting damage to reputation and careers, and employment.
You also oppose our pro-life victories and voting?
Rand Paul: “My opponents call me libertarian but I’m pro-life.”
I don’t know why you support pro-abortion forces, but I guess you think they are also against the gay agenda, would you like to learn where they are on child porn?
Do you wonder why they oppose conservatives, do you care?
1.3 Personal Relationships
Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws.
As sensible people do, I do my level best to abstain from using one statement as a giant trampoline to jump to a variety of unfounded conclusions.
OK, so you have thereby confessed the childishness of the way you were playing around. Hardly fit to the supposed dignity of an august institution, let alone the Savior of the world. I’m not here telling you that you can’t be Christian, but your organization, which is but a piece of a split, is at least sometimes telling me that I can’t be a Christian. Knowing the Savior (and not “a bunch of doctrines”) now, that is a palpably ludicrous claim.
I “Protest”in the old, good sense. FOR the Savior. He’s tolerating all the religion... not endorsing it.
Some folks know only one shade of libertarian and all the argument in the WORLD will not tell them that there can be more. Sometimes it’s called monomania.
I do have one bone to pick with you on another topic. You said, "...your organization, which is but a piece of a split, is at least sometimes telling me that I can’t be a Christian."
If by "your organization" you mean the Catholic Church, she has never said that anybody can't be a Christian.
You can probably find dubious theological opinions of that tendency, and sometimes even from the clergy (Fr. Leonard Feeney was excommunicated for saying that in 1953, and was reconciled to the Church before his death only because he was believed to be non compos mentis -- "bless his heart, he wuz tetched in th' head",- Mrs. Don-o translation.)
... but that would not be the teaching of the Church.
I’m glad if that’s so... I understand that most modern Roman Catholic takes are that the Roman organization in some sense encompasses the others. I’m not going to complain about such a claim if it wishes to make it, because it is “almost” coterminous with the notion of “invisible church” that evangelicals generally espouse. If you’re a believer upon Him, it doesn’t matter if you are in Rome or Timbuktu or Nashville, you are part of that church. In heaven there aren’t any Roman Catholic or Baptist or Orthodox or Methodist, etc. seats. They are all permanently adopted sons and daughters of the Savior. The return of the Lord would show the believers still on earth how He wants them to coalesce, and with even a pope bowing down to Him there aren’t going to be any institutional pride problems any more. If a literal rapture happens this will be new believers, and ones who suffered through a nasty tribulation to boot.
BASIC!
You do continue defending libertarians and libertarianism and trying to convince people that it is not a pro-abortion movement.
Why not start defending democrats in the same way, start hammering about the exceptions, the ones you know, when we point out that the democrats are pro-abortion and anti conservative?
If you really cannot discern a difference between the Libertarian Party (which has a pro-abortion platform) andLLibertarians for Life (which has an anti-abortion platform), I do not wish to waste any more of my time with you on this subject.
Libertarianism is pro-abortion, not just the party which is pure libertariansm.
Why do you keep pretending that libertarianism is pro-life, or that the site you keep trying to promote has any value since it never became anything in 15 years and only got a total of 127 people to sign up during it’s 15 years?
You even link me to a poster that opposes the pro-life movement and the GOP pro-life platform and pro-life conservatism.
Do you agree with libertarianism on abortion?
That's all I could get out of your minimalist posts. It's clear to me that neither excludes the other ... and that with the possible exception of marijuana, drug harm is a much larger factor than the remote risk of arrest (and consequent acquisition of a record).
Why would you feel that it is confirmation of being “dull witted” for millions of Americans avoiding drugs or ending their use of them because they don’t want to be outside the law?
I never said that.
There is no playing of rugby in the bible. What ought we conclude from that?
I can tell you that I have had many people tell me that they avoided or quit using them, or even temporarily quit using drugs because of the laws, it is common.
Governments keep capturing drug kingpins, and it keeps having no effect on the drug trade while former underlings vie to take the kingpin's place.
Not helpful.
Capturing drug kingpins is not war. D-Day was war.
Instead of “War on Drugs” that would better be called “Criminalization of Drugs”
What do we do to the domestic drug masterminds?
Do you remember Saddam Hussein? [...] You asked what we do with them.
He was captured and tried as a criminal. Isn't that what our current “Criminalization of Drugs” does? How do we "shock and awe" the domestic drug masterminds?
What many people tell you is not necessarily common, because you are only one person. Which drugs? For marijuana, it may be the case that the legal penalty is worse than the intrinsic harm.
If you call a trial in Iraq by islamics who will die if they didn’t kill him, then, yes, he had a trial.
Rugby isn’t mentioned in the bible. Drugs are.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.