Pope's View on Legalizing Drugs: Just Say No (Francis Condemns Legalization)

AP/ABC ^ | Jun 20, 2014 | NICOLE WINFIELD

[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.

[HiTech RedNeck]

And you can keep on playing tiddlywinks at the wall of Jericho. Or you can do what the Lord says and it comes tumbling DOWN.

If those who value life in this country have devolved to calling these “great victories” they have completely lost touch with the Power.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not very systematic about politics at all: I tend to be open to a case-by-case approach.

I do believe, however, that no "system" or philosophy, however perfect, can "work" without good people. In other words, cultivating the faith and morals of the individual and especially the family, is the best long-term hope for a better society.

I have libertarian friends and ones that aren't. But ALL my libertarian friends are pro-life. Most stellar example, Doris Gordon of "Libertarians for Life."

[vladimir998]

I have no idea of what you’re talking about. You wrote:

“You look like you’re just going to clobber me over the head with some clericalisms, so why should I take that bait?”

Again, you wrote before that: “Quite a lot... he does not understand biblical boundaries.”

And I’m asking. . . Such as? Tell me how he doesn’t understand “biblical boundaries.” Can you answer the question or not?

[Mrs. Don-o]

The string of state prolife victories has been one of the most hopeful signs I have seen in decades. States can make a HUGE difference. Working on some of that now in Tennessee.

[HiTech RedNeck]

We got to look at who it is that is having all these abortions done.

Usually it is poor women who are living loose and being exploited by tomcat “boys” who are also living loose.

There’s a whole lot of problems to get helped there. They can’t see the worth of life because they can’t see the gift that God gave to make life worth something in the first place!

[HiTech RedNeck]

It’s good in the sense it is better than nothing. It’s pressing in from one side of the problem.

It isn’t really GREAT yet and we can’t be one-note Johnnies about this.

We have to look at what is happening on the positive side. What is going to get people to really care about life?

And it is the gift of God that will. Otherwise, people will continue to treat life as trash, in some other fashion.

[ConservingFreedom]

It is dullwitted to set the inherent harms of drugs as a minor or non-consideration.

[xzins]

laws do NOTHING

Since Moses was a lawgiver, then that isn't supported by the Judeo-Christian tradition. Even when the law is not followed, it has us realize that we are lawbreakers. Paul says that the law is a schoolmaster to lead us to Christ.

However, he says that the law for government leads to fear of punishment for evil doers.

So, the biblical witness is fair solid. Law does matter and it does make a difference.

As to children automatically seeking out that which is denied them, that also has many examples that show it is not so. For example, the simple law of societal pressure kept unwed pregnancy to what in our day seem unimaginably low levels among our young.

Another example is the seat belt law. It is widely kept when it would be easily ignored. Why? It makes sense and it receives support as a rational practice. The social more of teen abstinence also made sense, but that is widely challenged by destructive liberal forces to the detriment of teens.

The same with drug/alcohol use by the young. When widely challenged by destructive liberal forces in the culture of this media rich environment, kids/teens are taught a message that injures them. Sadly

[xzins]

The 9th amendment does not say that Congress has no authority to criminalize or control behavior that Congress decides is injurious. Section 8 begins with general welfare and ends with necessary and proper. The Constitution talks of fines, juries, punishments, so all of those things are within the purview of Congress but are controlled.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I'm not sure about the statistics, but I remember reading that of the women getting abortions, over 50% had some college education; a similar percent were low-income, but something like 90% were from metropolitan areas. Yes, poor black and Latino women have disparately high abortion rates, but the ONE fact that correlated MOST consistently with abortion rate, was not age, color, race, income level, marital status, religion, etc, but simply living in a city that has an abortuary.

There are abortion hot-spots that can be sorted by zip codes (I think Life Dynamics did that.) Common factor: a local abortionist. One that advertises. That's it.

That's one reason why the state laws which are closing dozens of abortuaries because the doc doesn't have local hospital admitting privileges, or because their doorways aren't wide enough or whatever --- is going to slash the abortion rate. If women know they can't get an abortion, the unintended pregnancy rate goes way down.

Let's watch.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I agree.

[varyouga]

I didn't say ALL laws do nothing. Only drug possession laws.

People avoided unwed pregnancy because it was nearly impossible to hide and everyone would know. People that could hide and get away with it did.

People wear seatbelts because they are immediately visible and you will get a fine the moment a cop glances at you. New cars also come with annoying alarms. I only wear mine because they are proven to be safer and would cheat the law with a fake belt if they were not.

Nearly invisible crimes like possessing a coin-sized baggy of drugs will never be stopped by laws because the chance of being caught is almost nil. People will never respect laws that are nearly unenforceable and go against their own knowledge.

[xzins]

I go back to the 60’s, so the drug laws did fine until the cultural norms were challenged and then the injurious behavior was challenged and promoted in the media, the institutions, and the arts.

That society had received willing compliance with good laws because they were a wiser people. This only changed when their culture was attacked. I think by agents of evil. The liberals would say that were expanding folks’ horizons. In the garden, the serpent said the fruit would actually be good, expanding their horizons, despite what God said.

[OneWingedShark]

I’m not a republican and never have been, I said conservatives.

Well then, I don't see why you're whining — even the Libertarian party is more conservative (or at least potentially so) than the Republican party; they had Gary Johnson for their presidential candidate in 2012… by far a more conservative candidate than Romney.

[varyouga]

I agree that it was stupid and irresponsible for the media to promote drug party culture in their race to the bottom. It can be turned back however with a non-sensationalist drug education program that young people can actually relate to.

As far as “expanding horizons”, psychoactive drugs in a carefully dosed and controlled environment can give creative people new ideas and understanding. I have known many people during in my career who developed revolutionary ideas based on new psychedelic perceptions. More advancements in math, engineering and computing have been sparked by psychedelics than we may ever know.

Does God, the Creator, want us to use them? I think He does if used responsibly and with intentions that follow God's word. Why else would He have placed these tools on every corner of the Earth?

Just like He placed iron for us everywhere that can be used for good AND evil. It is not the object, but rather the user and the intent. Arbitrarily outlawing tools He left for us and not even studying them is extremely ignorant IMO.

[OneWingedShark]

However, he says that the law for government leads to fear of punishment for evil doers.

This is the true, correct purpose of law — however, we currently are in a society where 'law' (and the appearance thereof) have little to no correlation to punishing evil doers. The War on Drugs is a good example here: there are things (policies, procedures, etc) which are not lawful, but which are excused in order to punish things under what is purported to be law (e.g. warrantless searches, 'expedient circumstances', [civil] forfeiture, etc.)

The heart of these laws can be seen by their fruits: in the case of the War on Drugs it is the erosion of virtually all of the Bill of Rights. In many other laws it is the government asserting its superiority over the citizenry, usually to the effect of turning them into subjects and imposing tyranny.

[OneWingedShark]

The 9th amendment does not say that Congress has no authority to criminalize or control behavior that Congress decides is injurious. Section 8 begins with general welfare and ends with necessary and proper. The Constitution talks of fines, juries, punishments, so all of those things are within the purview of Congress but are controlled.

The necessary and proper clause, combined with the expanded commerce clause, has rendered enumeration of powers to null effect; either the amendments further constrain the powers delegated by the unamended Constitution or they do not — if they do not, then the preamble for the Bill of Rights is nonsensical in the extreme and the Constitution's own sections regarding amendment are irrelevant. If, however, they are then it occurs to me that they apply to everything before the amendment: therefore the general taxation powers or interstate-commerce powers are constrained by the second amendment, just as the ninth and tenth would constrain the necessary and proper clause.

[xzins]

The bible warns against the use of intoxicants and mind-altering drugs.

I have never met anyone who was helped by drugs. As an assistant chaplain on the drug/alcohol detox unit of a veteran’s hospital, I can attest that they were living shells of a life. Any insightful ideas they had were gobbled up in what we called “fried” brains.

[xzins]

I am no fan of the war on drugs. I don’t think it has been fought very well. First, declare war. Next, don’t let piddling things get in the way. The purpose of war is not to kill privates, it is to subdue systems of government.

Applied to the drug trade, it is not helpful to jail those who have smoke dope. It is helpful to shock and awe the masterminds. We’ve fought privates and recruits and thought that was the war.

[varyouga]

The Bible warns against “drunkeness”, which is numbing the senses and thought. It does not warn against psychiatric drugs which can be used to alter your perception in a positive way rather than numb you. Psychedelics are simply natural psychiatric drugs found in the wild that have been made illegal to study. Entire classes of natural drugs we can't legally touch because some idiots overdosed on them to look at colors. Does that really sound rational?

I do know what you mean about people abusing psychedelics. Most often in a party atmosphere. Of course working in a detox clinic you will only meet people who are destroyed by drugs. If you are doing good, why would you go there?

However, as a former researcher I can attest that intelligent, creative types have successfully used them to further their research. In a controlled manner with a threshold dose. It can give people an entirely new perspective on what they are doing. Several I personally know have received global recognition for work that was seeded by a psychedelic session. Of course reputed researchers will not speak of it publicly because we aren't even technically allowed to touch these things.