HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Pope Francis is on the wr...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:29 PM

Pope Francis is on the wrong side of history (again)

It's really irksome to see someone who supposedly cares about harm reduction and that sort of thing to come off as a typical posturing jerk wad drug warrior.

But drug warriors are using Francis to bolster their claims.

So, since you drug warriors want to use this institution to bolster your claims, let's take a look at the institution, shall we?

Where was the church when it knew priests were molesting children? For.. how many decades? At least four. How many children's lives were destroyed while the church looked the other way? Where was the church when children were being starved by nuns and thrown into a septic tank in Ireland? Where were they when right wing dictators were murdering students in Argentina by throwing them, live, out of planes into the ocean, merely for their political positions? Oh, that's right. They were assisting in these atrocities. They were the progenitors of them.

If this is the sort of institution that you rely upon for guidance, well, I feel sorry for you.

I rely upon science to inform my opinions about issues related to science. The science is clear that marijuana has medical use. The science is clear that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol as a recreational drug. Oh, is the Pope calling for alcohol to be prohibited, since he spoke against drugs? Alcohol is the most widely used drug in the western world. Let's hope our politicians get going on that re-prohibition of alcohol, right? No double standards, please.

We saw how well that drug war turned out, amirite?

I think a definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

You know what does work to decrease the harm of drug abuse? Openness. The ability to seek help without fear of criminal conviction.

The ability to face problems without shame from assholes who make their living shaming others.

Simply by eliminating needle sharing among addicts, we save lives. And not only lives. We save money that would go toward treatment of HIV/AIDS. Of course it's anathema to choose policies that both improve qualities of lives and save money. Not when there's something to call "evil."

If you are a "culture of life" you don't support policies that absolutely create a culture of death. Unless, of course, you're good buddies with Frank. (Or his protestant wannabes).

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/local_coverage/2014/06/decree_from_on_high_lawmen_side_with_pope_francis_against

Francis said: “Let me state this in the clearest terms possible,” he said. “The problem of drug use is not solved with drugs. Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise.”

RainDog said: Let me state this in the clearest terms possible. The claim that addiction is an evil is straight out of medieval Compton. Only the most regressive and stupid among us think that calling a physical illness an evil makes sense.

Maybe the Vatican is worried they'll lose market share for exorcisms if people can use cannabis to stop seizure activity? I dunno. But, frankly, Francis, you have demonstrated you have nothing of worth to say on this issue by calling a physical illness an evil.

Is there any kickback from the faithful for spouting these sorts of lies? This lie is so heinous, it could come from the father of lies. Cancer is also evil, right? It's also a medical issue that may stem from bad choices. So people should suffer rather than have relief through medical marijuana, right, Frankie? But it helps to bolster bigotry among the faithful, so no doubt we'll continue to hear this sort of father of lies talk.

Here's what Frankie is really saying - he and his followers think those who abuse drugs are sinners and should suffer. There's nothing godly about this pov. It's sort of like the father of lies would have the view that he should impose further suffering on those already suffering. I don't remember the story were Jesus did that. Must be in the gospel of Lucifer. (stated without apologies to those of you who worship satan - I find all sides of that argument creepy.)

“We have seen the evil that drugs cause to every segment of society and contrary to what opponents say, we agree that any type of unauthorized drug use leads to problems,” said Wayne Sampson, executive director of the Massachusetts Chiefs of Police Association. “Anybody in a position of leadership that recognizes the dangers of drugs to our community, we certainly appreciate that support.”

Another sheriff believes allowing the legalization of marijuana would further open the door to a life of drug abuse and crime.

“Being sheriff of an institution that has more than 1,200 inmates today, with 80 percent who are drug- and alcohol-addicted, I’m a firm opponent of legalization myself,” Worcester County Sheriff Lewis G. Evangelidis said. “Inmates tell me daily that marijuana was a gateway drug for them. I hear that every day.”


Funny that Sheriff Evangelidis takes the imprisoned at their word in this case. I wonder how often that's his fall back position otherwise? Is it any wonder that drug warriors have stated this lie for so many years that those who are under their control repeat it?

Isn't it odd how stupid the arguments from the marijuana prohibitionists are?

This is why I say that drug warriors are the creationists of bureaucrats. I guess, tho, they gotta believe or they may not be able to continue to earn enough money to go out and buy a six pack on a Saturday night. Cheers!

78 replies, 2115 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 78 replies Author Time Post
Reply Pope Francis is on the wrong side of history (again) (Original post)
RainDog Jun 21 OP
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #1
bravenak Jun 21 #2
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #3
bravenak Jun 21 #9
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #11
bravenak Jun 21 #20
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #21
Uncle Joe Jun 21 #26
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #28
Uncle Joe Jun 21 #31
RainDog Jun 21 #33
MannyGoldstein Jun 22 #34
RainDog Jun 22 #35
SidDithers Jun 22 #39
merrily Jun 22 #53
Uncle Joe Jun 22 #54
dsc Jun 21 #30
merrily Jun 22 #55
bravenak Jun 22 #36
Nye Bevan Jun 21 #22
RainDog Jun 21 #32
RainDog Jun 21 #5
bravenak Jun 21 #10
RainDog Jun 21 #4
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #6
RainDog Jun 21 #8
RainDog Jun 21 #14
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #18
RainDog Jun 21 #23
MannyGoldstein Jun 21 #25
RainDog Jun 21 #29
Bluenorthwest Jun 22 #41
MannyGoldstein Jun 22 #42
Bluenorthwest Jun 22 #43
MannyGoldstein Jun 23 #64
Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 22 #45
RainDog Jun 22 #48
Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 24 #69
RainDog Jun 24 #72
Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 25 #73
RainDog Jun 26 #74
Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 26 #75
RainDog Jun 26 #76
Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 26 #77
RainDog Jun 26 #78
bravenak Jun 21 #7
RainDog Jun 21 #12
bravenak Jun 21 #15
Sissyk Jun 22 #50
bravenak Jun 22 #56
randys1 Jun 22 #51
Uncle Joe Jun 21 #13
RainDog Jun 21 #16
Uncle Joe Jun 21 #19
RainDog Jun 21 #24
Uncle Joe Jun 21 #27
RainDog Jun 22 #37
Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 22 #46
RainDog Jun 22 #47
RainDog Jun 22 #52
Fortinbras Armstrong Jun 24 #70
RainDog Jun 24 #71
RainDog Jun 23 #59
UTUSN Jun 21 #17
SidDithers Jun 22 #38
RainDog Jun 23 #65
malaise Jun 22 #40
n2doc Jun 22 #44
RainDog Jun 23 #66
niyad Jun 22 #49
Hekate Jun 22 #57
RainDog Jun 22 #58
Hekate Jun 23 #60
RainDog Jun 23 #61
RainDog Jun 23 #62
RainDog Jun 23 #63
KamaAina Jun 23 #67
RainDog Jun 24 #68

Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:31 PM

1. Is Francis' position different from Obama's?

How so?

And did you know that despite your quote from the Massachusetts fellow, Massachusetts has the lowest pot prosecution rate in the country, precisely because they don't want to ruin kids lives for something stupid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:34 PM

2. The pope's position is the same as Reagan's not Obama's.

Nice try Manny. I voted in your poll btw.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:35 PM

3. Obama wants to legalize recreational drugs? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #3)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:43 PM

9. You know dang well i said the pope and Reagan's positions are the same.

Old dead Ronnie ( my dogs name btw) had much in common with our current pope. Mr. jokeface Manny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:47 PM

11. You stated that the Pope's position is different than Obama's.

I don't see how, but perhaps I'm wrong.

How do you think they're different?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #11)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:12 PM

20. How are they the same?

Obama doesn't call it evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #20)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:14 PM

21. If it's not evil, than why put people in prison for it?

Isn't good and evil the basis of our laws?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:20 PM

26. If Obama thought it was "evil," he wouldn't have done this.



http://mic.com/articles/86989/obama-just-took-one-big-step-towards-marijuana-legalization

As the nation marches further down the long but seemingly inevitable road of marijuana decriminalization and legalization, President Barack Obama just made things a lot easier. On Friday, Attorney General Eric Holder said that the Obama administration is ready to work with Congress to take marijuana off the federal government's list of the most dangerous drugs.

"We'd be more than glad to work with Congress if there is a desire to look at and reexamine how the drug is scheduled, as I said there is a great degree of expertise that exists in Congress," Holder said during a House Appropriations Committee hearing. "It is something that ultimately Congress would have to change, and I think that our administration would be glad to work with Congress if such a proposal were made."

This is a strong affirmation from an administration that seems to be increasingly moving towards a more lenient, if not open stance on marijuana legislation reform. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, the attorney general has the authority to "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule." However, Holder didn't say that he would utilize this power and seems more interested in working together with interested members of Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #26)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:38 PM

28. So Obama asked for marijuana to be legalized?

Or to be classified as less evil than it is now?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #28)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:46 PM

31. Marijuana on the road to legalization, of course time will tell but this is certainly a step in the

right direction.

The tide is turning for the better, Manny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #31)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:56 PM

33. fwiw

Manny's questions of evil in relation to the president are a demonstration of intentional vapidity.

The claim that laws are based upon "evil" is a statement he surely knows is stupid. I would just ignore the whole, tired schtick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:18 AM

34. Certainly, one of us is vapid

And a sore loser to boot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #34)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:25 AM

35. well, I would never say that about you

but if you want to claim it, go right ahead.

This thread, however, can demonstrate what I'm talking about to anyone who wants to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #33)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 07:43 AM

39. "demonstration of intentional vapidity"...

Fucking nailed it.



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #26)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 04:07 PM

53. What did Obama do? You posted something Holder said Obama said.

Even assuming Holder was 100% accurate about what Obama said--and I assume Holder is--it's still something Obama said, not something Obama did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to merrily (Reply #53)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 04:19 PM

54. Sometimes saying is doing and if Obama hadn't said it, I doubt Holder would've done it. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:44 PM

30. actually no it is not

the sole criteria for prison and for laws is harm to society not evil. We don't prosecute murder because murder is evil but because murder harms society. Greed and sloth are evil, we don't imprison the greedy and the slothful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #30)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 04:35 PM

55. I agree partially, but I don't know if sloth is evil. It's a deadly sin for

Last edited Sun Jun 22, 2014, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Catholics, but I've never been hurt very badly by someone else's sloth, in and of itself.

The distinctions between (1) what is thought to harm society at any given time, (2) what is illegal, (3) what is bad for the church in particular, and (4) what is a "sin" were not all that clear when our religious traditions or when our Western legal codes began. (Even our dog bite laws are straight out of the biblical book Leviticus, one of the five holiest books to Jews of the OT.)

Only in a society in which many co-existing faiths and philosophies and separating church from state are considered desirable (by some?) is separating each of those threads even an issue.

That said, I do agree that not all things that are evil are illegal under Western law. However, not all things harmful to society are illegal,And not all things that are evil are considered formally to be sins. None of the categories is all inclusive or perfect in any other way.

(None of the above has anything to do with Obama's position. They are just general observations.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #21)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:45 AM

36. No.

Good vs. evil is not the basis of our laws.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #9)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:16 PM

22. Unfortunately Obama's position on the legalization of recreational drugs is the same as Reagan's.

Sad but true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #22)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:48 PM

32. No it's not

Btw, before Reagan had to appeal to the religious right base of the Republican Party, he didn't think cannabis should be illegal. His son, Michael, stated in an interview that... Of course my dad was for decriminalization because Reagan didn't want his sons put in prison.

But when it was other people's sons, or when he needed to garner votes from conservatives, he suddenly thought marijuana was so bad he should declare war... on a plant.

Obama has not continued the Reagan-era drug stance. Before he was elected Obama supported decriminalization, not legalization. During his first term, his DoJ went after California marijuana operations because there is no regulatory framework, really, for these in CA. He has let the legalization experiment go foward in CO, with the provision that the laws of the state are followed, and if they are not, then he maintains the discretion to apply federal law.

This is nothing like Reagan.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #2)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:38 PM

5. At first I thought this was joke

On second look - it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #5)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:45 PM

10. They never are funny.

I rarely know that they are jokes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #1)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:38 PM

4. Obama stated marijuana is safer than alcohol.

He called it a vice, like cigarettes or drinking. Vice is not evil - the words mean very different things.

Obama, also, has not chosen to invade CO and WA state because their citizens voted to legalize, tho Republicans passed a act to allow them to impeach him for this.

Holder has announced, publicly, that he is willing to meet with the DEA, etc. to discuss rescheduling of marijuana.

So, yeah, a few slight differences.

As far as your last sentence - it has nothing to say about what Frankie said, in the context of the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #4)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:39 PM

6. So Obama has said recreational drugs should be legalized?

Or that the DOJ has more important priorities?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:42 PM

8. Nothing I said has to do with Obama

other than his role as the President who either assigns discretion to his prosecutors or signs or vetos law from Congress.

I was speaking to the reality that harm reduction is the stance, imo, of anyone who claims they speak as a religious person.

To my knowledge, Obama doesn't claim to speak as a religious person.

Anyway, already tired of this, so there you go. If you can't figure it out from here, I guess you can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #6)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:56 PM

14. I don't know because he's never spoken on the subject

but I am inclined to think that Obama shares the opinion of Kurt Schmoke. Schmoke, as of May 2014, was selected as president of University of Baltimore.

Since Obama said he loves The Wire, I'm inclined to think he shares the pov of Schmoke and David Simon. Maybe he learned the lesson of Schmoke's term as the first African-American mayor of Baltimore and he's making tactical changes - which we have also seen in sentencing reforms and the JD's pov on sentencing laws that now exist in states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #14)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:08 PM

18. Has Obama told the DOJ to stop arresting Americans, nationwide, for using

and selling recreational drugs?

It would be an easy thing to do.

What has the Pope called for in the way of sentencing for drug use?

I'm certainly not in love with everything Pope Francis says. But he seems to be trying hard to make things better, and I feel that a double standard is being applied here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #18)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:16 PM

23. I don't think the Pope is trying to make things better

I see that he is repeating the same old conservative pov from the church for thousands of years. I used the phrase "father of lies" because that, the Pope said, is where equal rights for marriage for GLBT people comes from.

He also talks about women's roles as barefoot and pregnant at a time when any responsible person would talk about limiting family size to help reduce the number of humans leaving their footprints on this planet.

I find your questions are ridiculous, in terms of the way our government operates. They're just a way for you to come on to any thread and talk about Obama. yawn.

When someone says drugs are evil and we should not develop harm reduction approaches - that's calling for the same old same old.

Obama is not calling for the same old same old, but, in case you didn't know, the president isn't a dictator who can tell states what to do and have them do it. But don't let reality stop you from your quest to turn a OP about the recent Pope's remarks into yet another "but look... Obama!" subthread.

You are aware of the way laws are created and enacted and who has the authority to do what at federal or state levels, right? Your question is so stupid I wondered for a moment there. But I just assume again, it is what it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #23)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:19 PM

25. The President can tell DOJ to stop pot prosecutions. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:42 PM

29. The Obama White House calls drug abuse a public health issue

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2012/06/12/497731/drug-addiction-public-health-issue/

As far as the rest of what you're saying here.. tired of wasting my time with you. If you don't understand that the Obama administration HAS told the DOJ to stop pot prosecutions, again, Manny, I don't know how to respond to stupid statements that demonstrate willful disregard for reality. What is happening in CO and WA is instructing to stop pot prosecutions.

But, again, if you think this administration is so stupid it would govern by fiat... anyone who says any president should do this or that in this way has no respect for the reality of the governing process.

I assume Warren's position may have evolved since 2011, but in any case, she's no great leader in terms of drug policy reform, for the record.

Elizabeth Warren Flunks Marijuana Question

It’s bad enough that so many self-declared conservatives, who support personal freedoms and limited government in so many other respects, are opposed to taxing and regulating marijuana. But it’s completely unacceptable for an otherwise stalwart progressive to have such backward views on marijuana.

Asked last night whether she supports legalizing and regulating marijuana, leading Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren gave a flat, no-nonsense (and no-common sense) “no.” Several other candidates for the Democratic nomination had more reasoned answers, and one correct answer – that marijuana should be taxed and regulated in a manner similar to alcohol (apparently to big applause).

- See more at: http://blog.mpp.org/prohibition/elizabeth-warren-flunks-marijuana-question/10062011/#sthash.bB7yR09q.dpuf

This stance, btw, would be a big negative for me in terms of support for any democrat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #25)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 09:26 AM

41. How does your Frankie Two Shoes compare to Obama on LGBT equality. Obama supports equality.

Francis Superstar, on the other hand, says God is at war with LGBT people, urges his boosters to fight that war, he opposes adoption by LGBT parents, says it is child abuse while his own church abuses children in the very worst ways.
So. Compare and contrast away. Francis says LGBT rights are 'an attack on God's plan'. Obama says LGBT rights are Civil Rights.

Dwell in that place honestly and consider the facts if you can manage to muster the guts to face what you are defending here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #41)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 09:40 AM

42. I disagree with Pope Francis on many things

Including his stance on homosexuality, although I believe that he's moving the church in the right direction.

Were you equally venomous towards President Obama until a year or two ago, when he "evolved" on gay marriage? Also of Hillary?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MannyGoldstein (Reply #42)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 09:58 AM

43. Note that I did not ask you if you agreed, I asked you to compare and contrast Obama's views with

those of Francis, the Anti Gay, Anti Choice, Anti Cannabis leader you are promoting here. Take a look around DU's history, I engaged Obama like there was no tomorrow on equality, his support club here hates me because I did so. It was called 'politics'. He did his part very well, so did I. Sorry if that bothers you.
Hillary? There are posters here right now who will tell you I am brining up her many years of loud opposition to equality. I am also asking about Warren, who was a Reagan Republican during their most anti gay era, when I and my peers were in the streets protesting her Party for being murderous and ignorant. She has yet to step up to the plate and explain why she was part of that horrific Party and their agenda. She talks about money all the time, as if all that matters is her fucking money.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #43)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 08:36 AM

64. Then I hope you keep doing what you're doing

I appreciate people being "difficult", it's hypocrisy that drives me crazy.

As to Elizabeth Warren, my guess is that she just didn't think about it - but I expect she'll answer the question herself, if she hasn't already.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #23)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:01 PM

45. "He also talks about women's roles as barefoot and pregnant"

Can you quote him saying that? Or will you have the balls to admit he didn't?

And thinking that recreational drug use is A Bad Thing? How could he?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #45)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:23 PM

48. Oh, he's decided to join the 21st century

and not oppose birth control? I hope he told Hobby Lobby. The Philippines has the highest birth rate in Asia and has just passed birth control reform legislation - but the church is fighting it.

Anyone who supports this church supports the subjugation of women by default.

I don't need balls, I have ovaries.

Too bad you didn't take time to read the entire OP, otherwise you wouldn't have such a nonsensical response to the issue of harm reduction versus the Pope's idea of evil. But obviously you want to defend this man and the institution he represents, and, by extension, you are defending the abuses of women that have occurred.

That's what others think about people like you who make such defenses of the church and Pope, because that's what it is, ultimately.

eta: and then there's this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025134898

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #48)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 07:47 AM

69. "Anyone who supports this church supports the subjugation of women by default."

At best, that's an oversimplification; in reality, it's just untrue. First, I would point out that I have stated in some detail why Humanae Vitae ("Human Life" -- Pope Paul VI's encyclical against contraception) is a piece of crap. See http://www.democraticunderground.com/1221328#post12

So, I hear you say, if the teaching on contraception is as I say it is, then why isn't it just changed? Unfortunately, it isn't that easy, for a number of reasons. The official line in Catholic thought is that truth is objective and "error has no rights". There is a corollary which presupposes that what the Vatican teaches is by definition "true" (for the Vatican cannot teach falsely), and those who teach that which is not approved by the Vatican are teaching falsely and should be corrected.

Sustaining that attitude requires both ignorance of history and outright deception. After all, if the Church teaches absolute truth, how can the teachings change? Even a cursory examination of the history of doctrine shows that the teachings do change. For example, as late as Pope Benedict XIV's encyclical of 1745, Vix Pervenit, the Church taught that the taking of interest on loans was usury and therefore sinful. The teaching has never been rescinded, but has been quietly dropped. Similarly, the first blanket condemnation of slavery in Catholicism was Pope Leo XIII's encyclical In Plurimus of 1888 (which, one must admit, is a bit late in the day for it -- a couple of centuries earlier and it would have been more meaningful.)

When I was in graduate school, I wrote a paper on how the Church went from the Council of Trent's "Biblical translations must be based on the Latin Vulgate" to Vatican II's "Biblical translations must be based on the original languages" without ever contradicting (indeed, quoting from) the previous position papers.

Unfortunately, the quoting from previous position papers is obviously highly selective. Cherry picking quotes is dishonest. I'm sure that when Pope Benedict was a theology professor, he would have slapped down any student who ignored evidence which did not support his thesis. (If you read Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, he starts each article by citing evidence against his thesis; he then answers each one.) However, ignoring contrary evidence is expected in Vatican position papers. The most egregious recent case I can think of was Pope Paul VI's encyclical defending priestly celibacy, Sacerdotalis Caelibatus, which wholly ignores 1 Corinthians 9:5, in which the Apostle Paul is saying that he has a right to be married. That Paul chose not to exercise that right is immaterial, he still had it.

But the bottom line is that a Pope simply cannot say, "My predecessor was wrong when he taught <X>, the official teaching is now <Y>." Teachings are changed, but the process is slow and not really honest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #69)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:34 PM

72. You don't seem to have a problem with oversimplification

as noted, below.

so, the reality is that an entity that ties women to perpetual childbirth is not about subjugating women? that would come as a surprise to any woman who knows anything about giving birth or raising children or any women who knows the first thing about feminist theory in relation to cultural institutions.

Maybe the institution is too sclerotic, you're saying, and it cannot undo the damage it has done and continues to do by viewing women in this way.

That's a ringing endorsement.

Again, frankly, I think any woman who associates with this sort of teaching harms all women. If an organization is too big to correct its errors, then it has little value to most of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #72)

Wed Jun 25, 2014, 06:32 AM

73. You accuse me of oversimplification,

And in the next breath, you say "the reality is that an entity that ties women to perpetual childbirth is not about subjugating women?" But, on second thought, that is not oversimplification, that is outright untruth.

I notice that, in fact, you did not actually address anything I said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #73)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:00 AM

74. actually, I believe you're the one who started down that road

on this thread.

I didn't respond because I don't really care what the church thinks because I find no value in its basic doctrines in regard to many things. Francis leads a group that I think is engaged in harming women, and has done so for generations, with impunity.

Patriarchal religious belief, to me, is the problem, not the person who is the public face for the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #74)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 05:07 AM

75. No, YOU were when you said

""He also talks about women's roles as barefoot and pregnant".

I called on you to quote him saying that. You did not, because, as we both know, he said nothing of the sort. But you don't have the decency to admit it. Similarly, you say "Here's what Frankie is really saying - he and his followers think those who abuse drugs are sinners and should suffer.", which, again, is NOT what he said. He thinks that drug addiction is evil, which is something else entirely. Do you believe that drug addiction is good? Do you believe that the use of drugs is good?

It is quite clear that you simply want to attack Catholicism, and you don't give a damn if your attacks are truthful or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #75)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 06:08 AM

76. Colloquial versus doctrinal speech

There's a difference - but any organization that does not want women to use contraceptives is an organization that thinks women should be barefoot and pregnant.

I'm not going to count the angels on the head of a pin over this issue. If you want to talk about the nuance of mucus testing for ovulation as a way to say "not really" - not interested in that twisty b.s. The reality is that you said I was oversimplifying. That's what I was responding to. Since you've misstated his words, as noted in the link in this post, I'm not too concerned if you call it oversimplifying since you don't even know what he said, even tho I provided a link.

If anyone talks about something as a sin, they aren't talking about something apart from the issue of what they perceive as the outcome of sin.

But you are putting words in his mouth because he said drugs are evil and he does not support changes in drug policy. That was the point of his remarks in the context of worldwide calls for reforms in drug policy. I noted this below.

You demonstrate you don't understand the issue at hand or the context. Don't try to change his statement to fit your purpose. You can't get away with it when someone knows the context and the text of his remarks. He talks about LEGISLATION, not addiction.

Your hysterical questions have nothing to do with what he said, but allow me to state I'm not in favor of drug addiction - which is one reason I oppose Frank's stance on the issue.

I don't want to attack Catholicism, per se. I'm an equal opportunity attacker of any patriarchal religion, whether it's Catholicism, Protestantism in whatever flavor, Islam... as far as the "monotheisms" go - and I also attack fundamentalist Hinduism, etc. as well.

Some people think patriarchal religion is the original sin against women and is the source of the continual cultural subjugation of women across cultures. Is it any wonder someone would attack institutions that perpetuate misogyny by their teachings? Frankly, I think every women who considers herself a feminist should view patriarchal religions in the same way African Americans viewed the institution of slavery.

If you don't like my opinion, you can always ignore me here. I've regularly put people on ignore here who post the latest news on the Pope when I don't want to see such posts and don't want to bother to feel like replying.

But you will not change my opinion about religious institutions that prohibit women from full participation, or that proscribe roles for women based upon biology, etc. Fortunately, more and more people are simply rejecting organized religions and I think the world will be better off because of this.

I agree with Ann Druyan, a writer and the spouse of Carl Sagan, who thinks anthropomorphic religions are examples of primitive thinking that humans have moved beyond, for the most part, even tho the expressions remain.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #76)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 01:20 PM

77. I think we are finished

YOU are making up "quotations", and are pretending that they accurately depict what the Pope thinks or they are your "opoinions". In fact, you are lying. Why should I continue to deal with an unrepentant liar?

Have a nice, albeit hate-filled, life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #77)

Thu Jun 26, 2014, 02:06 PM

78. Thanks!

Yes, I think this exchange reveals quite a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:40 PM

7. You know i agree with you 100 percent on this.

We are criminalizing our fellow citizens and have turned this country into a prison nation.
I was trying to plot out a fiction novel based on this war on drugs and the PIC and what will happen when the prisons get too full and they all bust out. I'm going to start over, and do a new outline incorporating this new scare tactic bullshit into it.
They are scared we are trying to take their easy money for locking people up from them.

Did you see the reaction from the Anchorage Police Department on the upcoming vote to legalize here in AK? OMG! Liars!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #7)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:49 PM

12. do you have a link to the AK thing?

haven't been online for much of the day.

good luck with your story. did you see Orange is the New Black, the second season? Amanda Marcotte, I think it was, said something about Vee that I thought was spot on - that Vee is a portrait of a sociopath, who uses anyone to get what she wants. If you haven't seen it, don't want to spoil it. But the woman who portrayed Vee does a great job. And we learn more about Taystee.

Here's the interesting thing about drug abuse, imo. So many studies have indicated that behaviors associated with it are the result of a lack of opportunity, etc... the thing the Pope talks about, but he gets it backwards. If you want to solve problems - address the root - which is poverty, often. Not always. Wall Street bankers and brokers may use drugs all their lives and never have any encounter with law enforcement, etc... they function because they're already in a position to be able to function.

But... omg. Prison Riot in Cellblock Number Nine! let me know when it hits the shelves!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #12)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:01 PM

15. Sorry, i forgot i should link it.

http://www.adn.com/2014/06/19/3525274/anchorage-police-chief-speaks.html

I am feeling very interested in that show but i haven't started it quite yet, i just finished with OZ (great show) and i need a filler until Ray Donovan starts up. Now you have me really excited. If i ever do finish the book and stop rewriting it, i'll just send you an ebook so you can tell me how bad it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 01:18 PM

50. That's exciting, bravenak!

I would LOVE to read a book you wrote. Whether I agree with you or not, I always read your post in full because of the way you write.

Please keep up informed and I'll be one of the first to buy it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sissyk (Reply #50)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 05:35 PM

56. Thank you, thats so nice of you to say.

If i ever finish i'll hav to hand out copies to get reviews.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bravenak (Reply #15)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 01:27 PM

51. oh yeah Orange/Black is amazing...must see tv!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 10:49 PM

13. Drugs aren't evil and drug addiction isn't evil. Drugs are nothing but inanimate objects,

they have no morality, drug addiction is an illness or disease that should be treated as such.

On the other hand, draconian drug policies; which tear families apart, destroy countless lives and careers, while also serving to reward organized crime; that being the same criminal institution which the Pope has just spoken out against and throwing non violent, or sick people in to for profit prisons, now that's evil.

Thanks for the thread, RainDog.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #13)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:03 PM

16. And, as some linguists and anthropologists have stated

cannabis may have been integral to the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs - both of them. It would be more surprising to know that cannabis was not part of the medicine of that place and time - since it was already, and had been for a while.

Trading between people in the middle East, Asia, Central Asia and Africa included the movement of cannabis from central asia to the middle east, and we have recorded history talking about the religious use of cannabis from a variety of sources and religions at the time.

I can understand religious stories more easily when I recognize they're part of the etheogenic history of humans. Moses was a shaman - everything he did aligns with the activity of a shaman. That's just not the word chosen to describe his actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #16)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:10 PM

19. Precisely and maybe that's what the Pope is really scared of,

the potential to threaten the gravy train?

I find it so astonishing that he excommunicated the Mafia on this thread and yet his position can only serve to enrich organized crime of all shades, the Mafia, Mexican Cartels, etc. etc. etc.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014831259

Mafiosi are 'excommunicated', pope says





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #19)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:18 PM

24. I hope he has excommunicated those pederast priests

Oh wait, protected organization. nevermind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #24)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:26 PM

27. He said that clergy preying on children is like a satanic mass, but I don't know if he has

excommunicated any of them.



http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/27/pope-to-meet-sexual-abuse-victims

Pope Francis: Catholic church has zero tolerance for paedophile priests

Pope Francis says clergy preying on children is like 'a satanic mass' as he announces his first meeting with victims.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #27)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 07:29 AM

37. I know the church shielded them from prosecution or arrest

And that went from bishops to the last Pope... which is why we have a Poppleganger thing going on now - two living Popes, one the front for the other who had to be shunted aside because of the p.r. disaster the church was facing.

Not just the pedophile scandal, but also the Vatican bank scandal.

Yeah, when I want realistic and accurate information and guidance about the best route to take, I always look to corrupt institutions with no accountability or oversight.

...I could be talking about the DEA, right? LOL.

How many millions were given to military contractors via no bid contracts with no accountability for spending? I know it was millions in the last few years - and no doubt accounts for much of the trillions of dollars siphoned off from taxpayers to support regimes who were throwing students out of airplanes in the recent past.

Those regimes were faithful to the reality of the church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #16)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:05 PM

46. "cannabis may have been integral to the development of Judeo-Christian beliefs"

But almost certainly wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:13 PM

47. What's your evidence for this?

What you were taught as a child, or your analysis of the linguist's work in Poland in the 1930s, the linguists at Hebrew University in Jerusalem who reached the same conclusion in the 1980s, or Raphael Mechoulem (the scientist who isolated the THC molecule at Hebrew University) who claims it's not kaneh bosem but another cognate that is the reference?

I don't read Hebrew, but I understand the argument from both sides.

It makes perfect sense to view anointing oil for the sick as something like the anointing oil for the Levite priests, which had 6 lbs of cannabis in a quart of olive oil, plus other herbs, if the Polish linguist is correct. This would explain how epileptics stopped their seizures, since this is what cannabis does now, as well, but was called demon possession back then.

What's your evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #46)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 02:23 PM

52. Here's the basis for my statement

Sula Benet, from the Institute of Anthropological Sciences, in Warsaw wrote that kaneh-bosm, in traditional Hebrew, is kaneh or kannabus - which means "aromatic" (bosm) "hemp or cane" (kaneh.) The word "cane" in English shares the root stem "kannabus or cannabis." Kannabus is mentioned in Exodus, the Song of Songs, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. The word was mistranslated as calamus in the Septuagint in the third century BC, and this error was repeated in translations that came after.

However, the cognate denotes cannabis in all other languages in the region - cana in Sanskrit, kenab in Persian, kannab in Arabic, kanbun in Chaldean, and qunnubu in Assyrian. For anyone to claim a separate definition for semitic languages is to deny the history of the transmission of language over the course of history. All cultures in the region have entheogenic uses of cannabis as part of their religious past.

Who knew that a scribe's mistake would lead to a global war on drugs... sort of like a linguistic butterfly effect.

Benet claimed that the word itself, "kaneh bosm" indicates the word is of semitic origin. Prior to this claim, linguists have assumed kaneh bosm was proto-Indo-European, out of the Scythian culture, whose cannabis use was documented, and who were the first nomads of the region to become equestrians. But the cognate for "cane" and cannabis is the same - cannabis is the plant most widely associated with the word throughout the ancient world.

I think it's more likely it is Indo-European because cannabis was (and still is, in some sects) such an important part of the rise of Hindu stories of the gods. Shiva, who is sometimes depicted as both male and female, tho Kali was his consort, is credited with the creation of cannabis from his own body. This is interesting since people in the west discovered that our bodies create cannabinoids in the 1990s... so the story aligns with science, in a metaphorical way.

A "Celtic" shaman, from the Black Sea area, was discovered in northern China, who lived in the region 2700 years ago. He had red hair and blue eyes - and the Black Sea area is the origin of all Celts that spread through northern Europe. The cannabis found with him was high in THC. Iow, it was for spiritual/medical use (the two were the same among ancient peoples.)

Cannabis has been found throughout Europe. In Rome, Poland, Hungary, Switzerland, France, Belgium, the UK, Austria, etc. dated to about 3000 bce (radiocarbon dating) You can read about the use of a variety of plant-based drugs used in ancient religious and medical contexts here -

http://www.botany.hawaii.edu/plant/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Merlin-2003-article-in-Economic-Botany.pdf

Everyone knows the church co-opted the practices and beliefs of the various Celtic tribes and transubstantiated their gods into the cult of Jesus. Someone would have to be particularly blinded by ideology, imo, to think that this medicine and the form of divination would be left out of this mix. It's far more likely cannabis would've been part of early Christianity than not, especially since it was already part of the medical/spiritual practices in the middle east.

Among various religious groups, cannabis was used for priestly ritual, to sanctify a place and person as set apart, as incense in worship, medicinally - and was part of trade.

In the last decade, in addition to finding cannabis in other ancient cultures, THC was found in the body of a girl who died in childbirth in about 4 b.c.e. Russo (below) thinks the Hebrews were using cannabis in the same way it had been described for use in Egyptian medicine at the time.

Moses, as the myth goes, was raised by the Eygptians, who used cannabis. It is considered to be the word "shemshemet"

In 1700 bce, it was prescribed for glaucoma in a medical papyrus. It was also prescribed, vaginally, for problems with female reproductive organs by the Egyptians. Since the 1990s, researchers have discovered humans have endocannabinoids and receptors for cannabinoids throughout their bodies, including their reproductive organs. Dr. Robert Melamede talks about the potential use of cannabis (or the lack of its use) for women who want to get pregnant, and as a factor in regulating sperm production in males.

Ezekiel 27:19 - Vedan and Javan paid for your wares from Uzal; wrought iron, cassia and sweet cane were among your merchandise. (NAS) (god was telling Tyre that they may have had all kinds of people working for them and had all kinds of the most excellent goods to trade, but he was gonna get 'em.)

Exodus 30:22-33 - Moreover, the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 23 “Take also for yourself the finest of spices: of flowing myrrh five hundred shekels, and of fragrant cinnamon half as much, two hundred and fifty, and of fragrant cane two hundred and fifty, 24 and of cassia five hundred, according to the shekel of the sanctuary, and of olive oil. 25 You shall make of these a holy anointing oil, a perfume mixture, the work of a perfumer; it shall be a holy anointing oil. 26 With it you shall anoint the tent of meeting and the ark of the testimony, 27 and the table and all its utensils, and the lampstand and its utensils, and the altar of incense, 28 and the altar of burnt offering and all its utensils, and the laver and its stand. 29 You shall also consecrate them, that they may be most holy; whatever touches them shall be holy. 30 You shall anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister as priests to Me. 31 You shall speak to the sons of Israel, saying, ‘This shall be a holy anointing oil to Me throughout your generations.

...of course, that verse isn't just talking about kannabus. it's the mixture that was set apart for the priestly class. This is considered the way cannabis was used, religiously, among many cultures with shamanic practices. The shaman enters the spirit world through the use of an entheogen. Cannabis absorbed through the skin by anointing would be much stronger than cannabis that's smoked - but, if Benet is correct, the Levite priests were most likely having visions inspired by cannabis taken subcutaneously. When they saw god - it was with the help of cannabis.

Isaiah 43:24 - You have not bought any fragrant calamus (kanabus) for me, or lavished on me the fat of your sacrifices. But you have burdened me with your sins and wearied me with your offenses.

(so, god was complaining that the Israelites weren't burning kanabus as a form of worship...)

Song of Solomon 4:12-14 &16: You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain. Your plants are an orchard of pomegranates with choice fruits, with henna and nard and saffron, calamus (aka kannabus) and cinnamon (aka kinamon in Hebrew), With all the trees of frankincense, Myrrh and aloes, along with all the finest spices... Awake, north wind, and come, south wind! Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits.

The Scythians, it is generally assumed, brought cannabis to the middle east. Herodotus, considered the first historian, recorded the Scythian ceremony for the use of cannabis in the 5 century b.c.e. It was an important part of their culture - a part of the ritual for the burial of the dead. After burial, the Scythians would purify themselves by going into a tent and throwing cannabis on a fire. The smoke would fill the tent and they inhaled. Herodotus said they yelled with pleasure.

Sort of like a wake in Irish/Celtic culture, I suppose. Or a baked wake. Or, if the two got together, it would be a wake and bake. (sorry... just couldn't help myself.)

anyway, Herodotus' claims were verified with an archeological find in 1927.

Dr. Ethan Russo, one of the specialists in cannabis medicine in the U.S. has also done research concerning cannabis in ancient populations, if you're interested...

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:...

What I find interesting is that the ancient Egyptians recommended cannabis for epilepsy, eye troubles, digestive problems, TUMORS, sadness... for forgetting pain - which is part of modern medical research and knowledge too, as an anti-convulsant for epilepsy, glaucoma, anti-inflammatory for Crone's disease, arthritis and more, as a substance that deprives tumors of mitochondrial energy so that they cannot grow, and as a treatment for depression and PTSD.

Pliny called it the "leaves of laughter" of Bactria found on the Borysthenes River - an area of the Ukraine that was part of the Scythian territory.

iow, cannabis was a known and used entity in "biblical times" - known for its medicinal and ritual uses, as well as its ability to lift living spirits and not just console the dead or the gods.

now... "You are a garden locked up, my sister..."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #52)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 08:02 AM

70. So, basically, it comes down to a guess about the meaning of a word in Hebrew

Well, it may be a good guess, it may not be. But it's still a guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #70)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 01:30 PM

71. sure

I guess you could think of it in that way if you want to ignore all the archeological evidence of the use of cannabis in the region for thousands of years for medicinal uses, the cultural/religious ties, and the verification of such uses from other sources from experts in the field.

Not a very reasoned response, but sure, that's one possible response.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #46)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 12:47 AM

59. Any further thoughts on this?

I see you have an MA in religious studies. I'm interested in your take on the subject.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sat Jun 21, 2014, 11:04 PM

17. "medical use" skips really fast over to "recreational drug."

"The science is clear that marijuana has medical use. The science is clear that marijuana is less harmful than alcohol as a recreational drug."

When the Hippies were migrating through Mexico and Guatemala for weed and mushrooms, an indigenous Mexican told one of them at first that they didn't have *that* (weed) there. The Hippie persisted, demanded. The Mexican finally admitted its existence, but tried a different tack, "It is something that is to be used when a man breaks a limb or a woman is giving birth."

Iow, it's an herbal pain killer. But the Hippie got all Amurican-Demanding, with, "Well, that means you HAVE it, so SELL some to me!1"

Mexico has made the argument for decades that it's a plain old capitalist Supply and Demand situation, "If you Americans didn't ASK for it, we wouldn't SEND it."

For me, the Democratic agenda is a multi-faceted thing, from the nature of the Big Umbrella Democratic coalition of constituencies -- Civil Rights, civil liberties, social justice, "d"emocratic equality and reform and representation, unions, and on and on --- and some things are more important than others. Yes, the criminalization results in serious problems of prison and hits minorities harder. For me, also, it is more of a topic of how Rethugs prefer to flood Big Government money into a "War" while slashing funds for social programs like prevention and rehabilitation, not to mention how they might latch onto the Capitalist Supply and Demand root cause and how legalization would be tax income and cash crop.

The recreational part knocks it down a few notches in priority from some of the other agenda items.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 07:40 AM

38. What makes you think that Pope Photo-Op cares about harm reduction?...





Good thread.

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #38)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 01:30 PM

65. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 08:14 AM

40. Look any institution that claims that its leader is infallible

and promotes the most backward unscientific rubbish as facts - the earth is flat; earth is the only planet, etc., etc., has long shattered any notion of credibility.

Now he's excommunicated the Italian Mafia - after accepting their stolen wealth for how long again? The Catholic church is part of the 1% and has been for eons.
It would be funny if the hypocrisy wasn't so mind-blowingly vulgar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 10:05 AM

44. As I said in another thread, it is all about the competition

Drugs are competition for the Church. If you take away their availability, desperate people may be more likely to turn to Gawd for relief. And this goes double if one is thrown in jail for a long sentence for possessing minor amounts of drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to n2doc (Reply #44)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 03:29 PM

66. He's siding with reactionaries

regarding international and national drug policy and trying to give their stances legitimacy.

I want people to stop pretending he's "liberal." He's not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 12:54 PM

49. k and r--thank you for this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 06:42 PM

57. Yeah, he should never have excommunicated the Mafia. Bad move, that. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #57)

Sun Jun 22, 2014, 11:19 PM

58. The reason the mafia became so powerful

in the U.S. is because of the war on drugs started with prohibition of alcohol.

Yet people now see how absurd it was to waste money, lives and time in a pursuit against anyone manufacturing alcohol in the U.S. when people here want the option to drink alcohol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Reply #58)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 01:29 AM

60. I'm aware of that. But what does it have to do with a religious figure damning them?

The fact that the pope -- this pope -- has spoken out so strongly is a significant move. The mafia holds significant power in Italy and has extended its corruption even into the Church. They can no longer use membership in the Roman Catholic Church for any kind of social cover.

He's already moved to clean up the Vatican Bank; in fact he did that early on.

I hope he still cooks his own meals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #60)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 02:19 AM

61. He was talking about drugs here, not the mafia

In the general sense of the issue of drugs. Someone above mentioned the mafia aside from the context of a statement made to bolster bureaucrats in the drug war at a time when this nation is undergoing a review of drug policy.

This really has nothing to do with the mafia, outside of the reality that, after alcohol prohibition was lifted, the mafia moved to heroin distribution.

There is a whole body of work about the issue of harm reduction as a strategy to deal with substance use/abuse.

Francis is denying the validity of the Portuguese model to say that drugs are evil, etc. He's denying decades of social science that demonstrates benefit from the move away from demonizing substances, to a look at the social problems that often motivate different behaviors.

Interestingly, more than a few scientists reject the addiction model in relation to drugs or any other activity as it is now understood as "common wisdom" from those who sought to deal with behavioral addiction issues by the term "illness" rather than "evil" or "sin." This move, beyond a religious blame and shame model, has helped many people - because it's a frame that moves beyond concepts of "good and evil" in relation to human health, in the same way we have long moved beyond blaming demon possession for epileptic seizures.

The evolution in this thought - and, more importantly, the corrective to taking these ideas and creating an industry dedicated to them (the "recovery" and "disease" models for addiction), is to look at environmental factors in relation to behaviors labeled "addictions." This is scary to some people who deal with addiction issues because it's easier to believe "all or nothing" - even when it's false. We see this in religion and in addiction issues.

The most forward-thinking scientists in this area see addiction as behavior that interacts with environment in specific places and/or times, not as an overarching ever-present state (i.e. the difference between "recovery" and always "in recovery").

Carl Hart talks about the addiction model as incorrect because it is site-dependent behavior, connected to a lack of options.

This is what is also called "set and setting" for those who experiment with drugs, tho they wouldn't necessarily make the connection to what Hart is saying. This is about treating powerful substances with respect - what was considered "sacred" in the past - as a way to promote responsibility within the person - but also responsibility for a society to create conditions that do not foster drug use, which the same society turns around and criminalizes.

When authoritarian approaches are taken, studies indicate this leads to greater drug use. Labeling drugs "evil" is authoritarian because it appeals to shame and blame, not to rational discussion.

Stanton Peele, in 1975, talked about a reality that no drug is addictive per se. Instead, addiction is a set of behaviors that can be based upon individual responses. Someone can be "addicted" to religion or to a feeling of love when they're with another person.

To call drugs evil is simply.. stupid. It's so backwards, so far behind every bit of work that looks at behaviors over the 20th c. See, this is what I don't get. People think religion has some divine guidance - but, if so, why is it so wrong on issues that can be looked at dispassionately (beyond sex, say, which, to tell you the truth, is a subject about which an abstinent person or a virgin has nothing to say to anyone, imo, as a "expert").

There are levels of discourse that go on in society. "Common knowledge" or "wisdom" is more about maintaining social control than investigating claims. From this, we get the idea that complex human behaviors can be reduced to the interaction of dopamine and receptors... and the belief that someday someone will find the "gene" for this or that.

That's not going to happen with any behavior that takes place in an environment outside of a petri dish, if even there. People want absolutes, so they go with religion, or they put science into the box that holds religious povs that knowledge is eternal, unchanging, and absolute. This isn't reality.

Reality is far, far messier, far more forgiving of error, far more willing to look at a subject without boxing it in with absolutes.

I don't think it's mere coincidence that changes are taking place in American society regarding its view of the issue of drug policy and Francis makes this a moment to call drugs "evil."

ymmv.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 02:30 AM

62. This is the context of the OP

in the link provided in the OP, with video of the Pope's statement.

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.”


He is simply wrong about this, as the Portugal experiment has shown. But, as we know, religious belief doesn't require reality to make a claim, which is why a religious figure is worthless when it comes to statements about policy for an issue for people from diverse cultures.

His statement backs up the drug warrior stance of the U.N. in opposition to the MANY nations that are no longer willing to abide by the uniform narcotics act, from the U.S.

This is about international and U.S. drug policy, not the mafia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hekate (Reply #57)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 02:48 AM

63. The pope's position is in opposition to Latin American policy

Latin America is sick of being the backyard where drug warrior games are played out.

The Global Commission on Drugs has called for an end to the drug war, and signators include Mexican and South American leaders as well as Jimmy Carter.

In the past, of course, this same policy made it possible for Reagan to justify selling arms to right wing paramilitary groups in Latin America and allowing those same groups to bring crack cocaine into the United States to sell, courtesy of military seals.

Our own govt. facilitated the growth of crack cocaine in the U.S., then our Congress turned around and created harsher penalties for crack cocaine than powdered cocaine. It was no coincidence that crack cocaine was associated with minorities while powdered cocaine was associated with Wall Street.

Why should we have laws that allow the powerful to manipulate populations with impunity?

Why would any forward-thinking person support this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RainDog (Original post)

Mon Jun 23, 2014, 03:30 PM

67. Wake me up when they switch to sacramental grape juice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KamaAina (Reply #67)

Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:33 AM

68. now, now

alcohol gets a special exemption because... because people saw how stupid prohibition was and said... whew, we are never going to make such a stupid decision again.. until four years later with the marihuana tax act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread