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.)
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!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Fucking nailed it.
Sid
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! 
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.
Good thread.
Sid
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.
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.
