Is It Time To Lower The Drinking Age?

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 01:36 AM' timestamp='1271914609' post='2097849']
You're completely missing the point.
The fact of the matter is that [b]I am still able to make moral choices[/b] after a few drinks. I can make the responsible choice of not drinking any more. That is the key here. You seem to be implying that all inhibitions disappear after a single drink, which is simply ridiculous. The process of impairment is both gradual and generally predictable, and if one stays below a certain threshold they are more than able to continue acting responsibly and morally.
[/quote]


i am stating anything that alters one's mind is not a good thing. even one beer alters someone's mental status. sure, not to the degree of say 20 beers, but it still alters a person's mind. sorry, but when you alter a person's mind and it effects it negatively like i posted above, its not a good thing.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' date='22 April 2010 - 03:33 AM' timestamp='1271921613' post='2097868']
to havok.

first off, comparing drinking to pot smoking isnt helping you, because if anything smoking pot is the less dangerous and impairing substance.

secondly, i could drink at least 2 drinks and still reliably be higher functioning than several sober people i know. maybe up to 5 beers.

and yes, making things like marijuana legal(im not saying hard stuff like heroin, though many of the same things apply) would cut crime immensely. and going the opposite way with alchohol will give you gang operated moonshine and smuggling again.
[/quote]


you prove my point right here. you say you can have up to five beers and still be functioning at a reliable higher level. this is what happens when people drink. they always think they are less impaired then they actually are. science backs up my claims, unless you have some some other evidence we are not aware of.

making something legal, a drug would make more crime. simple as this, many illlegal drugs are not used by the general population because it is illegal. by makinging it legal your making it avaliable to the general population. crime increases because of the drugs reaction on the human body. its simple math. the less people which have access to a mind altering drug, the less crimes that will be comittied. the more access someone has to it, the more crimes comitted.

your arguement is the same agruement people make when they want to make something legal. they say it would be cause less crime and be better regulated if it was legal. its the same argument for people who want legalized prostituion, legalized drugs, legalized assisted suicide and so on. exposing something to the general public would increase the crime rate 100 fold.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1271954487' post='2098058']
well obviously you ignored my numerous posts with this question addressed in it, so i will say it again. i am ok with mind altering substances if used as medication/prescribed by a doctor.

next time, please take the time to read my numerous posts which explain this very point. thank you.
[/quote]
Are they fundamentally good things, or fundamentally evil things?


If they are fundamentally evil, then it is logical that there use for any reason is also evil.

If they are fundamentally good, then it is logical that their proper use is also good, even given that their abuse is evil, as is abuse of all created things.

So unless your argument is that alcohol is fundamentally evil (which is a Protestant fundamentalist argument, not Catholic argument), we've got a bit of a problem.

So then the question becomes "what is proper use?" For that, I think reading the august Mr. Chesterton's essay would be a good start.


Here's what the Catechism has to say:
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the [b]abuse[/b] of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.


The Catechism talks about the *abuse* of alcohol. Not moderate consumption.




[quote]The weak arguments from the Bible used by fundamentalists to oppose all alcohol use whatsoever collapse upon even cursory examination, in my opinion. They try to assert that the biblical "wine" is merely unfermented grape juice. The term "strong drink, " however, in contrast to "wine," is seen, e.g., in passages such as Lev 10:9, Num 6:3, Deut 14:26, 29:6, Jud 13:4,7,14, 1 Sam 1:15, Prov 31:4, Mic 2:11 (cf. Prov 20:1, 31:6, Is 5:11,22, 24:9, 28:7, 56:12, Luke 1:15). This Hebrew word is shekar, defined by Strong's Concordance (word #7941) as "intoxicant, i.e., intensely alcoholic liquor - strong drink." Gesenius' Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon (1st ed., 1847; reprinted by Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, MI, 1979) likewise defines it as

strong drink, intoxicating liquor, whether wine, Nu 28:7, or intoxicating drink like wine, made from barley . . ., or distilled from honey or dates. It is often distinguished from wine . . . (p. 823)
Note that God doesn't outright forbid this "strong drink" as immoral in and of itself. It may be avoided (along with wine) by some for fasting or ascetic (voluntary self-denial) purposes (as in Lev 10:9, Num 6:3, and Deut 29:6), but that is not a sweeping prohibition. In fact, in Deut 14:26, Moses (see Deut 1:1) says in so many words that it is perfectly acceptable to drink it. The writer of Proverbs advises giving "strong drink" to the dying, and "wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty, and remember their misery no more" (31:6-7; NRSV). This is similar to the Apostle Paul's suggestion to "take a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments" (1 Timothy 5:23; NRSV).
In many of these passages, it is implied, however, that excessive drinking of this intoxicant, or drunkenness, is a bad thing, characteristic of the wicked. Thus, the Bible (and the Catholic Church, following it) condemns drunkenness, but not all use of alcohol or wine (e.g., Deut 21:20, Prov 20:1, 21:17, 23:20-21,29-35, 26:9, Is 5:11-12, Rom 13:13, 1 Cor 5:11, 6:10, Gal 5:21, 1 Tim 3:3,8, Titus 1:7, 2:3, 1 Peter 4:3).

Many OT passages praise wine (e.g., Jud 9:13, Ps 104:15). Having "plenty" of wine is a divine blessing (Gen 27:28). Wine was used at the ancient Jewish festivals (Passover, Pentecost, Tabernacles), and on the Sabbath, and was offered as a libation in Jewish rituals (Ex 29:40, 1 Sam 1:24), which may account for its later use in the Passover Seder. The Talmud called for red wine to be used. The Last Supper was a Jewish Passover (see Mt 26:17 ff., Mk 14:12 ff., Lk 22:15 ff., Jn 13:1 ff.); hence Jesus undeniably used wine as the example of what was to become the Christian Eucharist.

Jesus partook of wine and was absurdly accused by His critics of being a drunkard (Matt 11:19, Lk 7:33). He turned water into wine (not grape juice), in His first miracle (Jn 2:1 ff.). Jesus drank wine on the cross:

A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth. When Jesus had received the wine, he said, 'It is finished.' Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

(John 19:29-30; cf. Mt 27:48, Mk 15:36; NRSV)[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 11:44 AM' timestamp='1271954653' post='2098059']
i am stating anything that alters one's mind is not a good thing. even one beer alters someone's mental status. sure, not to the degree of say 20 beers, but it still alters a person's mind. sorry, but when you alter a person's mind and it effects it negatively like i posted above, its not a good thing.
[/quote]
What if the only negative effect after a single drink is that my reaction time is slowed from the media 215 milliseconds up to 260 milliseconds? That's mild altering. Is it irresponsible and evil?

[Winchester]

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc[/media]

Edited April 22, 2010 by Winchester

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Winchester' date='22 April 2010 - 12:54 PM' timestamp='1271955282' post='2098069']
<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/luVjkTEIoJc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/luVjkTEIoJc&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>
[/quote]
<sigh> Robot talk...

[Winchester]

[quote name='homeschoolmom' date='22 April 2010 - 12:55 PM' timestamp='1271955343' post='2098071']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc[/media]
[/quote]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc[/media]

[Socrates]

[quote name='havok579257' date='21 April 2010 - 01:56 AM' timestamp='1271829368' post='2097229']
so now someone who wants weapon reduction wants a nany state. i guess people who don't want a nanny state want every person have access to rocket launchers and wmd's. this point is unitelligent.[/quote]
City laws banning handguns have proven completely ineffective in preventing violent crime. In fact, the cities that had the strictest handgun laws had some of the highest murder rates.
If you outlaw guns, only the lawless will own them. Criminal gangs are usually pretty effective in getting around the law in obtaining weapons.
If guns were banned, we'd end up with a society in which the only ones with access to guns are the government and criminal thugs. Ordinary citizens would then be at the mercy of both.
And even if by some miracle your gun ban were actually effective in keeping guns out of the hands of violent criminals, you'd have a society in which the weak, women, and the elderly would be completely defenseless against physically stronger attackers.
As the saying goes: God created all men; Sam Colt made them equal.

As to rocket launchers, extreme as that may seen today, it's actually closest to the vision of our Founding Fathers, who envisioned the states defended by militias composed of citizen-soldiers who owned their own weapons, and would be a defense both against external enemies and tyrannical government. At the time, the weapons owned by private citizens were no different than those used by the military. (KoC or somebody in another gun control debate provided some great quotes on this from the American Founding Fathers. Maybe if somebody could post them here?)
If all the citizens are armed, and ready to use their arms, it makes it near impossible for the government to exercise tyrannical control over them. One of the first measures the Nazis took after seizing power was to outlaw guns from ordinary citizens.


[quote]
yes, but making guns illegal greatly reduces the number of guns and limits the number of times someone would need them.[/quote]
It merely keeps guns in the hands of the government and of lawless criminals, and greatly limits the opportunities of ordinary citizens to legitimate self-defense.

[quote]and here you are again spewing liberal rhetoric. i said one thing and your twisting words to try and make your arguement. i believe its the role of the government to keep their people safe and provide them with the oppertunities to fullfill thier dreams. reducing guns and making them illegal will work to better keep society safe. unless your really going to tell me, if we drastically reduced guns and weapons, more people would die.
[/quote]
Spewing liberal rhetoric???
If you're going to take the lazy route of accusing me of spewing ideological rhetoric, you could at least get the ideologies correct, and accuse me of spewing conservative rhetoric!
. . . Gosh!
Since when was defending the second amendment right to keep and bear arms [i]liberal[/i]?
It's overwhelmingly conservatives that favor second amendment rights and gun ownership, and liberals that favor unconstitutional gun-control laws and such.
I've been accused of a lot of things on here, but that's the first time I've been called "liberal" for defending second amendment rights. Oh well, I guess you deserve points for originality.

And if you're really going to take that nanny-state "the government needs to keep the people safe by banning anything dangerous" line, as others have pointed out, they should start by banning cars. Many more Americans have been killed by cars than by guns. The vast amount of American gun-owners have never killed anybody. Let's have a free republic of adult citizens, not a bunch of helpless children controlled by a "Mommy" government that ensures that they stay away from sharp objects and don't hurt themselves.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='havok579257' date='22 April 2010 - 12:41 PM' timestamp='1271954487' post='2098058']
well obviously you ignored my numerous posts with this question addressed in it, so i will say it again. i am ok with mind altering substances if used as medication/prescribed by a doctor.

next time, please take the time to read my numerous posts which explain this very point. thank you.
[/quote]

I actually didn't "ignore your numerous posts" on the topic. I read ALL your posts. Your problem is that there is no coherent, consistent argument being made. First drugs are OK from a doctor, next any thing that alters the mind is bad and should be illegal. Sorry, door doesn't swing both ways there, champ. If you think mind altering substances should be illegal, then say so. I obviously included the proviso that there are plenty of documented cases of properly prescribed substances, prescribed for legitimate conditions, being abused. Does this point then prove your argument that mind altering substances are evil and should be outlawed, or is it that you must accept that with certain substances come the potential for abuses of a kind?

And, you completely ignored the lengthy post I made on your argument about the illegality of a substance leading to decreased crime. If you feel strongly about a subject, that's fine. However, in the meantime, while you're picketing your local liquor store, I offer a suggestion that you should consider a more charitable tone in your responses. Your opinion is fine and good; your insinuations about the character of others here (such as that backhanded swing at Nihil Obstat about how it was obvious what a liking he had to drinking) are uncalled for. I'd rather be in the company of a drunkard than a self-righteous ideologue any day--at least the drunkard KNOWS they are drunk.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='22 April 2010 - 11:59 PM' timestamp='1271995190' post='2098384']
I actually didn't "ignore your numerous posts" on the topic. I read ALL your posts. Your problem is that there is no coherent, consistent argument being made. First drugs are OK from a doctor, next any thing that alters the mind is bad and should be illegal. Sorry, door doesn't swing both ways there, champ. If you think mind altering substances should be illegal, then say so. I obviously included the proviso that there are plenty of documented cases of properly prescribed substances, prescribed for legitimate conditions, being abused. Does this point then prove your argument that mind altering substances are evil and should be outlawed, or is it that you must accept that with certain substances come the potential for abuses of a kind?

And, you completely ignored the lengthy post I made on your argument about the illegality of a substance leading to decreased crime. If you feel strongly about a subject, that's fine. However, in the meantime, while you're picketing your local liquor store, I offer a suggestion that you should consider a more charitable tone in your responses. Your opinion is fine and good; your insinuations about the character of others here (such as that backhanded swing at Nihil Obstat about how it was obvious what a liking he had to drinking) are uncalled for. I'd rather be in the company of a drunkard than a self-righteous ideologue any day--at least the drunkard KNOWS they are drunk.
[/quote]

the door doesn't swing both ways... actually yes it does. all pain meds alter a person mentally, all psych meds do to. your obviously reaching here and just trying to maker your point and grasping for straws. unless you honestly believe medication for MEDICAL purposes aqre the same as someone sitting at home drinking a beer. i never said they are the same. in fact i said just the opposite. so are you going to continue to put words in my mouth?

hey, the same can be said for people on here towards me and back handed comments. so before you go after the one person who disagree's with your opinion, how about go after everyone equally. is that to much to act? now who's being self rightous now?

Edited April 23, 2010 by havok579257

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1271955158' post='2098067']
What if the only negative effect after a single drink is that my reaction time is slowed from the media 215 milliseconds up to 260 milliseconds? That's mild altering. Is it irresponsible and evil?
[/quote]


except that is not the only effects of one drink. drinking effects more than just one thing. you may think it only effects one thing and slightly at that, but science shows that drinking affects many things, not just a single thing.

irresponsible to take mind altering substances? i could agree with that.

evil? i don't believe an inanimate object can be evil. i believe people can be evil, but not something that is inanimate.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='22 April 2010 - 12:51 PM' timestamp='1271955063' post='2098065']
Are they fundamentally good things, or fundamentally evil things?


If they are fundamentally evil, then it is logical that there use for any reason is also evil.

If they are fundamentally good, then it is logical that their proper use is also good, even given that their abuse is evil, as is abuse of all created things.

So unless your argument is that alcohol is fundamentally evil (which is a Protestant fundamentalist argument, not Catholic argument), we've got a bit of a problem.

So then the question becomes "what is proper use?" For that, I think reading the august Mr. Chesterton's essay would be a good start.


Here's what the Catechism has to say:
2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the [b]abuse[/b] of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.


The Catechism talks about the *abuse* of alcohol. Not moderate consumption.
[/quote]


i don't believe they are inherently evil or good but that's because i don't believe things can be evil or good. i think people can be evil or good. i think inanimate things without a soul is just a thing.

[Marie-Therese]

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 01:05 AM' timestamp='1271999131' post='2098406']
the door doesn't swing both ways... actually yes it does. all pain meds alter a person mentally, all psych meds do to. your obviously reaching here and just trying to maker your point and grasping for straws. unless you honestly believe medication for MEDICAL purposes aqre the same as someone sitting at home drinking a beer. i never said they are the same. in fact i said just the opposite. so are you going to continue to put words in my mouth?

hey, the same can be said for people on here towards me and back handed comments. so before you go after the one person who disagree's with your opinion, how about go after everyone equally. is that to much to act? now who's being self rightous now?
[/quote]

Nothing in my reply to you was self-righteous. My response was that your comments were uncharitable and that your argument lacked cogency and consistency. That's not self-righteous, that is a statement of opinion. I am perfectly able to disagree with civility and I believe that I can produce numerous persons on PM who can attest to this. If others have been uncharitable to you, take it up with them. I'm not on that list.

Your argument, again, is lacking consistency. What is the purpose for someone drinking a beer? You assume all people drink for pleasure alone. More often than not, drinking alcohol is a form of self-medication. What about the person with mental illness who suffers from depression, yet has no health insurance? Drinking might well be a way that person copes with suffering. How about people with undiagnosed chronic pain? Again, alcohol (or some illegal drugs) can be used as a treatment for those people.

You make the logical fallacy of lumping all users of alcohol and/or drugs into the category of your random frat kid binge drinking themselves into a stupor on a Friday night. That is a poor logical step to take. People use alcohol and drugs for a variety of reasons, some of them for the exact same reasons that other people take medications that have been prescribed for them. Is a cancer patient smoking marijuana to relieve symptoms, because the drugs they need are too expensive for them to afford, morally wrong? According to you, yes. How about if that was, instead, a person suffering from depression who drinks a glass of wine with dinner to make them feel more relaxed? Is that morally wrong as well? Because, if I may refresh you, this is, in fact, what you said:

[quote]Posted 17 April 2010 - 01:42 AM
alcohol, except in places of worship should be illegal for everyone, for everyone. [/quote]

Illegal for everyone. You said it, not me. My argument was simply a refutation of your blanket statement. You can backtrack and say, oh, but I didn't mean this or that. Yet, that is, in fact, what you said. Either make a clear and thoughtfully phrased statement which clarifies that position, or admit that your initial statement was in error. And you still have yet to address my post on the incongruity of the assessment you made about the criminalization of an activity or substance leading to a decreased crime rate.

I haven't put words in your mouth. The words in your mouth simply did not make consistent sense. It is not a slight against you as a person to dispute your argument. I am sorry if you take it that way.

[Jesus_lol]

man peyton, you are like being like Bruce Lee vs a punching bag right now.

Edited April 23, 2010 by Jesus_lol

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 12:12 AM' timestamp='1271999565' post='2098409']
i don't believe they are inherently evil or good but that's because i don't believe things can be evil or good. i think people can be evil or good. i think inanimate things without a soul is just a thing.
[/quote]
I like how you ignored the Catechism and what I developed based on that.


M-T, you're awesome!

[elizabeth09]

I want to say that they should either raise the drinking age to 23 or have stores start cheeking I.D.s. I want to say if you do not have you I.D., then you can not but it, no matter what they say.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='23 April 2010 - 12:19 PM' timestamp='1272039547' post='2098579']
I like how you ignored the Catechism and what I developed based on that.


M-T, you're awesome!
[/quote]


i didn't quote it because i figured you made a mistake since you were supporting my arguement with 2291. cause it fully supports what ihave been saying.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Marie-Therese' date='23 April 2010 - 01:39 AM' timestamp='1272001191' post='2098411']
Nothing in my reply to you was self-righteous. My response was that your comments were uncharitable and that your argument lacked cogency and consistency. That's not self-righteous, that is a statement of opinion. I am perfectly able to disagree with civility and I believe that I can produce numerous persons on PM who can attest to this. If others have been uncharitable to you, take it up with them. I'm not on that list.

Your argument, again, is lacking consistency. What is the purpose for someone drinking a beer? You assume all people drink for pleasure alone. More often than not, drinking alcohol is a form of self-medication. What about the person with mental illness who suffers from depression, yet has no health insurance? Drinking might well be a way that person copes with suffering. How about people with undiagnosed chronic pain? Again, alcohol (or some illegal drugs) can be used as a treatment for those people.

You make the logical fallacy of lumping all users of alcohol and/or drugs into the category of your random frat kid binge drinking themselves into a stupor on a Friday night. That is a poor logical step to take. People use alcohol and drugs for a variety of reasons, some of them for the exact same reasons that other people take medications that have been prescribed for them. Is a cancer patient smoking marijuana to relieve symptoms, because the drugs they need are too expensive for them to afford, morally wrong? According to you, yes. How about if that was, instead, a person suffering from depression who drinks a glass of wine with dinner to make them feel more relaxed? Is that morally wrong as well? Because, if I may refresh you, this is, in fact, what you said:



Illegal for everyone. You said it, not me. My argument was simply a refutation of your blanket statement. You can backtrack and say, oh, but I didn't mean this or that. Yet, that is, in fact, what you said. Either make a clear and thoughtfully phrased statement which clarifies that position, or admit that your initial statement was in error. And you still have yet to address my post on the incongruity of the assessment you made about the criminalization of an activity or substance leading to a decreased crime rate.

I haven't put words in your mouth. The words in your mouth simply did not make consistent sense. It is not a slight against you as a person to dispute your argument. I am sorry if you take it that way.
[/quote]

do you really want to go down the route that alcohol is good self medication for people with out any insurance? that is the most assanine argument in this debate. using alcohol as self medication for a chronic problem is never, NEVER a good idea. no doctor will tell you its a good idea. now your just grasping at straws in this argument. just like you say illegal drugs can be used as self medication. last i checked the catholic church has a specific stance on illegal drug and your going against that stance. this is the biggest joke of an argument. using alcohol or illegal drugs as self medication. its almost not worth arguing about, since its so far out there in left field. i mean seriously, do you honestly support the idea for people without medical insuarance to self medicate with alcohol and illegal drug? do you really support that?

so your taking one comment out of context. fantastic, great job. the comment you took was my very first generalized basic statement on this topic. as the debate continued on, i got more specific. in numerous posts i clarified my points. so you either did NOT read all my posts or you read them and ignored them. which was it? before responding to my post, had you read all of my previous posts on the subject? if you did, then you know what my thoughts were, so why bring up my first post. or if you did not, why jump into the thread without reading all the other posts to get caught up?

i addressed your post about criminization in another post. go read it. its the same thing i would have posted to respond to you, so there was no point in just doing a copy and paste.

oh and just for clarification, not i but the church says not to illegal drugs. they say to follow the laws. they don't give approvals to break the laws because of your income. so again, are you going against catholic teaching, because it seems like it with your stance?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='havok579257' date='23 April 2010 - 11:21 PM' timestamp='1272082901' post='2099043']
i didn't quote it because i figured you made a mistake since you were supporting my arguement with 2291. cause it fully supports what ihave been saying.
[/quote]
Only through begging the question does CCC 2291 support your argument, and begging the question is a logical fallacy.

By the way, 2290 is the more relevant quotation here.


2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others' safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.



2290 only supports your argument if you've pre-supposed that *all* use of alcohol is excessive abuse. This is not supported in the context of the entire quotation, because it is mentioned quite specifically alongside food, tobacco, and medicine, which quite clearly can be used moderately, and indeed in the case of food and medicine, *must* be used moderately. To claim that all use of alcohol is abuse is to attempt to violently force the Catechism into a position that it does not take. It is equivalent to Protestant Scriptural eisegesis, and has no place in Catholic morality.

RE: 2291, nobody here has argued that the use of recreational drugs is good. I certainly have not. For the third or forth time, I have stated earlier that I personally have no logically consistent argument against them. Maybe the Church does. Like I said, I'm working on that issue. So leave that one alone, because it will get us nowhere.

[Marie-Therese]

Where, oh where, to begin.

[quote name='havok579257' date='24 April 2010 - 12:33 AM' timestamp='1272083605' post='2099051']
do you really want to go down the route that alcohol is good self medication for people with out any insurance? that is the most assanine argument in this debate. using alcohol as self medication for a chronic problem is never, NEVER a good idea. no doctor will tell you its a good idea. now your just grasping at straws in this argument. just like you say illegal drugs can be used as self medication. last i checked the catholic church has a specific stance on illegal drug and your going against that stance. this is the biggest joke of an argument. using alcohol or illegal drugs as self medication. its almost not worth arguing about, since its so far out there in left field. i mean seriously, do you honestly support the idea for people without medical insuarance to self medicate with alcohol and illegal drug? do you really support that?[/quote]

Never said I supported any of those things. I said they were possibilities. Your entire argument is based on conjecture, predicated on the idea that a substance which in some fashion alters a person's sensory perceptions is inherently bad. My "[b]asinine[/b]" argument (please note spelling) was not that alcohol or drugs were good self medication. I said they could be used as such. Don't try to make my statements into something that they aren't.

[quote]so your taking one comment out of context. fantastic, great job. the comment you took was my very first generalized basic statement on this topic. as the debate continued on, i got more specific. in numerous posts i clarified my points. so you either did NOT read all my posts or you read them and ignored them. which was it? before responding to my post, had you read all of my previous posts on the subject? if you did, then you know what my thoughts were, so why bring up my first post. or if you did not, why jump into the thread without reading all the other posts to get caught up?[/quote]

As I stated previously, I read the entire thread before posting. That includes all posts made before and after your first post, and before my first post...hence, the entire thread. I have also read all responses since my first post. I think that pretty much covers it.

I did not, in fact, take your quote out of context. As a matter of fact, I copied the entire quote, time stamp and all. Taking something "out of context" means to remove a statement from its surrounding, clarifying statements, thereby rendering it to mean something which its original intent did not mean at all. I took nothing out of context. I simply reminded you of what you said, context and all. If you have decided, since making that statement, that it was an unfortunate blanket statement which did not reflect the totality of your viewpoint, all well and good. Then say that. Don't accuse me of trying to misrepresent you in some way. That is an accusation you're not going to get by on me. You said alcohol should be totally illegal outside worship services. That is an unequivocal, frank statement of belief. If that is what you think, back it up. Otherwise, back off. Don't try and squirm out of an uncomfortable position by claiming that I somehow misrepresented you and that your further statements clarified your position. Nope, sorry. You haven't wavered from that position. All you've managed to do is say if a doctor prescribes something it's generally OK and then argue with Nihil about how much alcohol constitutes being mentally impaired by it.


[quote]i addressed your post about criminization in another post. go read it. its the same thing i would have posted to respond to you, so there was no point in just doing a copy and paste.[/quote]

I apologize that I missed that paragraph in your response to Jesus_lol. However, your statement is just "drugs are bad m'kay and they make people do crime." Do you have statistics or any kind of data that would give credence to your position? All I can tell you is to read any decent history book about the Prohibition period in the United States, and my point is adequately proved. If you have conflicting data, I'd love to see it. I am willing in any case to be proven wrong, if you have the means to do so outside what seems to be simply your opinion.

[quote]
and just for clarification, not i but the church says not to illegal drugs. [/quote]

Uh...ok? I never advocated illegal drugs. As a matter of fact, in one of my previous posts (post 109 for your reference) I said this:

[quote name= 'Marie-Therese']Again, I emphasize: I AM NOT ADVOCATING MAKING METH (OR ANY DRUG) LEGAL. I am simply making a point. It is a logical fallacy to say that simply outlawing something makes crimes related to that thing diminish. The war on drugs is unsuccessful for that very reason...the drugs are illegal, but there is a high demand. Therefore, those who are willing to accept the risks associated with the drug trade are in a position to make large sums of money off those substances. However, their actions are illegal. [/quote]

Where in that do I advocate illegal drug use? Nowhere. NOWHERE.

What I do advocate is the following from the CCC, which Nihil kindly referenced:

[quote]2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, [b]except on strictly therapeutic grounds[/b], is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.
[/quote]

Notice the bolded portion. This was the basis of my position in people using a substance for therapeutic reasons.

[quote]they say to follow the laws. they don't give approvals to break the laws because of your income. so again, are you going against catholic teaching, because it seems like it with your stance?
[/quote]

I never advocated breaking laws. However, if a law exists which in some fashion inhibits a suffering person from obtaining proper care, refer kindly to the following, CCC paragraph 1902:

[quote]1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a "moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility":

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. [/quote]

Please read that carefully and ponder what it means. I, or any other Catholic, am not permitted to break laws simply because I do not like them or do not agree with them. However, if a law perpetrated by a government to which we are subject in the natural order "falls short of right reason, it is said to be an unjust law" and to obey would be acting in accord with violence.

If you'd like to formulate a counter to me that has some sort of reference material, or facts, super. Otherwise your argument is your opinion. That's fine, too. Just don't try to paint me, or anyone else who disagrees with your position, as some kind of lush or drug-sympathizer or, even worse, a disobedient Catholic. I can tolerate a lot of things. That last one gets my Irish up. I take that flag under my name very, very seriously. Impugning my character is not a way to get your point across.