The Legalistation/decriminalisation Of Cannabis.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297107028' post='2209737']
I don't really think so. We've always talked about "legitimate" government. Right now, I think that's not a reality. It may have been in the past (I'm no historian), but I can't think of an example of legitimate government today.
[/quote]


How was the feudal system that Aquinas vested with the power to try heretics any more legitimate than the representative government in place today?

The Pope and Church speak about the moral duties that states have. The qualifications that I have always seen have been in regard to particular laws passed by the state as per Augustine.

[4588686]

I think my view has even more weight given the, as I recall, very high standards that must be met before a revolution can be considered legitimate.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297106731' post='2209734']
The way I interpreted your argument was that
-legitimate authority may restrict certain substances (as parents do with children)
-therefore state government may restrict substances such as marijuana and alcohol.

I agree with the first, not the second. You miss a second proposition that "state government has the same authority as a parent over their child". I do not cede that. Legitimate authority may restrict the consumption of something such as alcohol, and especially to minors. Parents have that authority. Our state governments have no moral authority.
The State is not a giant common parent. It wants to be, but it is not and cannot be such.
[/quote]

It is foolishness to assume that the State does not have an interest in morality or that there is no moral character to the laws or even to say that the laws in some respects do have a moral authority. A moral citizenry is good for society and therefore the government has a natural and vested interest in fostering virtue in society. Ideally, laws should foster the development of virtue in society and should punish large vices (this must be distinguished from Legislating morality in that the goal here is to "foster virtue" with good laws and tax breaks for charities and such and punish large vices like murder and theft). Also there is a moral component to law in that if one disobeys a law which is in accord with Justice, appropriate to time and place, one has willed evil. It is immoral to break certain laws a certain times and therefore there is a kind of moral authority or aspect to law. But this is stuff you already know. Anyway, this notion of law and authority, combined with the idea that the people can make society, allows for THE PEOPLE to ban certain things in society by vote. I am not talking about some leviathan that wills to remove things from society. I am talking about something like a state-wide vote on whether the people of society want to allow something. This to me seems legitimate and would an example of how a government may achieve authority over individuals concerning regulated substances.

I agree parents have the authority to regulate things in the home and that should really not be tampered with, but if all the parents got together and voted not to allow porn or something else in society would we balk at it? No. I wonder then why the same principle cannot be said of something similar (though clearly different than porn)?

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297107028' post='2209737']
I don't really think so. We've always talked about "legitimate" government. Right now, I think that's not a reality. It may have been in the past (I'm no historian), but I can't think of an example of legitimate government today.
[/quote]

I believe that in the argument I was making, the government I set out for the thought experiment was "legitimate." I grant that perhaps in many parts of the world, governments do not have legitimate authority, but that doesn't preclude us talking about a just society or a perhaps a more realistic idea is a society where the people speak and form their own society, even if they may do some things wrong. I agree with you that the State is not some giant common parent and that it should not be; however, I fail to see why we can't think about this problem in the context of a legitimate authority that is derived from the will of the people and allows them to vote on such a thing as to whether to allow it or ban it within their specific context and society.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1297107552' post='2209740']
How was the feudal system that Aquinas vested with the power to try heretics any more legitimate than the representative government in place today?

The Pope and Church speak about the moral duties that states have. The qualifications that I have always seen have been in regard to particular laws passed by the state as per Augustine.
[/quote]
A legitimate state first and foremost has to work for the common good. I don't know of any state that does this. Abortion, as one example, de-legitimizes any State which not only allows, but encourages it.
I haven't studied Aquinas, so I don't know if his conception of a State would have been all that great or not. No saint is infallible.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297110175' post='2209760']
A legitimate state first and foremost has to work for the common good. I don't know of any state that does this. Abortion, as one example, de-legitimizes any State which not only allows, but encourages it. I haven't studied Aquinas, so I don't know if his conception of a State would have been all that great or not. No saint is infallible.
[/quote]

So Parents who fail in some aspects of their moral duties as parent's have no right to tell their children that they cannot do cocaine? Since they have lost their legitimacy?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1297110689' post='2209764']
So Parents who fail in some aspects of their moral duties as parent's have no right to tell their children that they cannot do cocaine? Since they have lost their legitimacy?
[/quote]
Did I say that?
Parents have moral authority because they are parents. States are not parents, and they only have moral authority inasmuch as they are directed exclusively towards that which is right.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1297108653' post='2209749']
Anyway, this notion of law and authority, combined with the idea that the people can make society, allows for THE PEOPLE to ban certain things in society by vote. I am not talking about some leviathan that wills to remove things from society. I am talking about something like a state-wide vote on whether the people of society want to allow something. This to me seems legitimate and would an example of how a government may achieve authority over individuals concerning regulated substances.

[/quote]
What happens if the voting citizens vote to allow (and in fact support and encourage) abortion, contraception, and euthanasia?
This is more of a when question rather than if.

Even pretend that it was a nation-wide referendum, and the vote is...... 75% in favour of all of the above.

Edited February 7, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297110832' post='2209765']
Did I say that?[/QUOTE]

I'm applying the logic you used to deprive a state of it's legitimacy to deprive parent's of their moral authority. Maybe you feel that parent's are expect from having this logic applied to them but unless you are obtuse, and I don't think that you are, you know that I was not suggesting that you actually made said 'that', except maybe inferentially.

[QUOTE]Parents have moral authority because they are parents.[/QUOTE]

So? Christ said he would set father against son, brother against brother, why would God give parent's an inherent moral legitimacy because of a genetic relationship, irrespective of flaws that would disqualify other authorities like states?

[QUOTE]States are not parents, and they only have moral authority inasmuch as they are directed exclusively towards that which is right.
[/quote]

Then why would Church Father's like Augustine make the distinction of a law being illegitimate? According to your logic there has never been a single illegitimate law. The moment that state does anything with it's authority that is not morally right the entire state loses legitimacy, not the single, illegitimate law. You're view disqualifies every single government that exists and has existed. Ok, then why does the Church have strict standards on revolutions. As I'm reading you no Catholic now, or in fact ever has had, any duty to any state because every state is illegitimate. This is certainly not the impression that one get's from the Catechism or statements of Church leaders.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1297111439' post='2209769']
I'm applying the logic you used to deprive a state of it's legitimacy to deprive parent's of their moral authority. Maybe you feel that parent's are expect from having this logic applied to them but unless you are obtuse, and I don't think that you are, you know that I was not suggesting that you actually made said 'that', except maybe inferentially.



So? Christ said he would set father against son, brother against brother, why would God give parent's an inherent moral legitimacy because of a genetic relationship, irrespective of flaws that would disqualify other authorities like states?



Then why would Church Father's like Augustine make the distinction of a law being illegitimate? According to your logic there has never been a single illegitimate law. The moment that state does anything with it's authority that is not morally right the entire state loses legitimacy, not the single, illegitimate law. You're view disqualifies every single government that exists and has existed. Ok, then why does the Church have strict standards on revolutions. As I'm reading you no Catholic now, or in fact ever has had, any duty to any state because every state is illegitimate. This is certainly not the impression that one get's from the Catechism or statements of Church leaders.
[/quote]
Parents have inherent authority because of the basis of the family as the fundamental unit of society. This is a primitive and natural state of being. States have attempted to take and subvert this authority.
An unjust law is no law at all. I believe that is a very core aspect of how we should understand the state, and our role as Catholics within it.

[4588686]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297111836' post='2209773']
Parents have inherent authority because of the basis of the family as the fundamental unit of society. This is a primitive and natural state of being.[/QUOTE]

The modern Western understanding of the nuclear family is not some inherent patten universal through the whole of human history. M

[QUOTE]States have attempted to take and subvert this authority.
An unjust law is no law at all. I believe that is a very core aspect of how we should understand the state, and our role as Catholics within it.
[/quote]

That really doesn't cover the questions I asked about your larger view if the state. Ok. So an unjust law is no law at all. We agree that that's in line with the traditional view of the state. You're leaping from that isolated law being illegitimate to the entire state becoming illegitimate because it passed the law.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1297112200' post='2209778']
The modern Western understanding of the nuclear family is not some inherent patten universal through the whole of human history. M



That really doesn't cover the questions I asked about your larger view if the state. Ok. So an unjust law is no law at all. We agree that that's in line with the traditional view of the state. You're leaping from that isolated law being illegitimate to the entire state becoming illegitimate because it passed the law.
[/quote]
It goes right back to "honour your father and mother." I'm not going to argue that one with you.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to debate this any further (market study in a few minutes).

I will bow out from this debate with this: A parent can tell the child that he can't watch tv after dinner time, and the child is morally bound to obey. This is an arbitrary rule without an inherent moral quality to it (it is not immoral to watch tv after dinner). However, if the state government passed a law which said nobody can watch tv after dinner, this would not be a legitimate law and we would have no moral obligation to obey.

Nice talking with you.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297110954' post='2209766']
What happens if the voting citizens vote to allow (and in fact support and encourage) abortion, contraception, and euthanasia?
This is more of a when question rather than if.

Even pretend that it was a nation-wide referendum, and the vote is...... 75% in favour of all of the above.
[/quote]

If such a vote came up, and it should, it would be posed as whether to allow or to ban abortion etc. This action of voting to ban such things seems to me perfectly legitimate and that is what I was arguing: that the government does in fact have the legitimate power, given a voting populace, to ban such things as marijuana. As I expressed in my original post, these things are things like tobacco, alcohol, etc and not drugs like cocaine or other things. Some substances should always be banned and others can be regulated. However, such things that can be regulated need not be allowed and regulated. They seem to have a morally neutral character in whether being allowed or banned and the age at which one is allowed to use them (given they are permitted) seems to fall under Prudential judgement rather than Justice. On an individual level sometimes abstaining can be easier than smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol prudently and it seems that marijuana is similar in this regard. As such, it seems legitimate for a society to ban things that may be regulated in that a society can choose to abstain from and not allow them.

Now, your question deals more not with whether government could legitimately do such things and whether one should follow such a ban, but rather is a separate question entirely. What happens in a society of a voting populace where the populace seems to have malformed consciences? I apologize if I am not understanding you correctly, but this just seems to be a general problem of the voting populace. With a King, one only has to convince one man that an action is right to take; however, with a democracy one has to convince millions of sovereigns of the right action to take. I would say the government could legalize abortion and euthanasia at its own peril and should not since it violates the Natural Order. Even if one wanted to ignore the Natural Order, practically speaking a government should not really allow abortion and euthanasia since they seem to harm the society that the government is designed to protect and as such undermines the government. But I think we may be getting off topic...or I have misunderstood you, which is entirely likely.

Edited February 8, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1297104275' post='2209713']
No, it means we need to seriously reexamine our terminology. If we want 'drugs' to be illegal because they;re 'harmful', why is alcohol magically exempt?
[/quote]
Because it's too big a beast to tackle. Alcohol probably does more damage than all other drugs put together. Majority of fatal car crashes, domestic violence, dangerous risk taking, club and pub violence. But there's no way to control it, it's too easy to make and it's too popular.

[infinitelord1]

I used to think it should be legal. But I don't know anymore. I do think its less of a safety and health hazard than alcohol though. Most kids would probably prefer getting high than drinking alcohol. But even then I could be wrong. That would be the main concern though. What kind of effect would the legalization of marijuana have on minors?

[southern california guy]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297140367' post='2209973']
I used to think it should be legal. But I don't know anymore. I do think its less of a safety and health hazard than alcohol though. Most kids would probably prefer getting high than drinking alcohol. But even then I could be wrong. That would be the main concern though. What kind of effect would the legalization of marijuana have on minors?
[/quote]

I doubt it would be legal for minors.

[rachael]

http://www.alternet.org/story/149878/pot_may_be_instrumental_in_combatting_cancer%2C_ms_and_other_diseases_but_the_gov%27t_refuses_to_fund_the_necessary_research/

[rachael]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110211/hl_nm/us_alcohol

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1296930905' post='2209042']
I see nothing within Catholic morality that precludes the morality of recreational marijuana as long as it is not taken to excess. I don't believe there is an essential difference between marijuana use and alcohol use.
[/quote]

I do see an essential difference between marijuana and alcohol, men and women who smoke the occasional marijuana cigarette don't go home and beat their children and spouses. a good percentage (25-35 per cent) of people who drink alcohol are known to do that.

Edited February 12, 2011 by MarkKurallSchuenemann

[MarkKurallSchuenemann]

[quote name='infinitelord1' timestamp='1297140367' post='2209973']
I used to think it should be legal. But I don't know anymore. I do think its less of a safety and health hazard than alcohol though. Most kids would probably prefer getting high than drinking alcohol. But even then I could be wrong. That would be the main concern though. What kind of effect would the legalization of marijuana have on minors?
[/quote]

about the same as it has now. Minors are most of the clients who are buying it now.

[rachael]

[quote name='MarkKurallSchuenemann' timestamp='1297524810' post='2211666']
about the same as it has now. Minors are most of the clients who are buying it now.
[/quote]
Do you have the statistics on this?