mystery drug

[dairygirl4u2c]

ty

[Paphnutius]

Why the seemingly sudden interest in drugs?

[Jaime]

I agree

Perhaps an intervention is needed!

JUST SAY NO DAIRY!!

[Ora et Labora]

what does "ty" stand for?

[Era Might]

Your "I refuse to speculate" option is always charming.

[Ora et Labora]

[quote name='Era Might' date='Feb 25 2006, 08:02 AM']Your "I refuse to speculate" option is always charming.
[right][snapback]897412[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Does this have anything to do with my question...?

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Ora et Labora' date='Feb 25 2006, 09:01 AM']what does "ty" stand for?
[right][snapback]897410[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
thank you....

[Anthony]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Feb 25 2006, 01:08 AM']Why the seemingly sudden interest in drugs?
[right][snapback]897330[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Dairy, if you're trying to justify using drugs, your efforts are pretty much a waste of time. By posting seemingly pointless debates about the same topic is really quite rediculous if you ask me. Lately, every debate you poll you created was about drugs. If you are using drugs, instead of trying to justify the use of illegal drugs, you should seek help for your addiction because it isn't healthy any way you look at it. Sorry, it's tough love coming from me, but you need to realize that you cannot justify the use of illegal drugs.

[dairygirl4u2c]

I'm really only testing what people are willing to believe. The CC says that "drugs are bad", but alcohol and cigarettes are okay in moderation. People always say things like.. well pot will mess you up.. even tho alcohol can too if abused or they bring up something else like that. Pot won't mess you up if not abused. Every argument they use at least in terms of milder drugs can be used against alcohol and tobacco if they'd stop and think about it before they post. I'm trying to get those who refuse to allow the possibility that not all recreational drugs are bad (granted there are some here that do) to show how things are different without using something that could just as easily be used against alcohol and cigarettes. To stop saying simply just because that's the norm and condemning those Catholics who are willing to go beyond the norm. To stop the cop outs and actually address the issue. People like to avoid this issue and be content with thinking "drugs are bad", when the reality is not as simple as this.

Are you willing to say that all drugs are worse than alcohol and cigarrettes no matter how infrequently and how much they do less in terms damage to health, psychi and reasoning? If so, state your guess. Since there is a degree of objective uncertainty, say you don't know, but perhaps such a drug exists and why you don't think it's permissible still. Or say that since the CC teaches drugs are bad, then even tho we haven't discovered all drugs etc, that the drugs will turn out to be worse than alc and cigs. If you don't know how to answer but all you know is that the CC teaches drgs are bad, then state that.

I'm using this as an example where maybe even in the CC people can learn to think outside of the box. If thinking outside of the box is not permissible, which from my knownledge it isn't even as a good Catholic in even in these drug issues, then perhaps you need to look at this teaching that is by no means consistent as something indicative of what you put your are putting your faith in.

Edited February 25, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Quietfire]

Dairy,
The Church is the authority on matters of faith and morals. She isnt an authority on the policing of narcotics.
If, for instance, a state (country, society, whatever) deems that something such as marijuana is illegal...the Church will agree to the point that science has deemed that this particular drug is dangerous, even in small amounts. It isnt as if the Church has decreed that, it's society that has. The Church isnt 'playing along' or anything, its just that she shows respect to points taken on issues that she will view in light of all facts. She is 'giving unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's' , and in reality, she doesnt actually say, "you cannot smoke marijuana or snort coke", what she is saying is that society has proven that these are dangerous and as such she will listen to those who have outlawed them by not promoting the use of, since it has no bearing on what she is authority over..which is faith and morals.

100 years ago, marijuana was viewed as a 'wonder drug' that would 'cure' alot of ailments. When Coca Cola was first introduced, it actually contained cocaine(that is how coca cola's name derived from..aka coke). When testing started being done and results were showing addiction to and side effects of, only then were these views changed, and over time we came to see that these drugs above, in particular, were not benificial to our health and actually damaged it.

As far as alcohol, as long as society allows it and it has no bearing on the matter of faith and morals, why ask the church?
As far as cigarettes, again, as long as society allows it and it has no bearing on matters of faith and morals, why ask the church?

If someone feels that alchohol and cigarettes are dangerous, then study them, prove them to be and take the issue up with your government, as some are doing. But I cannot figure out why one would even ask the Church on matters such as this.

I find it odd that no one ran to the Church when these products were originally being touted, no one ran to her asking if it was ok to use them and what is her stance on it. Now, at every turn, people dont seem to mind running and asking. They question only to be angry if she doesnt agree or does not speculate immediately on a given situation, like the Pope has the Holy Spirit locked up in a room at the Vatican and should be able to give an immediate answer to any given quesiton.

So you ask our view on these issues. I will say that as long as society views these as acceptable and the Church states that they pose no threat to my faith and morals(the condition of my lungs and liver are not issues of faith and morals-even if I dont like breathing cigarette smoke or consuming alchohol) then this is a non issue.

Pax

[philothea]

Nice response, Quietfire.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Feb 25 2006, 05:21 PM']As far as cigarettes, again, as long as society allows it and it has no bearing on matters of faith and morals, why ask the church?[/quote]
But one could ask the Church if it is objectivly moral or immoral to smoke pot. That is a fair and legitimate question.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well what may be the case. It could be just that those who insist on banning drugs etc are the ones who reply. Those who aren't sure etc don't bother taking the polls or stating for me to see.

My problem with what you said. Society is afraid of X drug. That doesn't mean that it's worse than alc or cigs. Now, if society has forbade legally the use of X drug, then I can understand why you'd be against using them. But what about in countries where X drug is not illegal or when a certain drug isn't illegal?

People who have insisted all drugs are immoral etc have ceased to respond. I'm trying to get people who normally don't to show a little latitude once in awhile instead of taking solace in cop outs and ignoring these issues. Or show me what I'm missing.

Edited February 26, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

Dairy, if you like to smoke dope, that's your problem. No need to endlessly poll us about it, or seek our approval. You disagree with what the Church says on most other things, anyway.

[Quietfire]

Cop out eh?

Look, if this country hadnt chosen separation of church and state, then I would completely understand asking the whys about the Church view on the morality of drug use. But because we chose this, then its up to us or more specifically, those who we elect into political office to decide what is best for us on a national, state, county and city level.

I would suggest that you ask those in office first. Then you could come back and ask the Church again.

And in all honesty, I couldnt give a patootie that other countries consider it ok to use these drugs. I dont live there now or plan to anytime in the forseeable future.

I dont take your polls because often you dont explain yourself well in them and therefore I dont think you thought them through. You seem to like making polls alot and after a while it plays itself out, ya know. You also seem to think that those here who do participate encompass the entire Catholic world and that would be wrong.

Hey, if it bothers you that much go to the question and answer forum and post a lucid question there. Maybe a clergy or other can explain it better than us. In the end, this isnt a debate and therefore has no place here.

Pax

[God the Father]

You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and you believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill and you stay
in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]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.[/quote]

Is the CC only teaching this because society has a norm against drugs? It doesn't sound like it. If they were, is it a sin to go against a social norm?

In reality, they are teaching that drugs are immoral in and ofthemself, as in the phrase faith and morals. I still haven't gotten much of an explanation as to how their different than alcohol/cigarettes etc or anyone admitting any possibilities. I'll admit the possibiltiy that all drugs are worse. Can anyone concede possibilites the other way around?


PS God the Father's picture is freaky.....

Edited February 26, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[Quietfire]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 26 2006, 01:43 PM']Is the CC only teaching this because society has a norm against drugs? It doesn't sound like it. If they were, is it a sin to go against a social norm?

In reality, they are teaching that drugs are immoral in and ofthemself, as in the phrase faith and morals. I still haven't gotten much of an explanation as to how their different than alcohol/cigarettes etc or anyone admitting any possibilities. I'll admit the possibiltiy that all drugs are worse. Can anyone concede possibilites the other way around?
PS God the Father's picture is freaky.....
[right][snapback]898147[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

That is stating that drug use for thereputic use are fine. But to traffic them or produce them in a clandestine matter is wrong.

Dont mix this up with alchohol and cigarettes as I dont see a connection here at all.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 26 2006, 11:43 AM']In reality, they are teaching that drugs are immoral in and ofthemself, as in the phrase faith and morals[/quote]
No they are not. Re-read the part where it says that it may be permissible to use them in therapeutic practices. This clearly shows that the case is subjective. Subjectively wrong in most, but subjectively permissible in certain cases where the circumstances would allow. This does not say that all use of drugs are objectively wrong.

[dairygirl4u2c]

The connection is that alc and cigs both can be abused. Isn't it possible to have drugs for recreational use like cigs and alc? That quote says otherwise. And if your point is that the CC doesn't necessarily teach one way or another on cig and alc, so it's possibel for them to ban them. I think I should post:

[quote]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.[/quote]
The verse before that drug verse allows cig and alc in moderation. Why can't drugs some of them be in moderation?




The intent is there in the origianl drug teaching. To say it's subjective is like saying "thou shalt not kill" is subjective. It is, in that self defense is not okay, but to in anyway infer that wanton killing might be okay is a cop out.

I suppose I would agree, in a sense, that it is subjective what is wrote. In that it says that drugs incurr grave health etc problems. That might mean that those drugs that really don't, don't count. If this is what you mean by subjective, I agree.
Really, I'm only trying to get people who say all drugs are bad etc to show latitude.

Edited February 27, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c