Replies

Hmmm, seems I was only half-right in my last post (which I failed to ping, sorry).

Here's what the Catechism has to say on drugs:

2290: The virtue of temperance disposes us to [i]avoid every kind of excess[/i]: 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 [i]use of drugs[/i] 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.

(italics in the original)

So their concern seems to be with abuse rather than use. They do make an exception for therapeutic drugs, and at least originally, that certainly applies to Rush. I suppose the circumstances under which he continued to use them would matter a great deal - if he was still taking them under a doctor's advice, I think it would have to fall under "therapeutic grounds" all along and he'd be pretty safe. If he went and continued using them on his own by getting them illegally, then yeah, it's pretty clear cut, he sinned big time, at least according to the Catholic Church. But even then, I think they would take the fact that it was "therapeutic grounds" that got him hooked in the first place into consideration and not make him have to do as much penance as would, say, a recreational junkie who got himself hooked, "optionally", so to speak.

By the way, just to restate my position - I'm for the favor of decriminalizing users (because of A) compassion, B) not all users are addicts and can function just fine) and C) we realllllly have better uses for the prisons), plus we need and decriminalizing marijuana altogether, because in EVERY conceivable way it's far less harmful than alcohol. In fact, I would recommend criminalizing alcohol and legalizing marijuana simultaneously. Prohibition of alcohol didn't work the first time, but we didn't replace it with anything, so we don't know if it would work. If marijuana were the only legal drug, we'd have a hell of a lot less car accidents. Stoned people don't want to drive - the only thing that'll drag 'em out on the road is the munchies, and even then only if no one's delivering. *chuckle*

Qwinn

2290: The virtue of temperance disposes us to [i]avoid every kind of excess[/i]: 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 [i]use of drugs[/i] 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.

I tend to agree with the 2290, but 2291 is obviously in error. The Bible very clearly condones the use of alcohol on happy occasions, yet it also clearly says drunkenness is a sin. This claim that simple use of a "drug" (like alcohol) is a grave sin is ridiculous on its face. This is the overriding of the wisdom of the Bible by idiotic Catholic clerics.

The problem I have with both Rush and Bennet is that they support laws that imprison people for simple use (or even possession) of a dozen or more drugs.

I also have trouble with demonizing "drug pushers" on this thread. Drug pushers are nothing more than the equivalent of liquor store owners, which I consider simple merchants. Just because some people abuse the product does not tranfer responsibility back on the merchant. Any more than a gun seller is responsible for a murder committed with a gun that he has sold.