Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Church Statement on Medical Marijuana


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

As usual, you feel the need to argue with me simply for the fact that I have written something (and do not necessarily engage anything I have actually written).  Hope it was fun! ;)  Have a lovely day! :)  

I was disagreeing with this comment.

Quote

 

But here's the problem with the "let's-not-waste-more-resources-attempting-to-enforce-the-unenforceable" argument: 

 

 

Sorry you didn't grasp what I was saying and why.  I think not wasting more resources attempting to enforce the unenforceable is a valid position to have when it comes to some marijuana laws.  I was giving my reasons why I feel it is a valid point to consider.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
16 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Have you been following the recent UK studies on pot and addiction?

No, though I've seen some of the headlines.  

15 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

But here's the problem with the "let's-not-waste-more-resources-attempting-to-enforce-the-unenforceable" argument: Even if one is absolutely correct that marijuana is harmless, the "why-enforce-the-unenforceable" argument is equally applicable to other drugs ... which are not so harmless:  Cocaine?  Heroin?  Methamphetamine?  Do we simply throw up our hands and legalize everything?  Libertarianism sounds really good, but it requires maintaining the fiction that actions which have been deemed illegal "wouldn't hurt anyone else" who does not engage in them, and however appealing it might be to posit the existence of such a vacuum on a theoretical level, it doesn't hold up in real life: Practically no such action "doesn't hurt anyone else."

I don't believe marijuana is harmless.  I wouldn't touch the stuff with a ten foot pole.  I do believe that it is not worth the effort, time and expense of being treated like a deadly plague that must be wiped out at all costs.  People smoke and chew tobacco, and die from ailments resulting therefrom -- are you willing to put tobacco onto the same list that marijuana is on?  

I tend to lean towards the extreme libertarian view of the matter. We might as well throw up our hands and legalize everything. If you want to screw your life up by drugging yourself, have at it.  But don't demand that I pay to fix you.  We allow people to drink alcohol, and put up with the side-effects, including the hurting of other people.  We allow people to jump out of airplanes that are going to land in a few minutes anyway, to climb mountains, raft wild rivers, and play dangerous sports like American football.  Is it the business of the State to keep us all from stubbing our toes?

I have a problem with how the enforcement of drug laws can easily lead to police departments doing things they shouldn't do.  There have been cases where policemen would carry little cloth bags of marijuana in their pocket, and just before the drug dog is supposed to sniff a car, they touch the bag then touch the car where the dog will smell it, causing the dog to alert. And thus give them "probable cause" to search the car without the owners permission, where the owner had previously asserted fourth amendment rights. And how some police departments have gained extra funding by civil forfeiture where drugs have been either found or "found".  Do you know how easy it is to plant marijuana seeds on someone's land?  One of my sons has a felony drug possession conviction because he was driving a car with a person he didn't know had drugs on him, and when the car was pulled over (and they recognized his passenger as a frequent-flyer, aka "usual suspect"), then searched, and he got busted. Because the passenger had hid his drug stash under the drivers seat.  Nobody believed they weren't my son's drugs.  You know how it goes: traveling with "bad company", sleeping with dogs and you wake up with fleas, etc.

As for Nanny State...

My wife has to put up with a fair amount of pain due to her arthritic knee, and she needs to take over-the-counter analgesics a few times per day to stay functional.  At least when she's doing a lot of walking and/or standing -- and with her occupation as theater nurse (assists surgeons), she does a lot of standing.  The British government, in its efforts to keep everyone from hurting themselves, makes it necessary for her to enter two to three different shops every few days in order to buy enough Tylenol or Ibuprofen to tide her over for a few days.  This is because the manufacturers are not allowed to put more than a few tablets (like 8 or 16) in any given package, and then consumers are not allowed to buy more than two packages at a time.  So she goes to shop #1 and buys two tylenols. Then shop #2 to get two ibuprofens.  Then sometimes another shop (or two) to get some more.  In the States, this would take one stop at the supermarket to buy a bottle of 100 of each.  A month's supply, or more for her, but she can't do that because the NANNY STATE is afraid she's going to stub her toe.  Oh, and yes, the fixed- or locking-blade knife that I routinely carry every day in the US had to be left behind when I came over to the UK, because people aren't allowed to carry any such knife around out in public.  Because, as you know, if you carry a knife there's a darned good chance you're going to flip out and stab the first person who looks at you funny.  Which does a lot of good, as you can see, since London is fast becoming an important city for knife crime.  As usual, criminals break laws.  And since London also gets frequent acid attacks, they're going to outlaw acid, too -- like that will help.  Also, Mayor Sadiq Khan stopped the police from doing "stop and search" (it's racist don't you know), and now the crims don't have to worry they'll be caught with knives OR acid.  

Sorry, I'm a little worked up over it.

 

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I tend to lean towards the extreme libertarian view of the matter. We might as well throw up our hands and legalize everything. If you want to screw your life up by drugging yourself, have at it.  But don't demand that I pay to fix you. 

There's the rub. No government is going to both a) go full libertarian, and b) refuse to pay for maintenance and medical care for people who trashed their bodies on drugs. So, the billions spent on medical care, welfare, etc. would continue, regardless of sentiments like "don't make me pay for it!"

This reminds me of the crocodile tear hand-wringing from liberal politicians who say, "Personally, I hate abortion! Despise it! Can't stand it! But I also strongly believe in a woman's right to choose abortion, if she wants it. But I really do hate it, personally! Can't stand it!"  

All those sentiments in the world won't and don't matter. We will end up paying handsomely to fix people and keep them alive with a roof over their heads if we go full libertarian. We already pay a lot, anyway, but it will be worse. 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Sorry you didn't grasp what I was saying and why.  I think not wasting more resources attempting to enforce the unenforceable is a valid position to have when it comes to some marijuana laws.

When you come right down to it, no law is  really enforceable. 

Link to comment
8 hours ago, rongo said:

There's the rub. No government is going to both a) go full libertarian, and b) refuse to pay for maintenance and medical care for people who trashed their bodies on drugs. So, the billions spent on medical care, welfare, etc. would continue, regardless of sentiments like "don't make me pay for it!"

This reminds me of the crocodile tear hand-wringing from liberal politicians who say, "Personally, I hate abortion! Despise it! Can't stand it! But I also strongly believe in a woman's right to choose abortion, if she wants it. But I really do hate it, personally! Can't stand it!"  

All those sentiments in the world won't and don't matter. We will end up paying handsomely to fix people and keep them alive with a roof over their heads if we go full libertarian. We already pay a lot, anyway, but it will be worse. 

Yes, I know we won't go full libertarian.  

Nothing and nobody on earth is perfect.  We must always settle for something much less than ideal.  The same is true for laws and how humans operate.  The ideal case is when we all permit our fellow men to go to hell on their own dime, as long as they don't drag anyone else unwillingly down with them.  The ideal case is seldom if ever reachable.  But do we then take Lucifer's Plan to heart, and force everyone into heaven?

You may think "crocodile" tears, but guess what? Abortion is committed against a third party, the fetus, who is an innocent party. If I take a drug, it is me, myself, and I that I am doing it to. Non-equivalent cases, rongo.  But you may ask, "But what about your friends and family who will be affected?"  My response is "What about them? Will you force me to conform to their will in all cases?  Or is my life my own?"  My late wife declined to undergo conventional cancer treatment, instead opting for completely non-effective "natural treatments". She paid for her misplaced faith in these things with her life.  This affected me, her children, and her friends.  We, our children, her sister, and I, all tried to convince her to go with the proven methods, but she refused.  Should we have been able to invoke the force of the State, and force her to have surgery, radiation and chemotherapy?  You may judge otherwise, but I think I prefer the principle of free agency.

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But do we then take Lucifer's Plan to heart, and force everyone into heaven?

You may judge otherwise, but I think I prefer the principle of free agency.

Why is the Church seeking to take away the agency of gay people when it comes to marriage? Isn’t that going some way towards Lucifers plan?

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment
13 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why is the Church seeking to take away the agency of gay people when it comes to marriage? Isn’t that going some way towards Lucifers plan?

Agency isn't the ability to do whatever I wish to do regardless of what the rules of a particular organization are.  Nobody who wishes to enter into a gay marriage is having his or her agency taken away by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or by God, any more than my agency would be taken away by any organization if I wanted to join it but refused to follow its rules.  I still have agency: I can choose to do whatever might be necessary to remain in good standing with the organization (e.g., I can follow its rules), or I can choose to disregard those rules if I choose other priorities.

 

Link to comment
4 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Agency isn't the ability to do whatever I wish to do regardless of what the rules of a particular organization are.  Nobody who wishes to enter into a gay marriage is having his or her agency taken away by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or by God, any more than my agency would be taken away by any organization if I wanted to join it but refused to follow its rules.  I still have agency: I can choose to do whatever might be necessary to remain in good standing with the organization (e.g., I can follow its rules), or I can choose to disregard those rules if I choose other priorities.

 

But the Church is seeking to take away the option of being married from gay people who are not, and wh do not wish to be part of the Church. It is actively seeking to reduce the agency of people who aren’t members.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

... Abortion is committed against a third party, the fetus, who is an innocent party. If I take a drug, it is me, myself, and I that I am doing it to. Non-equivalent cases, rongo.  But you may ask, "But what about your friends and family who will be affected?"  My response is "What about them? Will you force me to conform to their will in all cases?  Or is my life my own?"  

So the fetus didn't choose the abortion, that's why innocent third parties are relevant when it comes to abortion, but all of the sudden become irrelevant with respect to drug use?  Why?  Again, for libertarianism to work, you have to posit a vacuum (one that seals a person off from the rest of humanity who allegedly makes choices which affect only himself) which doesn't exist.  No one's life is his or her own.  One's choice to use drugs (or any of myriad similar choices) never affects only himself.  Those adversely affected by one's choice to use drugs (and no matter who he is, there are always such third parties) didn't choose the negative consequences which are bound to befall them either.

I don't particularly want to continue to exist in this "Groundhog Day" existence of mine in which I left a job answering phones, endured the emotional, mental, intellectual carnage of law school, graduated against all odds, and now ... am back answering phones, either. :rolleyes: I don't have a lot of friends.  I haven't confided the way I feel about my lot to many people outside of a couple of my closest family members.  I could say, "Well, they really don't know what I'm going through.  They don't really know how bad it is for me.  And even if I forfeit certain opportunities by doing myself in, and even if they'd miss me in the short run, so what?  We'd all get over those losses eventually, anyway.   Even at its worst, the life to come still has to be better than this.  And my desire to escape such an existence, and what I want, outweighs any drawbacks which might ensue from my choice, to myself or others."

Should I do it?  The libertarian position says, "Why not?"  I don't have a wife!  I don't have kids!  My coworkers and superiors might miss me ... for every second of the fifteen minutes it would take them to select my replacement!  Our recruitment manager or our human resources manager has a resume on her desk or in her files (they're both women) right now from someone who is every bit as qualified (and probably more qualified) to do my job than I am!  Goodbye, $40K-plus in student loan debt for that useless law degree (death is the only way to escape repaying student loans; they're not even dischargeable in bankruptcy)!

The pluses do seem to greatly outweigh the minuses, and, after all, it's my life and my choice!

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When you come right down to it, no law is  really enforceable. 

Outside of totalitarian regimes, the vast majority of law-abidingness depends on voluntary compliance.

Link to comment
22 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

But the Church is seeking to take away the option of being married from gay people who are not, and wh do not wish to be part of the Church. It is actively seeking to reduce the agency of people who aren’t members.

OK, so you think that churches and their adherents shouldn't have a voice in the political process.  The way things are going, someday soon, you'll probably get your wish. :rolleyes: 

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

You may think "crocodile" tears, but guess what? Abortion is committed against a third party, the fetus, who is an innocent party. If I take a drug, it is me, myself, and I that I am doing it to. Non-equivalent cases, rongo.  But you may ask, "But what about your friends and family who will be affected?"  My response is "What about them? Will you force me to conform to their will in all cases?  Or is my life my own?"  My late wife declined to undergo conventional cancer treatment, instead opting for completely non-effective "natural treatments". She paid for her misplaced faith in these things with her life.  This affected me, her children, and her friends.  We, our children, her sister, and I, all tried to convince her to go with the proven methods, but she refused.  Should we have been able to invoke the force of the State, and force her to have surgery, radiation and chemotherapy?  You may judge otherwise, but I think I prefer the principle of free agency.

I was thinking of it, not from the angle of agency (on which we largely agree), but rather from the angle of effects on society and community, productivity, public safety, welfare, etc. There are financial and social costs to full-out libertarianism in this regard, and it will never simply be "on their own dime" to throw their lives away with drugs. 

I think back to the sister in my ward who has terminal cancer who tried marijuana for pain management, and it worked wonderfully, but she was stoned. She decided she wanted to live what life she has left not being stoned, so she lives with the pain and sews and spends time with her daughter and granddaughter. She brought us a bunch of jam she had made, too. I also know former students, former ward members, etc. who live their lives stoned for no real reason, really, other than the Rausch (Das ist dir ein Begriff, nehm' ich an). There are financial, familial, community, and social costs to this, and so I think it's worth discouraging as a society. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

OK, so you think that churches and their adherents shouldn't have a voice in the political process.  The way things are going, someday soon, you'll probably get your wish. :rolleyes: 

Not when it has no implication whatsoever on the operation of that religion.

Individuals have a right to vote however they wish, but institutional peer pressure on adherents to vote a certain way on a matter that will change nothing about how that religion operates, is unjustifiable. It’s unrighteous dominion.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

But the Church is seeking to take away the option of being married from gay people who are not, and wh do not wish to be part of the Church. It is actively seeking to reduce the agency of people who aren’t members.

The same argument can be made for any unorthodox or unnatural mating. Examples....group, polygamous, incestual, or intra-species.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

So the fetus didn't choose the abortion, that's why innocent third parties are relevant when it comes to abortion, but all of the sudden become irrelevant with respect to drug use?  Why?  Again, for libertarianism to work, you have to posit a vacuum (one that seals a person off from the rest of humanity who allegedly makes choices which affect only himself) which doesn't exist.  No one's life is his or her own.  One's choice to use drugs (or any of myriad similar choices) never affects only himself.  Those adversely affected by one's choice to use drugs (and no matter who he is, there are always such third parties) didn't choose the negative consequences which are bound to befall them either.

I don't particularly want to continue to exist in this "Groundhog Day" existence of mine in which I left a job answering phones, endured the emotional, mental, intellectual carnage of law school, graduated against all odds, and now ... am back answering phones, either. :rolleyes: I don't have a lot of friends.  I haven't confided the way I feel about my lot to many people outside of a couple of my closest family members.  I could say, "Well, they really don't know what I'm going through.  They don't really know how bad it is for me.  And even if I forfeit certain opportunities by doing myself in, and even if they'd miss me in the short run, so what?  We'd all get over those losses eventually, anyway.   Even at its worst, the life to come still has to be better than this.  And my desire to escape such an existence, and what I want, outweighs any drawbacks which might ensue from my choice, to myself or others."

Should I do it?  The libertarian position says, "Why not?"  I don't have a wife!  I don't have kids!  My coworkers and superiors might miss me ... for every second of the fifteen minutes it would take them to select my replacement!  Our recruitment manager or our human resources manager has a resume on her desk or in her files (they're both women) right now from someone who is every bit as qualified (and probably more qualified) to do my job than I am!  Goodbye, $40K-plus in student loan debt for that useless law degree (death is the only way to escape repaying student loans; they're not even dischargeable in bankruptcy)!

The pluses do seem to greatly outweigh the minuses, and, after all, it's my life and my choice!

God bless you, Brother Kenngo.

Link to comment
4 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

But the Church is seeking to take away the option of being married from gay people who are not, and wh do not wish to be part of the Church. It is actively seeking to reduce the agency of people who aren’t members.

Do you really think the church has the power to do that? I don't think so. The church is merely standing up for what it believes is important for the welfare of the country and the families in the country.
It is simply voicing an opinion. If the majority of Americans want same sex marriage then it will happen and the church, while not agreeing with it, will accept the decision, but will keep the restriction within its own membership.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

The same argument can be made for any unorthodox or unnatural mating. Examples....group, polygamous, incestual, or intra-species.

I'm actually a big fan of intraspecific marriage!  I would fight against any efforts to ban it! 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

Ironic.

I note you you are making marriage synonymous with mating. Which is nonsense. 

For most of human history, mating was marriage's very raison d'etre. Thank goodness your oh-so-enlightened self finally has arrived to set hundreds of millions of people through eons of time all straight! :rolleyes: If I were a betting man, I'd bet that if I looked up the word hubris in the dictionary, I'd see your picture. 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
11 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

For most of human history, mating was marriage's very raison d'etre

Was mating the very raison d’etre for all of Joseph’s marriages then?

Here’s something interesting...

https://www.livescience.com/37777-history-of-marriage.html

Quote

Marriage is a truly ancient institution that predates recorded history. But early marriage was seen as a strategic alliance between families, with the youngsters often having no say in the matter. In some cultures, parents even married one child to the spirit of a deceased child in order to strengthen familial bonds, Coontz said.

 

Edited by Marginal Gains
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Not when it has no implication whatsoever on the operation of that religion.

Individuals have a right to vote however they wish, but institutional peer pressure on adherents to vote a certain way on a matter that will change nothing about how that religion operates, is unjustifiable. It’s unrighteous dominion.

So the only valid concerns of the religiously devout, and, therefore, the only reason for allowing them to participate in the political process, is to prevent whatever adverse consequences might befall their specific denomination or sect!  OK, gotcha.  Thanks for clarifying. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Marginal Gains said:

Was mating the very raison d’etre for all of Joseph’s marriages then?

Marriage isn't simply about what happens in mortality, particularly not for the religiously deout, Marginal Gains ... not, of course, that I would expect someone operating from a purely humanistic perspective to understand that.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Ironic.

I note you you are making marriage synonymous with mating. Which is nonsense. 

Bernard Gui, you Little You-You, You! :D:rofl::D 

[This exchange takes place after Captain B.F. Pierce had just done something else on the long list of things he did to infuriate Major Frank Burns over the years]

Major Frank Burns: "You—you ..."

Captain B.F. "Hawkeye" Pierce [Indignantly]: "Who're you calling a 'you-you'?"

 

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Why is the Church seeking to take away the agency of gay people when it comes to marriage? Isn’t that going some way towards Lucifers plan?

No.

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...