- status of a friend:
- I have been struggling with the issue of whether or not marijuana should be legal. It has always been one of those few things that I have been unsure of, leaning towards a "drug control" position. At the same time, I do not believe people should be imprisoned for its use. I do not believe that legislators have any right telling us what we can or cannot do (who are they? they are mere man, not God!), yet, if a law is necessary for the common good of society (to enforce God's laws), then it's fine. Marijuana is a plant, and there is certainly nothing inherently evil about it, yet, it is damaging to the brain, and I am afraid that its legalisation would expose people to its smoke, and possibly cause an increase in accidents. Then I thought about something: cigarettes. Cigarettes are perfectly legal, yet, nobody smokes anymore. Literally. When I was a child, most men smoked cigarettes (like my father), and cigarette smoke was unavoidable. People also thought nothing of children being exposed to it. Nowadays, if a parent smokes around a child, I bet CPS would get involved. I may see a person smoking once every few months, at most, nowadays. Why? Awareness. Nowadays, people know better. Marijuana should be made legal, but, the public needs to be educated on its benefits and risks. Addicts need pastoral counselling and medical help, not imprisonment. As my father says, "We send these people to jail, and in jail, they lift weights and become stronger, befriend real criminals, and then become real criminals." But, before the government legalises marijuana, I think they first need to legalise raw milk. I mean, goodness, marijuana being legal, but raw milk not? That would be greatly illogical, and I care far more about raw milk than I do about marijuana. I have never seen it, no less smoked it (there is an advantage to my lack of socialisation when I was younger), nor will I ever!
- GP (a friend of hers but not of mine)
- *rolls eyes*
"I do not believe that legislators have any right telling us what we can or cannot do."
Yes they can. Learn your faith.
- A King has a God-given right to govern and carry out God's laws, but what right do mere men have in coming up with laws that have nothing to do with God's?
Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.
You're supposed to obey just rulers, and abide by the decisions that they think will lead to a harmonious society.
You don't have a God-given right to smoke marijuana, so it's not an unjust law.
2/10. Try harder.
- Paul D
- It's useful to separate whether something should be illegal and how an offender might be punished.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- GP, one has no God-given right to smoke oneself HIGH on marijuana, any more than to drink oneself DRUNK on alcohol. Do I make certain distinctions clear?
I kind of hear an echo of the heresy by which drinking alcohol under US prohibition (back then) or under Saudi prohibition (right now) is mortally sinful, since "not" rendering to Caesar what is Caesar's.
As to punishment, where it is punished there are countries that put both users and dealers into prison, but others were possession of a moderate quantity for personal use is no offense to be punished (except by confiscation, perhaps).
- Prohibition of marijuana does far more harm than good. It's already illegal and they already educate you in public school on what it does to you but the teens who want to smoke it do so anyway. If you're under 21 it's literally easier to obtain than alcohol. As an aside: the biggest joke is how the State uses up countless resources on marijuana prohibition but does nothing about corporations that glorify marijuana or the stoner counter-culture way of life (rap "artists" like Pittsburghers Wiz Khalifa and Mac Miller, both promoted by MTV, come to mind).
Assuming smoking marijuana to be a mortal sin (which an SSPX priest, Fr. Bergez, told me it is; I've tried researching what the Magisterium has taught and it seems that smoking marijuana in relation to diabolical activity, e.g., the ceremonies of witches, was condemned but I am not sure if this prohibition applied to smoking marijuana per se, as in either for simple recreation or to treat health problems) I would say that even if smoking marijuana per se is a mortal sin than the State should still not concern itself (similar to how the State should not concern itself with people masturbating in their bedrooms). We need to follow the dictum as much as possible to "let the sinner confess to the priest and not the magistrate".
- all things can be abused. laws exist for the common good and safety of all. I am definitely pro criminilization of marijuana
- Marijuana can be used for useful things. Stoners and drunks who do stupid things should be arrested.
- It just seems illogical to criminalise it. I mean, alcohol can be abused too - does that mean it should be criminalised? Educational awareness is the solution. I personally do not see the need for it, but it seems silly to jail someone just for using marijuana. Also, like I said, an addict has a medical problem, and needs rehab, not jail. Also, it seems to be a white-collar drug - at least 50% of college professors smoke marijuana (and half of those make it known). What would Chesterton say?
- actually I am a prohibitionist. and majijuana causes brain damage (self harm so contrary to catholic faith) and most proffessors...........well, most proffessors are modernist heretics at best. ban it.
- Dale Ahlquist said, "Chesterton can see from a century ago that the world was headed to a time when smoking a cigar would be considered more offensive than performing an abortion." Replace "a cigar" with "marijuana". I think I agree.
- i think both are bad. though abortion is obviously worse. yet i think we should "practice the former without neglecting the latter" in this case.
- Smoking weed should not be taken lightly, however. From what I have seen it do to others I cannot say its social use can be compared to alcohol.
- Can I put 2 "likes" or more on JB's post? And really, should marijuana be a federal offense? This is ridiculous! States or communities could still ban it if they wanted to, and they would probably give a much lesser sentence. Some cities don't allow the sale of alcohol. Where I live, the county does not allow the sale of alcohol, but cities in the county can decide for themselves. Outside city limits, it is not allowed. I don't smoke marijuana so I'm not sure if it would be detrimental for the community such as people driving while under the influence or working etc. But if the govt does not outlaw alcohol, why should it outlaw marijuana?
As for smoking cigarettes, it seems the main ones I see smoking are traditional Catholic young people at wedding receptions! LOL
- JB, I go back and forth deciding whether the magistrate should be a priest, or not. TP, "laws exist for the common good and safety of all." That is not true. And, the average person's idea of what is "good" is usually not a Catholic's idea of it. I do not believe that someone should be arrested until they commit a crime (theft, murder, etc). Yes, marijuana causes brain damage and most professors are modern heretics at best, but also, something to consider: the issue with a controlling government is: look at the government who gets to decide what to ban and what to allow. Do you really want them having that much freedom? Seriously though, there is a serious serious problem when abortion-, for the most part,-on-demand is legal and raw milk is illegal, yet marijuana is the "big issue".
On a further note: I definitely believe in the criminalisation of prostitution (although I know trad men who will argue with me), as well as casinos, and other facilities for gambling. Also, the lottery.
- TP (quoting St Thomas Aquinas)
- Objection 1. It would seem that the law is not always directed to the common good as to its end. For it belongs to law to command and to forbid. But commands are directed to certain individual goods. Therefore the end of the law is not always the common good.
Objection 2. Further, the law directs man in his actions. But human actions are concerned with particular matters. Therefore the law is directed to some particular good.
Objection 3. Further, Isidore says (Etym. v, 3): "If the law is based on reason, whatever is based on reason will be a law." But reason is the foundation not only of what is ordained to the common good, but also of that which is directed private good. Therefore the law is not only directed to the good of all, but also to the private good of an individual.
On the contrary, Isidore says (Etym. v, 21) that "laws are enacted for no private profit, but for the common benefit of the citizens."
I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), the law belongs to that which is a principle of human acts, because it is their rule and measure. Now as reason is a principle of human acts, so in reason itself there is something which is the principle in respect of all the rest: wherefore to this principle chiefly and mainly law must needs be referred. Now the first principle in practical matters, which are the object of the practical reason, is the last end: and the last end of human life is bliss or happiness, as stated above (2, 7; 3, 1). Consequently the law must needs regard principally the relationship to happiness. Moreover, since every part is ordained to the whole, as imperfect to perfect; and since one man is a part of the perfect community, the law must needs regard properly the relationship to universal happiness. Wherefore the Philosopher, in the above definition of legal matters mentions both happiness and the body politic: for he says (Ethic. v, 1) that we call those legal matters "just, which are adapted to produce and preserve happiness and its parts for the body politic": since the state is a perfect community, as he says in Polit. i, 1.
Now in every genus, that which belongs to it chiefly is the principle of the others, and the others belong to that genus in subordination to that thing: thus fire, which is chief among hot things, is the cause of heat in mixed bodies, and these are said to be hot in so far as they have a share of fire. Consequently, since the law is chiefly ordained to the common good, any other precept in regard to some individual work, must needs be devoid of the nature of a law, save in so far as it regards the common good. Therefore every law is ordained to the common good.
Reply to Objection 1. A command denotes an application of a law to matters regulated by the law. Now the order to the common good, at which the law aims, is applicable to particular ends. And in this way commands are given even concerning particular matters.
Reply to Objection 2. Actions are indeed concerned with particular matters: but those particular matters are referable to the common good, not as to a common genus or species, but as to a common final cause, according as the common good is said to be the common end.
Reply to Objection 3. Just as nothing stands firm with regard to the speculative reason except that which is traced back to the first indemonstrable principles, so nothing stands firm with regard to the practical reason, unless it be directed to the last end which is the common good: and whatever stands to reason in this sense, has the nature of a law.
Saint Thomas Aquinas
I-II, Q 90, A2 Whether the law is always something directed to the common good?
[Note that the question St Thomas answered was not whether everything in the common good could be law. Furthermore the authority of St Isidore precludes the private good of shrinks and even the merely private good of people saved from health problems by constraint from being grounds for legislation.]
- Penance is better than jail time. Modern jail is Hell, especially for White men. These convictions also ruin your life in terms of future job prospects and the like. The Police State truly is conducive towards despair.
- The Law exists for the common good of all. That is catholic teaching. and this whole debate about Big government and limited government is a debate for seculeerists in my opinion. it operates on a completely different notion of freedom besides that embraced by holy mother church. I agree JB, Jails need to be reformed. I am a big fan of restorative Justice. Prisons exist solely for reforming criminals to save their souls and to protect society. Sadly both right wing and left wing seculerists don't seem willing to acknowledge this.
- Thomas, I wanted to "like" your comment after the first bit.
But then you got into the whole "jails are too mean" thing.
No. The purpose of prison is punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. In that order.
- between GP and friend
- a discussion of their personal relations ending on
- GP (of which I give only part related to subject, at first overlooked by me)
- In other news, the arguments for marijuana legalization here are weak, at best.
TP very nicely demolished the idea that governments can't criminalize things for the common good--as well as the idiotic idea that smoking pot is some sort of civil right.
So we're down to the practical.
There is a well documented link between smoking marijuana and serious mental illness (Schizophrenia). Causation is now proven for those under 18--it's in the textbooks. There are no studies yet for adults, just heavy correlation and suspicion. "But causation doesn't equal correlation." That's what they said for smoking and lung cancer.
It's funny that all of the talking points about how safe marijuana is, come literally word for word from the legalization campaigns of the 60's, before THC was ever isolated.
The link between cannabis and mental illness was known in the Middle East before the Western world had really even heard of it.
The most shocking thing about the adolescent studies is that they show there is no safe amount to smoke. Any use increases your risk, with illness appearing many times decades after complete cessation of use.
By contrast, risk of lung and throat cancer, 15 years after quitting smoking, are almost identical to that of a lifelong non-smoker.
Alcohol isn't even on the same playing field. Alcohol can, and is, enjoyed for its taste and texture (is that the word?), either stand alone or with meals.
Alcohol in moderation does not seem to have any long term health effects. The "beer belly" is well known--but this can be put off by diet and exercise. Or by switching to wine or cocktails.
Wine seems to actually be beneficial for long term health.
Marijuana, on the other hand, doesn't have any use except its psychoactive effects. Even tobacco can be enjoyed for flavor, like a hookah.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "marijuana tends to lead folks to go on to the harder, more addictive drugs"
1) may be because it is illegal like cocaine and opium/opiates and lsd and *ugh*
2) not everywhere so, confer coffee shops of Amsterdam and Christiania
I forgot: in Europe much of the illegal marijuana or hashish is smuggled in from Muslim countries. Just like petrol, though that is legal. Unlike petrol, hemp can be grown in Europe.
JB, I very much agree with this:
"I've tried researching what the Magisterium has taught and it seems that smoking marijuana in relation to diabolical activity, e.g., the ceremonies of witches, was condemned but I am not sure if this prohibition applied to smoking marijuana per se, as in either for simple recreation or to treat health problems"
As far as I know it was not condemned per se. At least until recently.
[@TP]Should human law repress all vices?
I-II, Q96, A2, Whether it belongs to human law to repress all vices?
Now, the good of abstaining from marijuana and even the good of abstaining from getting high - is it a common good of men living together peacefully, or is it a private good of the virtuous? I would say the latter. Just like the good of not getting drunk.
- What the don't tell you about Amsterdam is that hard drugs are pretty seriously illegal in the Netherlands.
What they also don't tell you is that gangs are still involved in legal cannabis production.
Gangs are not just going to give up their main source of income and go on the level.
And potheads, being potheads, being lazy and stupid, will just continue to go to their old dealers.
"Medical marijuana" is a joke in California. You just go to the marijuana cafes (which sell marijuana grown by hippies, all organic style, checked for bugs under a microscope), and right there is a doctor who will write you a prescription for it for "high heel pain" or depression (without a real 1.5 hour intake that any psychiatrist will do). You are then in the state system and can buy wherever, no problem.
Yet-the Mexican gangs are still growing it illegally. They are growing it in Yosemite National Park. They are using toxic pesticides like Furadan and dumping into city water supplies.
Oh, and there are still shootings outside marijuana cafes. Gangs are still fighting over Telegraph Avenue in Oakland, block by block.
What's more, marijuana will never be rid of its reputation as a "counter-culture" drug, whether it is legal or illegal. It has always been a pursuit of the "counter culture" in its short history in Western Civilization, and always will be. So it will be a gateway to other drugs, it will be associated with real criminality.
The Pot Legalization crowd doesn't want to hear any of this, I know. They react with ignorant, stupid rage about all of this.
Before anyone brings up Prohibition, read this again, plus my comments on alcohol in the other post, and realize the situations are completely different, and that I've essentially addressed this already.
If you still don't get it after you've read, I'll spell it out for you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "What the don't tell you about Amsterdam is that hard drugs are pretty seriously illegal in the Netherlands."
Exactly: hard drugs are treated harsher than marijuana. As is the case in Christiania.
- No, Hans, it's not "just like getting drunk". Read my comments on alcohol and tobacco before you. Cannabis leads to Schizophrenia. Cannabis cannot be enjoyed without its psychoactive effects. Please read my whole comment.
[I did not say even that getting high was just like getting drunk, I said that getting high differred from a lesser but stell psychoactive euphoria just as getting drunk differred from a lesser but still psychoactive euphoria, often referred to as getting tipsy.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You are wrong. First of all for believing in schizophrenia. Second because you fudge the distinction between psychoactive and getting high. Before one gets high on cannabis, one gets euphoric. Before one gets drunk on alcohol, also one gets euphoric. I believe my point stands, yours does not. Schizophrenia is a diagnosis which can be used against people loyal to a counterculture - in some countries it is used against Bible believing Christians, like YEC. It is ideological rather than medical.
But I do grant that if you use too much of either cannabis or alcohol, you do burn your brain out. I have seen one mad man who probably did exactly that. That however also applies to neuroleptic medication prescribed by psychiatrists and sometimes forced into patients against their will, either by physical force or by threats of such with harder neuroleptics if pill / solution is not taken.
- Replace schizophrenia with "serious mental illness characterized by hallucinations".
I don't believe I used the word "high". I used the word psychoactive.
No, none of these comparisons to alcohol make any sense, for the above reasons.
Drunks don't burn out their brains. Once they sober up, they are fine.
Potheads, on the other hand, do burn out. I've seen 16 year old burn outs.
Is anyone advocating using neuroleptics for fun? No. So why the comparison?
More libertarian delusions and pothead conspiracy theories. You're actually comparing potheads to Christians in the Soviet Union.
If you think stupefying yourself with drugs is a civil right, you have a twisted idea of liberty.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "I don't believe I used the word 'high'. I used the word psychoactive."
Exactly, you fudged the distinction between euphoric and high, just as Muslims fudge the distinction between euphoric and drunk.
"Drunks don't burn out their brains. Once they sober up, they are fine. "
Not if they get drunk every day or other for years and years, no. They may get back to acceptable decency, but not to full functioning brain. Every drunkenness kills some brain cells, you kill enough by getting drunk too often, you have a disabled brain.
"Replace schizophrenia with "serious mental illness characterized by hallucinations"."
A rose by any other name is still a rose. Most schizophrenic "hallucinations" are "auditory hallucinations" and most such are not such at all, but simply emotional relevance of an inner voice.
You hear in your mind someone you can speak to calmly later, you don't feel a need to blurt out an answer. You hear, still in your mind, the comment of someone you cannot reach or won't dare speak openly to when he reaches you, sooner or later you will blurt out answers.
I call it Ben Gunn's syndrome, and it is triggered by loneliness and by humiliation. It has nothing to do with hallucinations, which are sensory experiences without sensory objects.
"You're actually comparing potheads to Christians in the Soviet Union."
Insofar as it is a question of counterculture, they are comparable as victims of psychiatry. Obviously the potheads as you call them are rebels for a less good cause. But either way, psychiatrists find ways to twist what are statements of loyalty and belief into "reactions to hallucinations".
And the psychiatry that is doing it is also comparable, US shrinks as well as Swedish ones collaborated "scientifically" with Chrustchev's.
You were yourself twisting a statement of belief into a "symptom", I quote:
"More libertarian delusions and pothead conspiracy theories."
- Okay, you are just ridiculous now. I don't even know what to say. People don't have visual and auditory hallucinations, according to you? Have you ever worked for a day in a hospital? Do you have one day of scientific training? Probably not.
You probably would attempt to cure Ebola with magic vitamins and herbs you order online, too.
Potheads are rebels for a cause that is satanic--The overthrow of Western Civilization. Their mental illness is real. That's why they stab people to death randomly, because they think someone is a demon tormenting them.
You are a delusional conspiracy theorist. Just like most libertarians, and it seems, Trad catholics.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- "Is anyone advocating using neuroleptics for fun? No. So why the comparison?"
It is fun enough for those holding the syringes and condemning others to take them.
But the comparison is that some doctors think they can burn out brains much for their own fun without consent of the people whose brains they are blowing out, whereas they think they can forbid people to burn their own brains out - a bit less sometimes - when it is for their own fun [rather than the fun of the doctors].
People don't have visual and auditory hallucinations, according to you?"
Not half or one tenth as much as psychiatry says.
"You probably would attempt to cure Ebola with magic vitamins and herbs you order online, too."
Viruses are visible objects that can be studied in microscopes regardless of ideological match or mismatch betwen doctor and patient.
"That's why they stab people to death randomly, because they think someone is a demon tormenting them."
If it is a shrink, it is demon tormenting them, more often than not. Or rather, a man behaving like a demon. Same applies if it is one "surrounding" condemning one to shrinks.
And, unlike what you seem to think, Christian Civilisation was not built on Modern Psychiatry.
- Medications that may be harmful are given under the supervision of physicians, when, in the view of the physician (and, if applicable, the consent of the patient), the risks of treatment are less than the risks of not treating the patient. Neuroleptics are given under these circumstances. It's not "for fun" . It's for treatment--and again within strict parameters, when the risks are justified.
Cannabis is smoked purely for fun, usually without even knowledge of its risks.
It's funny, for all of your paranoid, conspiracy-driven rantings about psychiatry inflicting drugs upon people, you're the one that is actually trying to cover up the danger of drugs!
You're the one attacking others for telling the truth about cannabis, and spreading misinformation yourself!
Whatever your paranoid rantings, mentally ill people do kill passersby randomly. They are a danger to themselves and others. And their mental illness is usually related to cannabis.
There is no connection between cannabis use and Christianity. Stop trying to make this stupid connection. It is not going to work on me.
"And, unlike what you seem to think, Christian Civilisation was not built on Modern Psychiatry."
You are quite possibly the dumbest person I've argued with online. What even brought on this statement? Who said or implied anything like this?
You are too stupid to follow the argument.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You pretend the risks are justified. You also neglect real risks that are not taken into account.
Your pretence of "justified" risks depends on correctness of assessment of shrink. A very moot point, and the shrink is fully comparable to diabolists and to sadists, often enough.
Your pretence of supervision eliminating or limiting reasonably the risks depends on neglecting the doctor's capacity for collaborating economically with certain pharmaceutical companies.
And a capacity for saying of a patient with a brain burnt out by neuroleptics "calmer, fares better" ...
"you're the one that is actually trying to cover up the danger of drugs!"
A blatant lie. I did state very well that too much of either cannabis or alcohol will burn a brain out by killing brain cells. Same applies to neuroleptics.
"mentally ill people do kill passersby randomly."
A very few of the ones so diagnosed.
"They are a danger to themselves and others."
[The] madness is one but not a comparatively very common reason to brand one as mentally ill.
" And their mental illness is usually related to cannabis."
Burnt out brains do exist, and some have cannabis to blame for it. So does Satanism, which in some cases or pretty often involves digging into drugs. So does, for that matter hypnosis.
How many cases have we, where the "random killing of a passer by" involved a victim involved in psychiatric activities? How many other cases do we have where a hypnotic treatment was either gone wrong or deliberately abused by therapist? And, how many cases do we see where psychiatry had already deprived the killer of any decent expectations for his worldly life?
Three men were recently involved in a shooting of one Australian. Sure they could all expect getting jobs or making companies and getting wives and making children? Sure none of the three had had their life previously ruined by shrinks?
I had said: unlike what you seem to think, Christian Civilisation was not built on Modern Psychiatry.
You answer: "Who said or implied anything like this?"
You are basically implying we must support modern psychiatry against potheads (not just satanists or revolutionaries, simply potheads) in order to save the Christian Civilisation - if that is what you mean by The Western Civilisation to the owerthrow of which potheads are apparently devoted.
You could of course mean that Modern Western Civilisation, with Modern Psychiatry, is sacrosanct so that trying to overthrow it (even by peaceful or rational means) is somehow satanic. But that would in my eyes once again stamp you as a bad heretic or apostate.
- If you aren't trying to cover up the danger of drugs, why are you still going on about this? Why not just concede how dangerous marijuana is and move on?
Alcohol is in no way comparable to marijuana, as I've made clear, and you have not argued. Please read all that I have written in my first two points. You are indeed denying the danger by suggesting it is in any way similar to alcohol, when in fact decades after the cessation of minimal use of cannabis, serious mental illness can occur. This is in no way similar to the dangers posed by alcohol, which recede after cessation, and which can be avoided by minimal intake.
I'd let this argument go, but I don't want to give you the last word, and have someone come along and actually think you're right.
You're a paranoid conspiracy theorist. Are you a Scientologist?
I've never heard of someone whose alcoholism, 10 years after he'd last had a sip of alcohol, makes him hallucinate monsters and demons, thinks the KGB is trying to kill him with poisoned leaves, etc. This is quite common on cannabis.
And these people are extremely dangerous to themselves and others.
If you don't deny these dangers, why are you arguing with me?
In these cases, generally the mentally ill people refuse to take their psychiatric medicines, or to even go to a doctor in the first place. Or even, for that matter, to a homeless shelter.
The three that shot the Australian were drug dealing gang members. Oh, and guess what drug they deal? Cannabis.
They can't expect anything out of life because they are drug dealing gangbangers.
I'm thinking you have got to be trolling me.
I bet you think AIDS is spread by psychiatrists too, don't you?
What are you going to tell me next, psychiatrists are responsible for 9/11? Or is that humanoid reptilian lizardmen from Alpha Draconis? Or is psychiatry actually run by humanoid reptilian lizardmen from Alpha Draconis?
Not only are you a paranoid conspiracy theorist (you make the moon landing people look reasonable), you also can't follow an argument.
You tried to compare Christians in the Soviet Union to potheads, saying the potheads just had a less just cause.
I said, there is no comparison, because the potheads' cause is not just at all; their cause is overthrowing Western Civilization with their habit of using, popularizing, and spreading this horrendously dangerous, stupefying, madness inducing, drug.
You read "Gabriel thinks Psychiatry created Western Civilization" into that, because you are paranoid-delusional, can't read, and incapable of learning anything.
What do you do for a living?
Understand now? Why are you going on about psychiatry? How old are you? What do you do for a living?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- You had a Calvinist or Methodist grandfather or something? Or, despite Hispanic ancestry, you schooling or your parents was under some Republican idiots (not to mention they adore Albert Pike)? You take the tone of an unduly suspicious police officer, or of the Communist customs officials of Roumania who searched my stepfather's bag for an hour.
"If you aren't trying to cover up the danger of drugs, why are you still going on about this? Why not just concede how dangerous marijuana is and move on?"
Because I am not rolling over flat under you, dude.
Because you are the kind of person that gives a bad name to the word "paranoid" to some of the most normal people using it.
"Alcohol is in no way comparable to marijuana, as I've made clear, and you have not argued."
Oh, I very much did argue there is a difference between euphoria and more advanced stages of intoxication, and you have not argued. You have only tried to cover up my argument by shuffling "high" (my term for more advanced intoxication) with "psychoactive effects" (which would by definition include mere euphoria).
"when in fact decades after the cessation of minimal use of cannabis, serious mental illness can occur ... no way similar to the dangers posed by alcohol, which recede after cessation, and which can be avoided by minimal intake."
One can get high two weeks after using cannabis. So called backflash. If one got high in the first place, or if the slow intake would have made one high if taken faster.
It is not likely to happen if original consummation was only to euphoric stage and not to any advanced intoxication.
And I am not taking your word for either the proposition that the cases you refer to are all or most of them seriously mentally ill, nor for the proposition that those who are it was caused by cannabis, nor for the proposition that when it was caused by cannabis it was a minimal intake to euphoric levels rather than building up to a burnt out brain - like repeated binges can do over a few decades as well.
And I am not taking the word of your sources either.
"You're a paranoid conspiracy theorist."
Are you trying to give the word "paranoid" a good reputation?
You might be interested to know, or rather people more decent than you might be interested to know (you might be rather irritated) that Nixon coined the words "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorist" - about people suspecting him of conspiracy. Then came Watergate.
"Are you a Scientologist?"
No. For two reasons: as a Roman Catholic I cannot agree with Hubbard's Voltairean defense of absolute freedom of religion. And though I do not consider Dianetics worse than Hypnotherapy, I do not consider it as much better either.
But I do support CCHR.
And I do insist that the Spanish Inquisition showed better sense about St Ignatius of Loyola than modern shrinks would have done.
"I've never heard of someone whose alcoholism, 10 years after he'd last had a sip of alcohol, makes him hallucinate monsters and demons, thinks the KGB is trying to kill him with poisoned leaves, etc."
Delirium Tremens can happen during a very bad binge or during a very bad abstinence after a binge. Backflashes happen up to two weeks after cannabis. If there are years between alcohol and something reminding of delirium tremens, or years between cannabis and something reminding of a very bad trip, one can reasonably rule out alcohol or cannabis as cause.
Of course, repeated binge drinking and repeated deep tripping on cannabis can burn out the brain, and so a burnt out brain can even years afterwards be an easier victim for whatever causes whatever the troubles are. That is also the case if the brain has been burned out by years of neuroleptics taken under constraint.
But let us take a closer look at your criteria for madness:
"... makes him hallucinate monsters and demons, thinks the KGB is trying to kill him with poisoned leaves, etc."
A) Monster occasionally exist, either by genetic deviation or by demons producing such forms, as was the case with La Gratusse that St Front of Perigueux exoricised and it drowned itself in the river and turned to stone (probably what the demon had used as materials in the first place)
B) Demons exist, they are able to show themselves to others as themselves (or be shown to them as themselves), to show themselves to others as "angels of light", to show up non-existent things in order to frighten or puzzle or "delude even sane men" (the last few words are from St Augustine).
C) When either KGB or psychiatry start to meddle with a person, funny things start to happen around him. People he thought he could rely on are testing him on behalf of someone else or rather of something else than their previous friendship. To in such a case suspect KGB rather than the shrinks may well be an act of charity and goodwill or even of foolhardy optimism.
And obviously, the people who get shrinks looking at them are very probably in some cases people who used cannabis - since that is one way where suspicions of shrinks tend to lie.
Equally, people who are satanists have both a tendency to be looked at by shrinks and get visits of uncomfortable kinds from demons and to have been using cannabis in the past. Speaking of demons, I wonder how many of them came out of cannabis through Narcotics Anonymous or similar Twelve Step (syncretistic, collectively auto-idolatrous = demonic).
"And these people are extremely dangerous to themselves and others."
The psychiatrists would like to think so - in order to justify the spying, in order to justify the taking care of, in order to justify the medications imposed.
"In these cases, generally the mentally ill people refuse to take their psychiatric medicines, or to even go to a doctor in the first place. Or even, for that matter, to a homeless shelter."
There are pretty solid reasons to avoid homeless shelters.
To get sleep in them, ideally one should come to the doors as a gang of comrades and insist of getting the same dorm and no others in it. Then you can get some sleep there.
Or if you get earplugs.
Or if you consume drugs that increase capacity of sleep - prescribed by doctors (rohypnol is atrocious, I have seen a bad case), or alcohol or ... cannabis.
If these people "extremely dangerous to themselves and others" refuse to see doctors (and I would) how is it known they experience either those visions or those conspiracy convictions?
And if even that is not known, how can it be known these make them extremely dangerous to anyone whosoever (except perhaps to shrinks)?
"The three that shot the Australian were drug dealing gang members. Oh, and guess what drug they deal? Cannabis. They can't expect anything out of life because they are drug dealing gangbangers."
Not being able to expect anything out of life was involved in the deed, just as I guessed, then.
And obviously the precise drug cannabis being illegal was involved in the kind of business they were making.
Some can not expect anything out of life because they are drug dealers. Others because psychiatry unlike KGB does not let you go. So far.
"I bet you think AIDS is spread by psychiatrists too, don't you?"
I do not know about AIDS. The wars in Kosovo and Bosnia involved one Karadzic being psychiatrist of one Milosevic.
Hat tip to Lyndon LaRouche for this info!
"What are you going to tell me next, psychiatrists are responsible for 9/11? Or is that humanoid reptilian lizardmen from Alpha Draconis? Or is psychiatry actually run by humanoid reptilian lizardmen from Alpha Draconis?"
Reptilian lizards from Alpha Draconis just might be a kind of euphemism for devils - or a way to try to get through to people actually behaving like devils how diabolic they are. Not that it helped. But if serious, it is not such a far cry between Alpha Draconis and Vetus Draco [should be Draco Antiquus Serpens, my bad].
"Not only are you a paranoid conspiracy theorist (you make the moon landing people look reasonable), you also can't follow an argument."
As far as I can see the moon landing people are reasonable. I have given them a platform and may do so again. As to not following an argument, whether you are pretending disability or not, you are not following mine.
I never said that you believed Modern Psychiatry founded the Christian civilisation. I said you seemed to think so, which is something else, namely your behaving in your arguments as if that were true, although you would not defend the proposition in itself.
Here is your newest item of behaving as if it were true that Modern Psychiatry were the foundation of Christian Civilisation, or as if you cared for the Modern rather than the Christian one:
"potheads' cause [...] is overthrowing Western Civilization with their habit of using, popularizing, and spreading this horrendously dangerous, stupefying, madness inducing, drug."
Apart from trying to make shrinks the bulwark of whatever Civilisation you care for (Modern or Christian, they are not the same), you have also merited my taunt about being a Protestant Masonic Albert Pike worshipping Republican. Or, though Catholic, at least sorely miseducated by such.
The potheads' cause is their personal freedom, generally, and though less just than the Christian's freedom to be Christian, it is certainly just compared to the diabolic and neobarbaric cause of Sovietic or Western psychiatry. It is also a cause which you demonised in about the same manner as Sovietic psychiatry demonised the cause of Christians.
And that once again shows the similarity of thought modes between you and Chruschev's more direct minions.
Oh, nearly forgot your last questions. I see a logical necessity to subdivide one of them into two.
"How old are you?"
Fortyfour, going on fortyfive. Still a virgin. And not because I chose the consecrated virginity finally.
"What do you do ..."
I write essays. I write poetry. I debate and I repost the debates on certain ones of my blogs.
I also offer, unreservedly for my very own material, and with reservation in favour of your right not to have your words used for my commercial writing unless asked, the right for any musician to play my music and send a donation (you know that donate button on quite a few US blogs, but I do not have the kind of account needed for such a button) to my post office account as well as the right for any amateur or professional publisher to print and sell on similar economic conditions.*
I am so far not getting the needed living from that and I suspect in charitable moments Putin but in less charitable moments psychiatry to be behind my failure to get even one essay printed and sold by anyone except myself, or even one composition played and paid for to the musician so he could send me voluntary royalties.
"... for a living?"
I beg in the street. And - avoiding homeless night shelters due to snorers and people accusing others of snoring - I sleep outside.
I now did read your comment I previously missed due to your obnoxious heading it with a comment f the "everybody loves me baby" type.
"There is a well documented link between smoking marijuana and serious mental illness (Schizophrenia). Causation is now proven for those under 18--it's in the textbooks. There are no studies yet for adults, just heavy correlation and suspicion. 'But causation doesn't equal correlation.' That's what they said for smoking and lung cancer."
It being in the text books is no proof as far as mental illness if concerned, nor any proof of there being a proof. As for teenagers smoking pot, they are the risk taking type, due to it being forbidden, in societies concerned. But the fact we are talking about younger people also means we are talking about further encroachments of psychiatry on Christian liberty.
- Now turning to the friend:
- "But, before the government legalises marijuana, I think they first need to legalise raw milk." - I totally second that.
(Unless that means legalising what was never forbidden, as in "legalising" Mass of St Pius V.)
- *I first wrote sth shorter and had to correct by adding [...to my post office account] as well as the right for any amateur or professional publisher to print and sell on similar economic conditions.
Thought stopped short before sentence was finished (happens with neuroleptics if such are secretly dealt to me, happens perhaps otherwise with sleep privations or through eejits praying for me not to use too long sentences).
- Next day
- GP, Mr. Lundahl is a traditional Catholic, and is one of the most brilliant minds I know. He also is fluent in numerous languages, including English, which was not his first.
- Thanks for deleting my comments, after HGL has posted numerous things seemingly encouraging violence against healthcare workers. HGL, you are a homeless guy, who refuses to get a job. Even most successful artists need to get a second job. The reason you are homeless is not because psychiatry and Vladimir Putin are trying to get you down (as if Vladimir Putin, or anyone that matters, even knows who you are, or cares.), it's because most people grow out of the "I want to be an artist" phase by 25 or so, and figure out a way to get income. Some of them become a school Art teacher. You are a homeless dude, who refuses to get a job, who blames all of your problems on psychiatry. Probably because it's in your personality to suspect all who try to help you.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Sure, trying to help me in ways opposite or just beside what I consider I need is a pretty suspicious move in my eyes. As said, there are things that by now should have been printed or played but are not. I am not blaming it all on Putin. I am not blaming it all on psychiatry. I am blaming most of it on people who tend to say things like: "most people grow out of the "I want to be an artist" phase by 25 or so, and figure out a way to get income." As if that settled the issue whether my music should be played or not, as if that settled the issue whether my articles should be printed (ideally collected in monographies) or not. With lost of those and young listening to them, psychiatrist or Putin need do little more.
- Here's a hint: None of it is to blame on psychiatry, they have tried to help you. Vladimir Putin is also completely not to blame, since he's the President of Russia, and you're a homeless, mentally ill guy, and he doesn't know who you are, nor does he, or anyone else who matters, care. What's to blame for your being homeless is your mental illness and (let me guess) history of drug use.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Guess completely wrong. My favourite psychoactive substance has one ring of five and one of six sides. Comes in three varieties: c/t has three groups of H3C, tp and tbr have only one of them, in different places, and H where the variety c/t has the other H3C groups. Hot water or milk, or hot water and milk, not to mention sugar are involved in drinking these substances - but one of them is also eaten. Care to have a guess what c or t stands for and what tp and tb stand for in my abbreviations? Anyway C2H5OH comes far behind. And THC is not even on favourite, and I have seen too much of what opiates or cocaine do even to consider trying those even once. I did not mention homelessness per se. I mentioned not having my compositions played and not having my essays printed and performed or sold for money that also benefits me through voluntary royalties. As well as being still celibate. If psychiatry have tried to help me, they have tried to help me to get out of my dream, not to realise it. And that is not the kind of help I need, nor the kind of help I want. And, as you may guess, not the kind of help I either accept or seek out. Calling that attitude "mental illness" certainly argues my point that psychiatry and its diagnoses are ideology, not science. Now, Putin being president of Russia is no guarantee for him being innocent in all and each affair concerning private citizens in other countries. He is for instance a machist as well as duly against sodomy. That means our takes on how to oppose gay marriage are different. He likes "inverted types" to hide, seek councelling or renounce a sex life. I promote Josh Weed. Now, I get both disgust from presumable Act Up people and from people presumably opposed to Act Up. Maybe they too find homosexuals a class of people in need of 1) councelling 2) celibate or 3) discretion. Or maybe they are fooled by someone who does so they decide in advance not to read my essays. Even if having read they might have agreed. I do not see the promotion of Josh Weed type marriages as something Christians would normally disagree with so strongly as to boycott me because of that. Unless someone is pulling some strings. But putting it down to Putin is maybe being too charitable of powers that be and that are closer at hand. Like therapists afraid of loosing patients. Not to sham therapy with me, but to healing through a good decision, like marriage.
- Seek help.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- That insult, totally unwarranted from our hitherto relations, makes a certain point of mine.
samedi 24 août 2013
Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend)
Series about my FB enemies: 1) Gossip About Cyber, 2) Gríma Wormtongue has his like in real life - at least as far as his choice of viewpoint is concerned, 3) My Innocence About the Vice of Curiosity, 4) Heated Discussion on Historical Backgrounds for Schism of 1054, 5) Misquoters and Conclusion Jumpers!, 6) Guns, Homeless, Shelters, My Own Situation, 7) On Pat's Wall, by me, 8) In case someone not my FB friend even past wonders, Pat whom I unfriended is not Buchanan, 9) Answering Psychiatry Friendly Comments by one GP (friend of a friend), 10) GP tries it again - after attacking Alveda King