Cannabis Could Be Added to the Mix by Alcohol Giant as Laws Ease


#1

“We’re looking at it,” Constellation Chief Executive Officer Rob Sands said in an interview. “There are going to be alcoholic beverages that will also contain cannabis.”

news link


#2

Kind of dumb and completely unnecessary. Weed potentiates alcohol which means alcohol will get you drunk quicker. Smoking after drinking a lot can be very uncomfortable.


#3

It is up to the rest of you to stop this. I already don’t smoke or drink, so my boycott would be meaningless.

One change that could be made would be to provide rehab for substance abusers that has to be repaid by the then former abuser. If young people doing the right thing have to repay the loans for the education that benefits mostly them, it makes sense for the substance abusers to repay loans that provide possibly life-saving rehab.


#4

Due to federal regulations (prohibiting banks from taking drug money), they may have to sell their beverage on a cash-only basis. How does that fit their business model?


#5

Who on earth would sign up for that? Treat it like a medical issue, not criminal.

What does this have to do with a drink that mixes alcohol and cannabis? Boycott it if you want, I won’t drink it either. If I wanted something like this I’d make it myself at home.


#6

Who said it was a criminal issue? It is a medical issue, but one you have to volunteer for. Treat it the same as cosmetic surgery or Lasik. It should be paid for by the person who benefits from it, not the public at large. People have more respect for something they pay for themselves, which is one reason court ordered rehab and public schools achieve such poor results.


#7

This PLUS Buffy the Vampire Slayer … and there ya go.


#8

Because I’ve read this I know it is true.

It is shocking to see the crafty ways suppliers/marketers will merchandise vice. Even more shocking… that hordes of people are willing to pay money for those things that will make them morbidly sick, irredeamably stupid and put the lives of others in danger.


#9

Your analogy is way off base. You are trying to cast rehab as an elective benefit, like cosmetic surgery. It is not. It is absolutely necessary to life. But I see how you attempted to make this connection. You tried to focus on the choice that someone makes when they first embark on a course that leads to addiction. That is an entirely different kind of “choice”. At the time the poor decision is made, the person is not anticipating the addiction. They were thinking (mistakenly) that they would avoid it. Once they were trapped, their own will was severely compromised. At this point their only hope for life is treatment. It is not optional at this point. And from a practical standpoint, society in general does benefit from addicts getting treatment. The alternative is the leave them as a burden on society. You cannot extract payment from an addict whose only available option for income is crime. If you discourage addition treatment by making it expensive, you will have more crime, more drugs, and more addiction. The last thing we need is any kind of discouragement of addicts to get treatment.


#10

Very well said. So many addicts, or those who think “this is way cool and nothing bad will happen to me” will need help. An unnecessary burden, easily avoided by not starting. And choice? What choice? Your body will react. A psychological addiction is very real, along with other, documented problems associated with smoking cannabis.

But hey, if everybody else is doing it… No. Please don’t.

Ed


#11

I understand the necessity for rehab. I also understand that rehab does not work unless you want it to work. Rehab that works requires a change of attitudes and habits that leads to addiction. A person who is not willing to make those changes, and repair the damage done by the initial choices is not going to be successfully rehabilitated. Successful strategies like Alcoholics Anonymous knew that from the beginning.

Treatment is already expensive, it is just a matter of who pays for it. Should that be the person who caused the problem, or the victims of that person? It only seems just to me that treatment should be paid for by the person who caused the problem and benefits directly from rehab, even if it takes a long time. It is very much a part of successful treatment itself, which I want for every addict.


#12

I hate saying this, but I had a friend in high-school who told me point-blank he expected to die of liver poisoning by the time he was in his thirties. He attempted once or twice to invite me to a party, but I declined. He had no father-figure, and the summer after graduation I heard he had to have his stomach pumped. A couple years later, I heard his mother had died from something. I have no idea how he’s doing now, but I still pray for him. Point is, he was choosing to go down this road. It made me very upset.

What I’m saying now is besides the point, but it’s tied to my memory of him. Most of the time he was coarse and vulgar, but once when no one else was around, he admonished me to protect my virginity with my life, and he’d feel like something was wrong with the world if I didn’t. It was one of those things you remember. (He was the only person who ever said anything like that to me.) Amazing where wisdom and grace may be found.

There’s a lot of hopelessness and despair driving all this substance abuse. I think it’s incredibly misguided to make further available these kinds of substances (meaning marijuana). I don’t think I’m a prohibitionist at heart, but maybe I am! I guess I’ve never seen any good come of marijuana. I have another child-hood friend who ended up having to go to rehab. We played after school, and I had no clue that he had gotten started on marijuana. It got to the point his parents had to lock up their medicine cabinet. I know one of his friends was hospitalized because he purposefully tried to OD on something else.

Point is, nothing good will come of all this.


#13

I agree the addict must want treatment and be fully committed to it for it to work. But I do not agree that making addict bear the full cost of treatment is going to instill this kind of commitment from someone who did not already have it. What it will do is further discourage people from seeking treatment. Most people who are in treatment now are as committed to it as they can be. Telling them they are going to owe a big financial debt at the end of the treatment just fosters despair, which is even more detrimental to the success of that treatment.

Treatment is already expensive, it is just a matter of who pays for it. Should that be the person who caused the problem, or the victims of that person?

The addict is the primary victim of the addiction. So naturally the addict benefits from the treatment. But society benefits too, as I explained earlier. I would argue that society actually benefits more, because the result of having a large number of addicts in our society is a breakdown in society. Isn’t it worth it to fund treatment centers if nothing else, just to avoid those detrimental effects on all our lives? And since addicts often have ruined lives because of their addiction, they are often unable to pay what you ask.

It is very much a part of successful treatment itself, which I want for every addict.

You are mistaken. Making addicts pay more for their treatment will guarantee less successful treatments because fewer addicts will attempt it.


#14

Well, as I’m in the beverage industry (retail), I’ll say that 99% percent of my customers drink responsibly. Would you rather liquor not exist? I’d be out of a job :stuck_out_tongue:


#15

Might make a fellow reluctant to accept a drink at a party. The drink might have come from the cannabis-laced bottle. :eek::eek:


#16

And this company will be held responsible if an underage drinker gets sick (even more so than alcohol alone that is)

Very bad idea!


#17

One could make the exact same arguments against the doctrine of Purgatory. Why should I repent if I have to still have to endure the temporal consequences of my sins? I suspect that neither of us would have designed Purgatory on our own. I know I would not, but a God of infinite wisdom, who was both just and merciful beyond our comprehension, decided that it was necessary. Every sinner is the primary “victim” of his sin, and it is still necessary for the sinner to make reparations for the sin after it is forgiven, either on earth or in Purgatory. It is both just and merciful to offer the addict the opportunity to repair the damage he does by choosing to put poison in his body. Repaying the cost of medical treatment is only a tiny part of the damage caused by that choice.

Personally, I would make most public and private assistance in the form of loans that needed to repaid after the behavior that caused the problem has changed. That would be far better for both the society and for the dignity of person being helped, much better than the current systems that only sustain people in their difficulties. Please don’t offer any straw men like the care for people who are permanently disabled and could never repay a loan. I don’t mean anything like that.


#18

Now you are really grasping at straws. Just because God has established Purgatory with a suffering component does not mean that every human-designed healing agency must have a suffering component. Can you imagine going to a hospital for treatment of cancer (let’s say lung cancer caused by smoking) and being told that in addition to radiation and chemo, you also had to endure a spanking? We are not God and do not know every aspect of his mind. Assumptions made about why Purgatory was designed that way it was is pure speculation.

It is both just and merciful to offer the addict the opportunity to repair the damage he does by choosing to put poison in his body.

Drug treatment is not for the purpose of punishment for the sin of choosing drugs. Analogies to redemption from sin are specious.

Repaying the cost of medical treatment is only a tiny part of the damage caused by that choice.

Medical treatment is not Purgatory!

Personally, I would make most public and private assistance in the form of loans that needed to repaid after the behavior that caused the problem has changed.

Then you would have a dystopia on your hands, because of many more addicts, much more drug dealing, and much more crime.

That would be far better for both the society and for the dignity of person being helped, much better than the current systems that only sustain people in their difficulties. Please don’t offer any straw men like the care for people who are permanently disabled and could never repay a loan. I don’t mean anything like that.

Many former addicts do become advocates for getting clean or avoiding drugs in the first place. In this way they do pay back for their redemption. But it is voluntary, and affords them more dignity than a bill they have to pay.


#19

A good glass of wine enhances the taste of a meal and a crisp cold beer quenches thirst when eating a slice of fresh hot pizza. I also believe in sobriety.

Even though I’ve never tried cannibis nor did I ever dream of trying it or plan to try it…I fail to see how this mind altering chemical can positively enhance the taste of a meal or help quench a thirst when combined with alcohol.

Its like adding silly putty to sculpting clay.


#20

One of the most-well known effects of marijuana is enhancing the taste of foods. It doesn’t quench thirst because it is not a liquid.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.