I see that today, Archbishop Diarmuid Martin [broken link removed] to the growing list of those condemning recreational drug users for gangland crimes.
For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?
I find this tortuous logic deplorable but perhaps understandable in a very naive and simplistic way. What perplexes me however, is why this logic only ends up being deployed in relation to recreational drug use.Archbishop Diarmuid Martin today unleashed a scathing attack on recreational drug users, accusing of them of being inherently connected to gangland violence.
For example, why are the same people not accusing purchasers of Chinese goods as being "inherently connected to" the genocide in Darfur, or why are buyers of American products never castigated for supporting to ongoing war and "ruination of lives, many of them young and vulnerable" in Iraq?