Pints With Aquinas - 178: Would Aquinas smoke pot? W/ Fr. Gregory Pine

Episode Date: November 5, 2019

Today I chat with Fr. Gregory Pine about the morality (or immorality) of pot. SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. My name's Matt Fradd. If you could sit down over a pint of beer with Thomas Aquinas and ask him any one question, what would it be? Today, Father Gregory Pine and I, looking at the works of Thomas Aquinas, ask ourselves the question, can one smoke pot legitimately? Is it a sin? That is to say, is it immoral? Can it be moral? And even if we don't have a great reason to think that it's immoral, is that an excuse just to go ahead and start smoking pot recreationally? We also ask the question, what did Aquinas have to say about prostitution? If you remember, Father Robert Barron, who was on Dave Rubin's show, mentioned that prostitution could be tolerated, that Aquinas talked about this. And so we discussed that. We look at the exact text from Aquinas regarding that.

And then we just talk about things being made illegal in general. I think we would all agree that murder should be illegal and Aquinas agrees. But what about other immoral things like masturbation or disrespecting one's parents or not going to Holy Mass or the list goes on. Why are some things illegal and some things aren't? And what about pot? Should that be illegal? We discuss all these things. I hope you really enjoy the show. All right, welcome back to Pints with the Quietestest the show where you and i pull up a barstool next to the angelic doctor sorry to discuss theology and philosophy today i am joined around the bar table by father gregory pine to discuss all things marijuana now from the outset i need you to know that neither of us consider ourselves an expert on this issue. So if you've come to listen to the

experts, you've come to the wrong place. What this is, is a conversation between two friends who are just trying to have a discussion about something a lot of other people are trying to have a discussion about. I hope it sheds some light. Here's the show. Let's talk about marijuana. Let's kick it. But before we do that, though, you have a new podcast out that everybody needs to know about. Hey, cheers. Let's tell them. It's called Godsplaining. That's right. It's called Godsplaining. And I'm a Dominican friar of the province of St. Joseph, which is like northeastern, mid-Atlantic United States. And there's a handful of us, five guys who just started this podcast maybe two and a half months ago. And it's a weekly conversation on something like philosophical, theological, arts, literature, culture in general.

The basic tagline is contemporary preachers or contemplative preachers, contemporary age. So, yeah, just kind of listen in on our what is effectively our lunch conversation, which tends to be somewhat nerdy, but not unhilarious. So, yeah, we've I've really enjoyed the conversations thus far, and we're just cruising, cruising for a bruising. So welcome to all who would fill an additional 30 minutes of their week. Now, where do they find that? On their podcast app, Godsplaining? Anywhere else they could go to?

Yeah, I mean, you can search it on all podcast apps. So you can just Google it or search it on any app. So it is available. It is widely consumable, comestible. Comestible, does that mean consumable? You better believe it does from the Latin, comere. Fantastic. Cheers.

I'm glad we're going to talk about this. I'm looking forward to coming up with the graphic for today's episode, Wood Aquinas Smoke Pot. That's going to be. looking forward to coming up with the graphic for this today's episode would aquinas smoke pot that's going to be and we're going to find a beautiful image with him holding a doobie nice aquinas on reefer madness yeah yeah so i mean why don't we just begin before we get into this topic by pointing out how politically charged this is and how that may affect how we hear what we're going to talk about. Yes. So it is certainly politically charged. And, um, you know, if you do research on the internet, uh, and look up scholarly articles, sorry, stop. Um, you look up scholarly articles about pot, you'll find like one that says this and the other says not this. And then one that

says this and the other says not this. Yes. So it's very it's it's proved very polarizing. Yes. And it's also proved that those who do the research are content to interpret the facts of their findings along political lines. And this isn't say like liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican, but it's just like for whatever reason, it's just hotly, hotly contested and contentious. And so it's kind of hard when you read stuff, it's really hard to know what's true as far as data goes. And so I think a lot of people have just kind of begun to content themselves with the political back and forth without examining the question in a more principled or orderly fashion to ask

effectively, like, what are the human things at stake? You know, like, what does this say about the law? And what does this say about virtue? And what does this say about, yeah, like, beatitude? So I think it's just fruitful to put the conversation in more global terms or more philosophical theological terms as a way to revisit these political considerations and perhaps sort them out with greater subtlety. Yeah. So I think it's fair to say that neither you or I are an expert on this topic. And today I'm not trying to give any sort of opinion that I think is infallible. I really just want to have a conversation about this. And I was chatting with a friend this morning about this. And I said,

we're about to do this podcast. And I said, like, what's your opinion? And she said, I'm totally against it. I said, OK, why? And she said, well, I don't really know why. I just in my spirit, I sense that it's not a good thing. She's like, it's sort of like when I hear theology that's not clearly heretical, but it seems like it's going that way. And so I'm just against it.

And I think a lot of people might have that sort of impression. They can't really explain to you why they think it's wrong. They just somehow believe that they know that it is. But that's not enough. I mean, if it is wrong,

we're going to need an argument for why it's wrong. And that's kind of what I hope we'll get to today if indeed we do think that it is wrong. Hey, I want to take a break and say thank you to Halo, which is an incredible app that will help you deepen your relationship with Christ and grow your prayer life. You know, those apps out there like Calm and Headspace that help you meditate. The good thing about those apps is they're really well produced. The negative thing is sometimes

they lead into, you know, new age ways of thinking. What's great about Halo is that it is just as professional as those other very professional apps. And it is 100% Catholic. I'll sometimes take the app into adoration and do a prayer session where I'll let it guide me through a 15 minute prayer session, Lectio Divina session. It has Gregorian chant in the background. You can choose synth music if you want. It has a ton of content on there. Well, Halo wants to give you a month for free so you can try it out,

and if you like it, choose to get it. The way you would do that is by going to halo.app.com. Try out the whole thing. If you like it, like I do and my wife does, get it. As I say, my wife and I use it. It's really helped us. My wife just turned over to me the other day and she's like, I really like this Halo app. I'm like, yeah, I told you.

It was awesome. And she's like, yeah, but I thought they were just asking you to promote it. I'm like, yes, but I promote things because I think they're awesome as well. Come on. I'm not a complete shill. So check it out. Halo.app.com. I'll put a link at the top of the show notes.

Check it out. You won't be disappointed. First question I want to ask, though, is tell us what's the difference between an intrinsically evil act and something that, you know, can be evil but isn't necessarily so? Because I think that'll be an important distinction. Sure, yeah. Yeah. So those things are intrinsically evil, which in no wise, in no way, shape or form can actually be chosen for a human good. OK, so back it up. Two, three, four. Here we go. Boom. St. Thomas talks about like the fonts of morality. So whenever you have a moral action, you have the object of the action, which is basically like the thing done, the end of the action, which is the purpose for which, and then the circumstances of the action, the who,

what, when, where, how, why, how, which enter into our moral evaluation and moral description of the thing. So we call those actions intrinsically evil, which have an object, which simply cannot be chosen for a good end. So like the taking of innocent life being one, it's like there's no way in which this can be done for a good human end. You can't say like, oh, I took an innocent human life, you know, so as to lower the price of ice cream, or I took a human, an innocent human life for the purpose of, you know, raising money to build a cathedral. Or I took an innocent human life so that others, you know, might not perish. Like there's no there's no way in which that object can actually admit of an of of a moral description.

So St. Thomas will say that that the good comes from an integral cause, but that an evil comes about from any defect in object and or circumstances. So if the object is evil, the act will always be evil. It's the type of thing that simply cannot be good. So yeah, yeah, that's basically. Yeah, that's, that's good. Because I mean, people say everything in moderation, but they don't mean racism, you know, right? Presumably, they don't mean like child abuse in moderation is okay. I think what they mean is there are certain things that can become negative things that aren't necessarily negative in and of themselves. So gambling might be one of those things, but as Catholics, we would say pornography isn't because pornography is intrinsically evil, but gambling isn't. So when

we talk about marijuana, I mean, I think it's a fair thing to say that we're not saying that consuming marijuana is intrinsically evil because if it was, it would always and in every case be immoral. What do you say? I am less comfortable like making that assertion just at the outset, because I think that it remains to be seen what the medical advantages of it are. I just don't think the literature is especially clear as to its manifest benefits. So it's been used for however many years as a hallucinogenic, you know, like a mild hallucinogenic. But like marijuana that we have now is different than the marijuana of yesteryear. Like the THC content is like in the order of 25 times as strong. So it's being it's being concentrated for its effects. And so

like marijuana is being cultivated with a particular end in mind. So when we say marijuana, we're describing a variety of things. Like we're not talking about like in ye olde time, you know, when John Smith came to whatever Virginia Jamestown, Virginia, you know, he like found a marijuana plant and thought this is healthful for me. for me. Now we're not talking about that. We're talking about like the kind of thing that's been commercially produced nowadays to produce a particular effect. And you know, I didn't realize that that's,

that's, I mean, I think I'd heard it, but that's interesting. So we're almost kind of producing marijuana in order to have the same effect. And so what we're smoking, what someone might be smoking today is not the same thing that someone

necessarily smoked a hundred years ago. Yeah. Yeah. Like, or smoked at Woodstock woodstock for instance like the stuff that people are smoking now whatever and and all the stuff is politicized so who knows what the actual figures are but you can find some sources that say that the source the stuff that we're smoking now is like 20 times as powerful as the stuff that they were smoking at at woodstock ha that's interesting okay then but then the question i had i'd have for is, okay, suppose it wasn't developed in such a way to make it more potent. Then would it be okay?

I could say potentially if there are manifest medical benefits. Why does there have to be medical benefits? Because, well, we're going to get into this. But if like a hallucinogenic, it's difficult for me to imagine a good use for a hallucinogenic. What do we mean by, forgive me for sounding like I'm getting into the weeds, but what do we mean by hallucinogenic? I'm just like – okay, so let's talk about it. Like on territory with which I'm more comfortable is just like kind of philosophical and theological territory. Okay.

Think about it in terms of like promoting the human good or abdicating or evacuating the human good. So what is the purpose for which we are called? You know, to like know and love well. And there are different objects of our knowing and loving, right? But we're going to be most perfectly realized or most perfectly fulfilled as human beings when we know and love the Lord as He intends us to know and love Him. So to be human is to be a knower and to be a lover and to be such with respect to highest goods and other goods in order. It seems that like recreational drugs are usually chosen for the purpose of abdicating that responsibility or escaping from it. And a lot of times it's just like the real recognition that life is hard and life is sad and it can be difficult to confront. And we have all kinds of

way of coping with that. And recreational drugs is one way in which people choose because in smoking them, you know, like it, you know, like you have on the good side, you know, there's kind of like a euphoria associated with it and a kind of calmness. I mean, on the bad side, sometimes it can lead to anxiety and paranoia, depression, and it can actually make more pronounced the things that you're experiencing. But a lot of people experience euphoria and calmness. So there's a kind of basic material good that you get as an escape. But then the question is whether that actually is good in light of the end, in light of the very purpose for which we have come. So suffering is just part and parcel of, you know, post-lapsarian human existence. And the question is, is it good to escape it? You know, is it good to escape the sadness? St. Thomas, you know, like acknowledges that we employ remedies

for sadness in a variety of ways, but the things that he lists are humanizing. You know, he lists, and you've gone over this with Father Damien Ferencz. He lists like the contemplation of truth and the company of friends and like the enjoyment of play and taking a bath. But at no point does he say like, yes, shut off your brain and space for a bit, you know. So that's what makes me nervous. Yeah. Well, I'm going to keep pushing back throughout this, not because I have a firm stance on this topic yet, but just because I'm really wanting to kind of find an opinion here. Because there are activities like alcohol that Aquinas says can be done in moderation. And we definitely drink to escape. Like that is why most people drink. I mean, well, okay, escape might be too strong of a word. But even if you were to say, okay, at the end of the day, I feel like I'm wound up really tightly and I just need something to kind of like help me relax. That's what people say about

alcohol. And that's why I think that's a big part of why we drink it. Yeah. So there's no, I mean, why think that marijuana can't be used in that way? Um, if it's okay with alcohol, why can't it be okay with marijuana? Yeah. I don't, I don't know that it necessarily is good with alcohol. Um, so I don't want to sound like rigorous or be rigorous. I don't want to marijuana? Yeah, I don't know that it necessarily is good with alcohol. So I don't want to sound like rigorous or be rigorous. I don't want to be false. But I don't think that that's a good use of alcohol. I basically think that like alcohol is supposed to be used. And we can I think it's actually fruitful to talk about how the comparison to alcohol ultimately breaks down. I think I think I think that there are helpful there are helpful comparisons to illumine the place of marijuana, the place of alcohol in

human life. But I think that marijuana and alcohol are sufficiently different where I think that a lot of times those comparisons can actually obscure the issue. But like just on this point about like relaxing, I think that we should use the goods of the earth to intensify human life, not to escape it. And eutropelia, like a kind of healthy enjoyment or play, is part of an intensified experience of human life. So St. Thomas will acknowledge, you can't contemplate all hours of all the day, because he says, if a bow remains strung, you know, it gets a bit weather-worn. So you have to unstring the bow in order for it to retain its zing, I mean, its flexibility, its actual purpose, the end for which

it's made. So like relaxation, leisure in a genuine sense is part of the human good. But you can engage in leisure in a way that actually, again, abdicates or evacuates your human responsibility and like kind of go in for or settle for entertainment of a kind of crass or base sort. Or you can engage in leisure in a way that actually intensifies human life. And I would say that alcohol can be used in the latter way. It actually intensifies human life. Whereas marijuana, I think can only ever be used in the former way, just for the evacuation or the abdication. What does it mean when you say alcohol can intensify? Like, give me an actual experience. Like, what does that look like? Do you mean people just become more animated?

That's part of it. Yeah. I mean like there are certain things that you say to your friends. You only ever say to your friends when you're drinking. And maybe that's because you're like the son of Irish immigrants or because you have problems expressing your emotion. But I think that like people talk about how alcohol is like a social lubricant, how it helps you to kind of of chill out with respect to inhibitions and it makes you more affectionate. It makes you more expressive. Can that be taken to a fault? You know, can that actually be destructive? Yeah. When like you start swearing like a sailor, um, and then you like start hugging and kissing everyone that walks

past. Yeah. That's probably problematic. Um, but like alcohol when used well, when used in moderation, it really encourages festivity. Right. So, um, like for instance, like alcohol when used well, when used in moderation, it really encourages festivity, right? So, like, for instance, like alcohol is used often as an image for wisdom. It's used as an image of contemplation. It's used as an image of, like, communion. Wisdom has, you know, set her wine. You know, she has prepared her meats. She has poured out, excuse me, wisdom has set her table. She has, you know, prepared her meat. She has poured out wine. Um, so I think that like, there's a lot, there's, there's an association between alcohol and the good life because it's, even if this is just kind of an irresponsible argument, that's more like atmospheric and impressionistic than it actually is rigorous. It's the kind of thing that's present at meals.

It's the kind of thing that's present at the gathering of friends. It's the kind of thing that's present at sporting events. It's the kind of thing that's present at the gathering of friends. It's the kind of thing that's present at sporting events. It's the kind of thing that's present in those things that we associate with the good life, the types of things which are just good to pursue because they're bound up with what it means to be human. So like you think about, you know, like arts and culture, like the way that it's portrayed in film, the way that it's portrayed in cinema, the way that it's portrayed in theater, like, like oftentimes, you know, it can be used bad. And I think of, you know, Harry Hotspur in, you know, like Henry IV, parts one and two. Like he's seen as like a lout, a drunkard, and one unable to step up because of these things.

But oftentimes it's used in a way that just welcomes conviviality. It welcomes festivity. It actually welcomes an exchange of persons. One of our patrons, Ben Eastman, said this, and this gets to your point. He says, Father John on Catholic Stuff You Should Know had an interesting argument about why alcohol is permissible in appropriate quantities and marijuana is not. He makes the point that alcohol can contribute to a group enjoyment, whereas marijuana, even when done in a group setting, is an individual enjoyment only. Is that a valid reason?

My first thought was to say no, because i think there are things that we can enjoy that are isolating and are rejuvenating like a hot bath you know and i get together with friends and have a hot bath so to me immediately that wasn't a good argument for why marijuana is wrong but i wouldn't say like taking a hot bath isn't inherently isolating because it's the type of thing that you do alone. Whereas when you like, I guess, I don't know, when you smoke marijuana together, you're, it seems to be an invitation to communion, but it often ends up isolating. And like, again, this is scholarly literature talks about how smoking marijuana, you know, blah, blah, blah. It gives a distorted sense of time. You know, there's like magical or random thinking, short-term memory loss.

So like a lot of those things actually remove you from reality. And part of being removed from reality is being removed from your experience of each other. I was once on this like bizarre encounter. I was on a flight to Colombia. So you're already like heightened sensitivity to, you know, drugs and their peddling. And then this guy in the customs line was talking about his experience of hallucinogenics, specifically of what was it like acid or something like that. And he was saying like he would go on strange trips with his friends, but basically each of them were on an island of their own because they're each experiencing reality in a unique way. And they try to describe

it to each other, but it's intensely personal and kind of abstracted and aloof. I don't know if that checks out with people's experience, whatever. This is what's difficult since you and I presumably aren't consumers of marijuana, where a lot of this is sort of theoretical. So one of the things I've heard people say is, you can drink in moderation, but you can't smoke pot in moderation. But everyone, I don't know, too many people that smoke pot moderately, but I do know some. And they say it's just not true. It's not true that you can smoke weed without losing your rational faculties. They say that one can smoke marijuana and be completely in control of one's rational faculties, but it does have a similar effect to alcohol and that it helps them to relax and actually engage in a conversation.

Now, I agree with you that I think in, I mean, again, this is just anecdotal. But yeah, in the vast majority of experiences, when people smoke marijuana, like I did this in high school. I think I smoked pot a couple of times as a teenager. And, you know, yeah, as you say, we would get together as a group of people, but we would end up just sitting in the same room isolated from each other. And I agree that that's problematic. But I know some people who smoke marijuana and they say that is not their experience. What do you say to that though? I don't know that any of these arguments are knock down, drag out, like prove the point

arguments. But I think that when you get together a kind of constellation of reasons, that eventually the evidence becomes such that it yeah, it's like the way Newman talks about an illative sense. It kind of pushes you over the edge. So like other things, for instance, people talk about how, you know, ethanol and THC are basically comparable. You know, they're both chemicals released into the body that can have potentially damaging effects. They can have potentially damaging effects to one's offspring, but blah, blah, blah. They're basically equivalent. So just like on a basic biochemistry level, you know, alcohol remains in your system for a couple of hours, whereas THC remains in the body for like weeks and sometimes months. And like, you know, when you drink alcohol, typically you're consuming one

chemical, you know, you're consuming ethanol. Whereas when you smoke pot, the current offerings right now, you have like 400 known chemicals, some of which are in the order of like five times as carcinogenic as an average cigarette. That's very interesting. So it's, it's something that's Wow. 400 chemicals in some instances. Yeah. I mean, and to say 400 chemicals, like who knows what those chemicals are and I'm not going to do the research and actually look them up. So it's kind of like a specious argument, but it's just to say that there are more. the research and actually look them up. So it's kind of like a specious argument, but it's just to say that there are more. And then also, like when you think about it, again, just to kind of go back to a more basic human culture, philosophical sense, like wine is nutritious. You know, wine is

used for the sustenance of body. So when the Lord, you know, think about sacramental imagery, when the Lord takes to himself certain elements for the Eucharist, he chooses those things which are most closely associated with nutrition. Father Thomas Joseph talks about this in his book, The Light of Christ. The three main images associated with the Eucharist, you have, so the separation of the body and blood, that the twofold consecration shows that, you know, Christ's body and blood were separated on the cross. The fact that you use bread and wine, you know, this is food, this is nutritious. And then the fact that the loaf comes together for many grains, the wine comes together for many grapes. It shows the unity of the body of Christ. And all of these things, you know, are brought to bear in the sacrament.

But just like on this point of nutrition, that you – there's caloric value, you know, to drinking wine. And you shouldn't drink too much wine. You'll get fat, you know. But that it's taken from something that's food. It's taken from grapes the way that, you know, a loaf of bread is taken from grain. And so it's more, yeah, it's just more apt imagery for the communicating of life, of conviviality, of communion, because it's already like worked into human culture as a staple of sustenance. And it's a fruit of human culture. It's something that's like, you know, it's been made by man for the consuming of man.

Whereas, you know, you like you just don't have any of that imagery with you don't have any of that imagery with marijuana. And so, like, again, to consult arts and literature, there's just a lot of rich symbolism that's operative in the use of, you know, wine and beer and spirits. Whereas there just isn't the same richness available with respect to marijuana. And some people say like, oh, well, marijuana is late to the game. And, you know, there's going to be a great, I don't know, artistic flourishing of genres that incorporate marijuana as a way by which to show the deepening of human experience. My response to which is just like, I'm still waiting, you know, like at what time, at what point I just like it just it seems to me kind of divorced from life because of this basic

nutritional sense and the way that it's been appropriated in the subsequent tradition. So yeah. And then you would say regarding tobacco, that even this, even though this hasn't come from a nutritional source, it's something that it isn't a hallucinogenic, hallucinogenic. And so can be used appropriately. Yeah. I think, I mean, I think that like the, the argument for the legitimacy of tobacco use is less clear than the argument for alcohol. I think that like the argument for the legitimacy of tobacco use is less clear than the argument for alcohol. I think that's a separate thing. Really? Yeah.

No, no. I don't think it's as cut and dried as the one for the use of alcohol just because the physiological effects of it tend to be more straightforwardly bad. Yeah. Just in terms of like the damage that – I mean I smoke cigars and pipes forever and I can't – I haven't been able to for like 15 months because I scorched my throat and as a result of which I've had chronic laryngitis. So like I'm kind of nursing my own wounds and speaking out of my – speaking out of a dark place right now. So yeah, I just – I don't think it's as straightforward. I do think that the use of tobacco is completely legitimate. But eminent 20th century Dominicans like Reginald Gary Lagrange disagrees. But eminent 20th century Dominicans like Reginald Gary Lagrange disagrees.

He thinks that you're literally – for him, he thinks it's against poverty for religious because you're literally burning the thing that you purchased. Now, mind you, you're literally destroying the food that you eat. But for him, that builds up your body, whereas tobacco and no ice does. So that can be a kind of whatever materialistic argument. I haven't actually seen that in print, but I've heard that secondhand. Yeah, this is good. argument. I haven't actually seen that in print, but I've heard that secondhand. Yeah, this is good. I think one of the things I'm realizing as we're discussing is what you mentioned a moment ago, that maybe none of these are knock-down, drag-em-out arguments, but in a way, I want to ask, where should the burden of proof lie? If you have people on one

side saying that it's not helpful and some on the other side saying that it is. Especially since this is a rather new phenomenon for many people, it seems to me that maybe the burden of proof if one's deciding whether or not to consume this ought to lie on those who want to say that it is helpful, that it is good, that it is moral. Does that make sense? It doesn't sound like we're going to come to a knock-em, as you say, drag-em-out argument. So I think – so in this, my kind of thoughts on the matter are informed by Chesterton's – I don't remember where he says this. Maybe in like Orthodoxy where he talks about if you come to a fence in the woods, you should determine first what it's keeping out or what it's keeping in before you tear it down.

So I think that this has been the type of thing that has been stigmatized in Western civilization for many years, and it hasn't been consumed permissibly. Now, mind you, that might be a kind of historically myopic argument. Maybe there were times when that was the case. I haven't done the research. Just pardon me for making blanket statements without, you know, blah, blah, blah. But it just seems like the type of thing that hasn't been, has never been widely accepted, um, among the kind of normal crowd. Um, so if that's the case, then I think we need compelling reason to admit it, to give it a place at the table. Uh, and our current political process is difficult for, you know, like, and the way that this thing has been voted on, like in Colorado and what it in Colorado in 2012, it was just voted on democratically, popularly.

And then it's going to get through because most people are like, I want it or who am I to say that other people can't have it? That's like a lot of people's thinking on the matter, I think. But then when you do it as a political solution, the best way by which to evaluate whether or not it has gone well or ill is by the sociological or the demographic changes that you perceive. So like there was a huge influx of people to Colorado when they passed the legislation. And a lot of those people, like 100,000 people moved to the front range, most of whom because they wanted easy and continual access to marijuana. So then Colorado has to ask like, what does that do to our state, for instance? And then like the data is just kind of coming together with respect to like Dewey offenses. So you can you know,

you can be under the influence of alcohol, you can be under the influence of pot, you can be under the influence of a lot of things. But like traffic fatalities associated with marijuana use, you know, they go up. And the question is whether or not that's just proportionate to population increase or if it's actually related to the wide availability of it. So those are those are kind of political questions that you need to ask. And then like violent crime. I didn't know any of this stuff, but just in my research, there's this guy who was telling stories anecdotally and his wife worked for the D.A. and she was describing this prosecution that was ongoing and like kind of offhandedly when she was describing a violent criminal, she said like, yeah, and of course he was on – he was smoking marijuana.

Really? A constant user. And he was like, wait, why is that obvious? She's like, they all are. Again, blanket statement, not subtly nuanced. But apparently there's like a pretty ironclad association between violent crime and drug use, which I don't really know about. But it seems like it's worn out. Well, let me give you an anecdotal kind of statement that I have no way to back up.

One of our patrons, Mark Doob, said this to me. He sent this in. He said, a family member of mine is a cop with the FBI and often comments, I've never had to break up a fight between two stoners, but drinkers often spend nights in jail after some sort of mischief. What does this tell us about pot, about alcohol? Does pot stifle our desires passions whether good or bad like i think there's a really good argument to be made that alcohol would probably i mean i know that per capita people are drinking more alcohol

than people are smoking pot presumably but but i i would imagine like more people are becoming violent due to alcohol than pot even if even if you were to take it like if people to smoke pot and smoke alcohol again without having any of the research at my fingertips i would imagine alcohol leads to more than pot yeah i mean that's almost certainly the case on account of the fact that way more people consume it for the reasons that you describe so it's i mean it'd be super hard to evaluate what percentage of people who use alcohol perpetrate violent crime versus what percentage of people who use pot perpetrate violent crime so until you have those figures i don't know you can make a third going assessment it'll all just be kind of like anecdotal back and

forth which i don't know how much that that actually clarifies there is something like for me the question that i is raised in my mind is like why do i why do we need another thing to help us check out and is that actually a good thing? Because there are certain activities, as you say, that we engage in, in order to, I was gonna say check out, but maybe check out is the wrong word. Because when I read a novel, in a sense, I feel like I'm escaping. But maybe I'm escaping into something that's broader and bigger and larger. And that makes my life more worthwhile. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, actually Benedict the 16th. So I read a couple of articles by Jared Stout, who lives in Colorado and teaches at the

Augustan Institute. He had some really cool things to say, a few articles online. And he was talking about this specifically that it's used for surrender of full possession of reason or surrender of self-possession. And he was quoting Benedict XVI at a couple of points. And Benedict XVI describes the use of drugs as a kind of magical pseudo mysticism. So basically, you know, says something to the effect of it's the pseudo mysticism of a world that does not believe yet cannot get rid of the soul's yearning for paradise. So it's a kind of immanentization of transcendent longings. So it's like we have this deep seated desire for something beyond us. And that really, I mean, it tears us apart because it makes us really restless until such time as we encounter it,

or until such time as we enjoy it without the fear of losing it. And, you know, like that, that can be a source of great suffering in addition to the suffering that's just part of ordinary everyday human life. And so pot gives you the sense of tapping into that, but in a way that's really depleted of all of its substance and content. And so like you'll talk about it in terms of anesthesia as an escape from reality and that it seeks just like comfort basically and prosperity rather than facing up to pain and death. And Stout drew the connection with if you've read A Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. Yeah. But they have this drug there, Soma, that they always just pop whenever things get difficult.

And the main character, you know, who eventually kills himself, but the main character just rejects this logic. And he says, like, I mean, like whenever it's offered to him, he rejects it quite violently, almost brutalistically or barbarically because of he has an intuition that it's it's deadening, you know, and it's weakening and it's ultimately it's forfeiting something that's that's more true than the euphoria that you feel like it's more. I think it's just more true to feel sadness and suffering than to escape it by with preferment for, you know, the euphoria or calmness that comes in the wake of drug use. Just like life is sad, you know, we need to be reconciled to that fact rather than seeking constantly to avoid it,

because by avoiding it, we end up with problems that are far more acute than the sadness itself. Yeah, so I agree with that. But what about those who have medical issues? Maybe they're taking prescription painkillers, opioids. And, you know, there are a lot of experts who say that marijuana is actually far less dangerous than opioids and can bring about the same effect. What about that argument? If that's, I mean, I think that's fair to say, right, that opioids could be, some people say it is far more dangerous than smoking pot. And obviously we're not saying, well, you shouldn't take opioids, you should just embrace your pain. I mean, at some level, I think we'd say that medication's a good idea. Yep. Yeah. I don't know that I have a good response to that, which is why I drank from

my water bottle to afford a- I love it. This is good. I mean, the reason I love Pines with Aquinas is we're just discussing. We're chatting like friends. We're trying to figure things out. We're not trying to come to the table with all the answers. And I think people can make their answers or come up with their own conclusions. But did think this to myself you know if someone i really respected say my bishop uh from port peary who's now no longer in port peary eugene hurley or someone else if i if someone said oh yeah they smoke pot there'd be a sense in me i'd be like oh like i would kind of lose a little respect for them in a way that i wouldn't if i knew they had a glass of wine occasionally and i don't know if that's because of my prejudice against marijuana

or if there really is something legitimately icky about it and that that kind of sense that this is wrong ought to be something of a profit that until I have a compelling reason to think that it is okay that I should continue to say that it's not. Yeah. No, that's certainly a good experience to interrogate. And I would have the same experience. And part of that for me is just kind of atmospheric, like pot smells gross. You know, it smells like skunk. And I associate it, you know,

I live in Washington, D.C. and there's like people consume a ton of pot here. So whenever I go out for a run, I just, you know, you run through a handful of pot clouds. And it's usually there are other conditions, you know, that kind of make it lamentable. So it's, you know, like a lot of people that smoke pot, at least on my running routes, are poor and they are staying poor. And, you know, like it's heartbreaking and the conditions are often pretty slovenly and filthy and just, yeah, sad. and pretty slovenly and filthy and just, yeah, sad. So it's just like for me, there might just kind of be like the ick factor, which is, you know, you got to admit and got to contend with. That's right.

All right. Well, look, we've talked about whether or not marijuana may or may not be immoral for the individual. But I want to ask the question, should it be illegal? Because just because something is immoral, it doesn't mean it's a good idea to make it illegal. Like, correct me if I'm wrong. And I know Thomas spoke about this, and I'd love you to elucidate that for us. But it would be, I think, unhelpful to make things like masturbation or disrespect to our parents or missing mass on Sundays illegal. Do you agree?

Why? Why not? What does Thomas have to say about these sorts of things? Yeah. Excellent question. Do you want to look? The article itself is pretty short. It's question 96, article two. It might be nice just to start with what he has to say. Here I am. Is this human law? It's power? Yeah. Whether it belongs to the human law to repress all vices. Question 96, article 2. Okay, and what do you want to read there? Maybe just the response. Okay, you want me to do it? As stated above, law is framed as a rule or measure of human acts. Now, a measure should be homogenous with that which it measures, as stated in the metaphysics, since different things are measured by different measures. Wherefore, laws imposed on men should also be in keeping with their condition.

For as Isidore, I always think of Lord of the Rings when I read Isidore. I don't know who that is, Isidore. Is that how you say it? Yeah. I always think Isidore, whatever. As Isidore says, law should be possible both according to nature and according to the customs of the country. Now, possibility or faculty of action is due to an interior habit or disposition, since the same thing is not possible to one who has not a virtuous habit, as is possible to one who has. Thus, the same is not possible to a child as to a full-grown man. For which reason, the law for children is not the same as for adults, since many things are permitted to children, which in an adult are punished by law, or at any rate are open to blame. In like manner,

many things are permissible to men not perfect in virtue, which would be intolerable in a virtuous man. Now, human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Therefore, human laws do not forbid all vices from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices from which it is possible for the majority to abstain and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained thus human laws prohibits murder theft and such like boom so like i i yeah i just think that's a helpful text with which to begin because here's saint Thomas is making just a prudential judgment. So for him, law – right, so law has a variety of expressions, but the basic definition of law is that it's a dictative reason given by one who has competent authority for the common good, and it's promulgated.

It's promulgated. So basically it's like, you know, it's a dictative reason. So it's a wise restraint. It's a wise judgment about how one should live that should pertain to all and conduct the polity or the concerned body to their common good. And then, you know, he breaks out of this, you know, eternal law, which is God's plan of the well-functioning of the universe. The natural law, which operates in us as these kind of first principles, which we tease out, but also these inclinations that the moral virtues clarify and conduct us to our good and he talks about human law and divine law and ultimately like you know it's he starts with the eternal law for a reason because law exists in its highest rarefied form in the mind of god

because it is the wisest of reasons which is to say the divine reason it's for the highest of goods which is namely unto himself god is most competent and he promulgates it in manifest fashion. So like law is conducting us to perfection. But when you get into human law, a lot of his considerations there are just, they're just prudential. It's like, how do we make the best of a post-fallen situation? So it's very attuned to our current state and what's actually possible. And it's not like despairing of the ideal in any way, shape, or form. It's just you have to make applications of the natural law to the concrete setting and circumstances of the people governed. Because if you set an impossible ideal, then the law itself will fall into disfavor. It'll be the

object of scorn and mockery. It'll cease to command the ascent of the citizenry, and it'll ultimately lead to greater lawlessness. Very good point. Yeah. So, so what he's talking about here is like, yeah, I mean, we just need to be, we need to be cognizant of what's possible. And we need to, yeah. There's a line, I think, in the book of James, I forget exactly where, where it says like fathers don't don't provoke anger in your children and when i read that i often think that that could be could be taken to mean that like don't set your children certain penalties or tasks or obligations

that they just it's unreasonable for them that they can't fulfill because they'll they'll become angry and sounds like something similar might be being said here. Yeah. So I think, I mean, again, St. Thomas is understanding law has an educative function. So it's supposed to encourage virtue in the governed. So he has specifically like the governor should exhibit a reniative prudence and the governed there's, there's a, there's this distinct kind of form of prudence that, that the governed are supposed to, uh, exhibit namely, what does he call it? Gosh, I forgotten. That's heartbreaking. I'll return. Um, so, Oh, political prudence is just what he calls it. So we're supposed to like see in the law, a standard for flourishing. We're supposed to see in the law, a standard of virtue.

And it's actually like St. Thomas envisions it as a help. So it's not just an arbitrary constraint on my free expression or on my autonomy, but rather it's a wise constraint that actually makes me more free. So it's a help to flourishing. And here it's helpful to recall that in the Prima Secundae when he's talking about external helps, he describes both law and grace. So he thinks about it as those things that come from without that are given to us as gifts from God that actually conduct us to our good. Because laws, they rule out from our consideration things that are not worthy objects, things that are not going to actually encourage us to become who we were meant to be. And the law, by forbidding something, educates you that this thing is just – it's not to be considered as a viable option. Can you think –

Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt. One of the things – like an example that came to my mind was that there was a time in the United States – correct me if I'm wrong – that contraception was outlawed. If that's the case, I've forgotten, but yes. No, yeah, that's right. Well, I was reading a book recently called The Gentle Traditionalist, and it was making that argument about Ireland. Certainly, yeah, you can think about it. Or just think of a country. Yeah, that kind of thing. But as you say, the law is a teacher. So when it allows something, there's this sense that's like, okay, it's now acceptable. I like the example with no-fault divorce because recently in the pages of First Things and elsewhere, Rusty Reno has been arguing for like a divorce tax, which is not something that will ever happen. But it's an interesting thought, and he's arguing for political reasons, not for reasons revealed.

Just saying that divorce, we can acknowledge this sociologically, has huge effects or deleterious effects on the citizenry. psychologically has huge effects or deleterious effects on the citizenry. And so we should discourage it, not in the like, so as to trap people in bad marriages, but that when people approach the marriage, that they are mindful of what it entails and the consequences thereof. Because with no fault divorce, you can just walk away from the thing. And there aren't, at least you don't initially perceive that there are grievous effects that you suffer, but you come to discover that you do and that your children do and that the wider community does. Totally. So like he's arguing for this as a way by which to kind of re-stigmatize divorce,

not in a judgy way, but in a political way. So as to, again, encourage marital fidelity and a proper approach to the sacrament itself, like the natural institution and the sacrament itself. Now, I remember, if memory serves, Bishop Barron on Dave Rubin's show said that Thomas said that there should be places allocated for prostitution in a particular city. Did Thomas actually say that? He may have. If so, I haven't come across the text. Have you heard that before? I have heard that. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I've heard that like once or twice. It's not something that's like, you know, day two of your grace class at the Dominican Office of Studies when I'll talk about why St. Thomas says that prostitution is like, you know, valid, whatever. Okay, but let's pretend he never said it. But how would you defend it? I mean, what do you think someone means when they say that something like that might be acceptable, that it would do more harm than good to outlaw it? I find it difficult to think of why that shouldn't be outlawed, and I don't think that the woman should be penalized.

I think that John should be. Right. Did you use John as meaning a man? Yeah, that's usually what the person who purchases a prostitute is called. Oh, nice. Yeah. John. Fascinating. I didn't realize that. That's the first time I've known something that you haven't and it had to do with prostitution. Dig. In Philadelphia, the word John, J-A-W-N, is used to mean any noun. So like when you point to a thing and ask somebody to give it to you, like give it at John, J-A-W-N. So John for

me means anything, not necessarily a man who like procures a prostitute, but that's good to know. Okay. I'll be more careful in my use of the word John. Yeah. Heaven forfend. So how would I defend it? Okay. So I think that if something is going to be widely practiced by illegitimate or potentially dangerous means, then it can sometimes be in the interest of the state to regulate it. So to permit it and to regulate it in such a way as to ensure the safety of those who are engaged in the practice. Yeah, just to ensure that some of the physical harms that could be perpetrated aren't. I mean, that's like a kind of basic argument. I don't know.

I mean, you have to take that on a case-by-case basis. Would this sort of like having places for junkies to shoot up? Would that be a similar thing where it's like, okay, we've got all these junkies in this city. It's not good that they're injecting drugs into themselves. Yeah. city, it's not good that they're injecting drugs into themselves. But for the sake of the common good, I could see someone coming up with an argument for why they should at least have a place to go and do it in and get help. I'm not advocating that. I'm just saying I've heard people argue for that. I think that's a roughly equivalent argument. I think where the slope gets slippery is

when people will say like, you know know in the 1960s and 70s you know women were procuring abortions uh and kind of back alley type ways and the technology was really crude and they were at risk and so this should be kind of like brought under the umbrella of medicine but that fails to acknowledge that like the object of this act is uh intrinsically evil and can never actually be described in a way that's good and healthy. So like it's the taking of innocent life, whereas like fornication or adultery, it's like the sexual act itself can be used for good and praiseworthy purposes. And the inflammation of sexual desire is, you know, one of these basic concupiscent inclinations of fallen persons. You know, so I don't know. They're like they're different things,

but you can see how that slippery slope gets super slippery because you can potentially bring anything under that line of argumentation. But whenever you do that, you kind of, yeah, by making it permissible by law, you destigmatize the action to a certain extent. And what for a prior generation would have been something that you would only do at great risk and unwillingly become something that you might now try out. This is certainly like the case with respect to, you know, drug use. It's like a lot of people who would never have used it previously may think it a worthwhile option for their time on account of the fact that it's decriminalized in many states

now and that the law has that kind of educative function. So yes, because a lot of people make the argument with decriminalization that you place a lot fewer burdens on law enforcement to work with all this petty crime and they can focus on the things that really matter like violent ones. But what you effectively have is, yes, you don't have a lot of that crime that you have to deal with initially, but then as the quality of the citizenry degrades by engaging with illicit practices, then it just comes out sideways. It just actually found where Aquinas addresses prostitution. Nice.

Comes from the Secunda Secundae question 10, article 11. Should the rights of unbelievers be tolerated? Here is the very short excerpt. That's what we're discussing. In human government, those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils, less certain goods be lost or certain greater evils be incurred. Thus Augustine says, if you do away with harlots, the world will be convulsed with lust. Hence, though unbelievers sin in their rights, they may be tolerated either on account of some good that ensues therefrom or because of some evil avoided. Wow. So he's not actually arguing for the legitimacy of prostitution.

He's sourcing St. Augustine on an argument that concerns like the legitimate practice of Jewish and Islamic cults in the context of a Christian society. Whoa. So that's a different thing. Yeah. I guess talking about the general principle is probably more helpful um they're going to spring the prostitution thing on you that's great but it's a it's a it's a question we have to wrestle with that is to say like does this behavior that we all want to now legalize have a have a serious enough negative impact on the people such that it ought to be

ought to remain outlawed? That's the question, right? Yeah. Well, I mean, based on this argument itself, like what St. Thomas is talking about, so there's this tradition in canon law that recognizes the rights of Jews and Saracens to operate with a modicum of freedom in a Christian society. So, like, if you convert to Christianity and then you subsequently depart from the practice of the faith or apostatize or commit heresy, then the church can constrain you in the kind of classical or medieval understanding. But if you're born a Jew and raised a Jew and you practice as a Jew, the church affords a place in which for Jews to observe their rights, and this is provided for in canonical law. So what we're talking about here is not the toleration of an evil in the same way that permitting prostitution

would be. It's just, yeah, it's the toleration of other religious rights. So it's a kind of like canonical principled pluralism, I suppose. So St. Thomas thinks that, you know, everyone has a vocation to be Catholic or everyone has a voc basically, to enjoy the beatific vision of God and that extra ecclesia omnibus salus, and so if you're saved, you're saved by Christ, and so it's most conducive to that, to actually come in. So we have this real urgent evangelical mandate. But there's also the recognition that there are elements of grace and salvation outside the church, and that one can never be coerced to believe. And so one should afford a place for the practice of other faiths. Legitimately, I'm kind of rambling at this point. So what we're

talking about now here is not the toleration of an evil. So I think that's an important, again, I don't know all the texts about prostitution, but if this is the text, he's not arguing for the legitimacy. No, he's most certainly not doing that. And I didn't mean to. No, no, no. And I didn't say you did. Yeah. Yeah. But for those listening, he's not arguing for the decriminalization of prostitution and they're not arguing that prostitution should be considered to be a moral good. Obviously, I think what they're discussing is whether something evil can be tolerated for the sake of either a good or a greater evil that would come about if that thing was suppressed. Yeah. And I think another distinction to bring into the conversation is whether it concerns a particular good or a common good, because the church is most jealous or concerned about those that immediately pertain to the common

good. Whereas if it's a kind of, like you said, like outlawing masturbation, that wouldn't make sense to legislate that because it doesn't have the same communal ramifications. And so like, you know, if one were to make an argument for the decriminalization of pot, they would make an argument along these lines that it's a kind of personal thing, it's individual, it doesn't really affect the commonality or the common good. But I think that one arguing against would emphasize the ways in which it does undermine culture, the way it undermines the polity, the way it undermines the common good as so conceived. Yeah, no, this is very good. I think sometimes we have this sort of solipsistic understanding of the law. You know, if it's not affecting me, it's okay. You worry about you, I'll worry about

me. Or rather, if it's not affecting you, you shouldn't be kind of concerning me about it. But there is this kind of communal aspect that we have to take into consideration. So I guess let's kind of draw this to a close here. We've talked about the morality of marijuana and that it might be unhelpful that if someone's considering the question as to whether or not they should use it, it might not be helpful to say, well, if you cannot, unless you can give me a knock down drag amount argument for why it's intrinsically evil, I'm going to go ahead and smoke it i think what you and i would like to say is no i think the burden of proof is upon the one you know trying to justify whether or not smoking marijuana even recreate recreationally is a good thing yeah and then the next thing we're discussing is okay just because something is immoral supposing it is um you know or should it be made legal or illegal and do you have a firm opinion on that

i i don't i i don't know my hunch probably like your hunch is to say that you know if the studies that we're seeing is showing that that that marijuana use is leading to a sort of degradation of human society and in a serious way that it should remain outlawed. But if it isn't, if we're not seeing that, and if we're getting to the point where it's just unrealistic to outlaw marijuana, because many people are now using it, then maybe it should be legalized. What's your thoughts on that? Yeah, I would hold it off as long as possible as my general inclination. And again, I don't really know too terribly much about the debate, nor have I studied it, you know, with great care or closeness. But it strikes me that this is just

part of the kind of anti-traditional post-1960s deconstruction of everything that once obtained. And I think that when you do that, you come to discover that you've – yeah, you have reaped the whirlwind. Like tradition exists for a reason, and it's a kind of – yeah, a deeply ingrained or culturally instantiated sanity. And when you throw it off by virtue of the fact that it's someone else's tradition, you come to discover that you've inherited a reality that's entirely deracinated and like bordering on insane. So that kind of of i mean like the logic of inventing your own reality just makes me super nervous um if you're going to change something it should be with with due deliberation care and uh general concern for all of the unforeseen you know consequences that could arise in its wake so yeah i just i would say hold it

off for as long as humanly physically i. I agree, too. I think like another argument that isn't totally convincing, but it's just the idea that like we live in a pretty pagan society. And I think whenever the society as a whole rushes to something that seems questionable, that might be a good reason to, as you say, hold off as long as possible. Like I think a good rule of thumb is if planned parenthood is promoting something um you might be you should be skeptical of it and i have seen certain articles where they seek to say you know say well it doesn't necessarily interfere with taking uh pills contraception and things like that so i don't know well that's crazy man it's wild that we're having this conversation yeah i mean i get the sense that there's probably going to be people who are somewhat disappointed with this conversation because they were hoping for something that may be a little more clear.

Maybe I've obfuscated it. I hope you haven't. No, I think we got some good principles on the table. Just to, again, to put it in the context of a discussion that's broader ranging than whether it's politically advantageous or disadvantageous. or disadvantageous. But yeah, just to think about the law, to think about the nature of the goods themselves at stake and how they pertain to the ultimate good of our flourishing, the ways in which alcohol and pot are different and how we can't just kind of run the analogy and take it all the way down the line, how we should be alert to the fallacious reasoning of others and not just potentially taken in by it. So yeah, I feel like we've we've sussed out some good principles and that we've equipped people to engage the conversation

well and fruitfully on their own terms. I despair not. All right. So here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to begin a conversation on Patreon and it's for everybody. You don't have to support us on Patreon in order to join this conversation. You can just jump in. I'll put a link in the show notes. Click that. If you've got something you really want to say, if you want to respond to people in the thread section, that might be a place to continue this conversation. So yeah, this has been super fun. Thank you very much. I think the conclusion is most certainly Thomas Aquinas, should he have been given the choice, would not have smoked pot. I think that

is where we'll come down on that one. All right. Well, God bless. Thanks so much. And everybody out there, be sure to check out Father Gregory Pine's new podcast, Godsplaining. And then the Thomistic 101 course. What's that called? Aquinas 101 from the Thomistic Institute.

Aquinas101.com. Big. And I've been looking at some of these videos and I've been just thoroughly impressed. They're really great. So everyone really should go and check them out because it matters what you think. Dig. I've heard that before.

All right. Thank you very much for listening to this week's episode of Pints with Aquinas. If you want to head over to patreon.com slash Matt Fradd, we're going to have a discussion over there as to the legality, the legitimacy of recreational marijuana use so if you want to jump into the conversation feel free to go over there also you could become a patron and that would be sweet too there's a ton of free stuff we give you in return not just stuff that we post to your door like signed copies of my book

and stickers and beer steins and you can be part of a private video small group with me and things like that but you also get access to these book studies that we've been doing on flannery o'connor the divine comedy you get access to audio books like by thomas aquinas even encyclicals that maybe you don't have the time to read that you could listen to there's just a ton of free stuff you also get these episodes a day early and ad-free when we do have ads. And so that's kind of cool too. So feel free to go over to patreon.com slash mattfradd. Give us as little as a dollar a month or more if you want.

Thanks so much. God bless. Have a fantastic day. To carry you, to carry you And I would give my whole life To carry you, to carry you And I would give my whole life