Drinking alcohol and smoking pot – what are your thoughts?

[CopticChristian]

It will be as inapplicable as any other law that is “on the books” but is not enforced and can’t be convicted in court. Kind of like it being illegal to be in possession of wire-cutters outside of your own property in Texas, or wiggling your hips while dancing in California. With jury nullification of the Federal laws almost guaranteed, and the resources being wasted on such efforts in any event, the Feds do not enforce, nor attempt to enforce, drug laws on individual users (and they’ve already indicated explicitly that this is the case).

It is illegal under Federal law for people to use marijuana for medical purposes as well, but the Feds have likewise indicated that they have no intention nor real power to go after individual medical users; the law, in that instance, is a dead letter just as the Texas and California laws mentioned above, and an unenforced, unenforceable law is not a law as the behavior is allowed.

Whether or not the Feds will go after registered growers and distributors remains to be seen, but I’m speaking of personal use. I do think the Feds would be foolish to go after registered growers and distributors when they allow personal use, however, because then they will just be cutting a check to the drug cartels. They understand this with regards to medical marijuana, which is why the Federal law against marijuana doesn’t exist for all intents and purposes in those states which have legalized medical use.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Reality check. The Harrison act and all drug laws were Federal before they were State laws…these marijuana movements are basically a rejection of the imposition of Federal Law on the states. What will happen as States reject the Federal drug laws remains to be seen as to when and where they will enforce. Marijuana remains illegal on the Federal books.

 

[Porknpie]

Ghosty,

Reality check. The Harrison act and all drug laws were Federal before they were State laws…these marijuana movements are basically a rejection of the imposition of Federal Law on the states. What will happen as States reject the Federal drug laws remains to be seen as to when and where they will enforce. Marijuana remains illegal on the Federal books.

So we go from Protestant Religions to Protestant States… a loss of respect for the authority of the federal government.

Can one blame protestant religion thought(s) influencing protestant state thought(s)? A loss of authority in one area spreads into a loss of authority in other areas? If we were “one” on the religious side…would we be more unified on the political side?

Ghostly, please clarify…maybe my coffee hasn’t kicked in today.

In short, is it immoral to use moderately if it’s legal,

 

[Jessup]

Praying for the day when the USA adopts Singapore drug laws.
Save the tax payers real money on recycling pot dealers through the justice system over and over again as a drain on the economy.

 

[Mickey]

I’m saying that there is nothing inherently immoral about moderate pot use

There is no such thing as moderate pot use. With alcohol, it takes a few drinks or more to become impaired. With pot, you’re high right away.

I have never had a priest (Catholic or Orthodox) tell me that “moderate” pot usage was moral. I have always been told it is a confessable sin.

I think you are projecting some bad advice.

I would urge anyone to speak wtih their spiritual father/confessor about it.

 

[Ghosty]

Ghosty,

Reality check. The Harrison act and all drug laws were Federal before they were State laws…these marijuana movements are basically a rejection of the imposition of Federal Law on the states. What will happen as States reject the Federal drug laws remains to be seen as to when and where they will enforce. Marijuana remains illegal on the Federal books.

Those laws were not imposed on the states. Federal law can’t force a state to make something illegal, all it can do is say that within the jurisdiction of the Federal government ccertain things will or won’t be permitted by Federal law. States can go further than Federal law, or they can do less than Federal law. The Federal government can’t force a state to to enforce a Federal law, which is why it was Federal troops who walked with Black students when schools were desegregated in the South…

The Federal government has already said repeatedly that it can’t and won’t enforce Federal laws against drug use. This has already been tested and shown, and is not an unknown quantity. What is unknown is whether or not the Feds will enforce growing and distribution laws, which they’ve done selectively in the past. If they do push those laws it could be argued that growing and selling is immoral for breaking the law, but that isn’t the topic at hand.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

So we go from Protestant Religions to Protestant States… a loss of respect for the authority of the federal government.

Can one blame protestant religion thought(s) influencing protestant state thought(s)? A loss of authority in one area spreads into a loss of authority in other areas? If we were “one” on the religious side…would we be more unified on the political side?

The states aren’t resisting Federal law, though. The Federal government will not be getting resistance or protests from the states in enforcing Federal law within its jurisdiction. The states have not said the Federal laws are void, and at least the Washington law was explicit in saying this.

[qoute]Ghostly, please clarify…maybe my coffee hasn’t kicked in today.
Sorry, preface those words with “the question is”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

Praying for the day when the USA adopts Singapore drug laws.
Save the tax payers real money on recycling pot dealers through the justice system over and over again as a drain on the economy.

Seeing as Singapore’s drug laws clearly violate Church teaching in the Catechism, I don’t see how praying for them to come here is a moral thing to do.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

There is no such thing as moderate pot use. With alcohol, it takes a few drinks or more to become impaired. With pot, you’re high right away.

Not sure where you get this idea, as it certainly doesn’t match my experience or that of the people I know who do use it. In your experience using marijuana did you get high and lose your faculties right away?

I have never had a priest (Catholic or Orthodox) tell me that “moderate” pot usage was moral. I have always been told it is a confessable sin.

I think you are projecting some bad advice.

I would urge anyone to speak wtih their spiritual father/confessor about it.

Good advice, to speak with one’s spiritual father. I for one have had the opposite experience as you when it comes to priestly advice on the matter. Different priests are going to have different answers. I suppose that living in an area where use is open and there is no rise in crime and irrational behavior as a result has given priests in my area a different perspective?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

Not sure where you get this idea, as it certainly doesn’t match my experience or that of the people I know who do use it.

It has been long ago for me (college days) and I remember the immediate high. Those whom I know who still smoke it…claim that it is even more pronounced today because of elevated THC levels.

Perhaps you and your friends are really smoking parsley?

I for one have had the opposite experience as you when it comes to priestly advice on the matter.

Really!!! You have priests tell you it is okay and morally acceptable to smoke weed?!? I find this hard to believe.

Different priests are going to have different answers.

How many priests have you conferred on the matter. I have talked to many (Catholic and Orthodox) and not one single priest condones your opinion.

I suppose that living in an area where use is open and there is no rise in crime and irrational behavior as a result has given priests in my area a different perspective?

If you have multiple priests giving a green light to smoke pot in your area…I am thinking it might be worth a call to the bishop.

 

[Ghosty]

I haven’t used it in several years, but I never got an immediate high, and never lost control of my faculties. It certainly had an affect, though.

As for priests, there’s nothing for a bishop to address because there is no rule against using the stuff. When it was a crime sure, but it hasn’t been a criminal offense here for quite some time. Using it to the point of losing reason is certainly wicked, but no one here is advocating that. Heck, I don’t even advocate using it at all, I just don’t think moderate use is a sin.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

I just don’t think moderate use is a sin.

Well…I don’t believe there’s such a thing as “moderate use.” With marijuana…you are either high…or you’re not.

As for priests, there’s nothing for a bishop to address because there is no rule against using the stuff.

Just because there is not a “rule” against using something…does not condone the activity. Before LSD was criminilized…would you say it was okay to use in moderation? Heroin? Cocaine?

I hope that those who may be lurking are not misled. Be watchful.

I find it hard to believe that there would be any spiritual fathers/confessors who would condone such actions. The following was written by an Orthodox priest. It is a most sensible response……and it coincides with everything I have ever been told by Latin Catholic, Eastern Catholic, and Orthodox clergy.

**“In considering the use of marijuana, because it is not directly addressed either in scripture or in the patristic teaching of the Church (most likely because its use was unknown except possibly in pagan mystical rites), we have to use the principles laid out for us by the scriptural and patristic teaching concerning the use of alcohol (another intoxicating drug with certain medical benefits). It is clear that the use of alcohol for medicinal purposes is accepted within limits (St Paul’s admonition to Timothy, for example) however there are limits - and those limits revolve around intoxication (the side effect of too much alcohol consumed in too little time). It is quite clear that we are not to become “drunk with wine”.

Let us now apply this to marijuana. Is it possible to “take a little marijuana” without becoming intoxicated? In my experience (and yes I mean my personal experience when I was young and foolish) the answer is no. The intoxicating side effect of marijuana is much more pronounced and occurs immediately with any and all other effects of using the drug. (With alcohol, a little can be taken and benefit received without intoxication). Thus the use of marijuana is indeed considered a sin by the Church as it leads immediately to intoxication thus transgressing the scriptural injunction against intoxication.

I know of no tradition within the Church that condones the recreational use of marijuana. Nor have I ever heard of a recognized spiritual father or hierarch of the Church who recommends the use of marijuana for any reason. Rather than assume that it’s ok to use marijuana unless some prohibition against its use is found, it should be eschewed unless a (heretofore unknown) specific approval within the tradition of the Church is discovered and confirmed by the living hierarchy of the Church.”

Fr David ******

 

[Jala]

I haven’t used it in several years, but I never got an immediate high, and never lost control of my faculties. It certainly had an affect, though.

Exactly!

I did try marijuana when I was young. I never felt anything. Nothing at all. Never high, never impared, never affected in any way whatsoever. Maybe I was doing it wrong, but it seemed like a waste to me.

However, I definitely feel “tipsy” within minutes of a single drink. Two drinks and I’m out cold.

So much for “marijuana makes you high immediately, but alcohol doesn’t affect you as quickly.” Depends on personal tolerance level.

Jala

 

[TimothyH]

Well, it’s a known fact that Catholics drink more than Protestants in America based on our churches view on alcohol. Now if we are talking about Italy and European countries with Catholics, I would say those Catholics drink a lot more in comparison to American Catholics. Even the Filipino Catholic icon Manny Pacquiao has his alcoholic drink commercials.

The ammount one drinks has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with their culture.

American’s consumed one fifth of their calories from alcohol at the time of it’s founding by Protestants. That is fact. America was founded by a bunch of drunk Protestants.

If Catholics do drink more now it is because Catholics come, for the most part, from European cultures where there is more drinking - Spain and Italy being examples.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with culture.

-Tim-

 

[Christian_Unity]

The ammount one drinks has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with their culture.

American’s consumed one fifth of their calories from alcohol at the time of it’s founding by Protestants. That is fact. America was founded by a bunch of drunk Protestants.

If Catholics do drink more now it is because Catholics come, for the most part, from European cultures where there is more drinking - Spain and Italy being examples.

It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with culture.

-Tim-

I agree almost. Some Protestant denominations believe that it is a sin to drink, so their members are not permitted to drink. I believe the Mormon Church also prohibits drinking too.

 

[Ghosty]

Mickey: Even that priest links the immorality of pot to becoming intoxicated, not as an intrinsic aspect of pot use. He’s simply dubious about it being possible to consume without getting high. In the few time I used pot I got high once, but the other times I got a buzz on par with having a couple of beers, which is not to the point of losing one’s faculties.

One problem with the black market is that you don’t know the potency of the drug, nor whether or not it is mixed with something. With legal reegulation pot will be marked with its potency much like alcohol, and will be tested for additives. People will be able to buy the potency that gives them a buzz without losing their faculties, which is not readily possible with the black market.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

He’s simply dubious about it being possible to consume without getting high.

Exactly. You smoke. You get high. There is no such thing as being a little high as opposed to impaired high. High is high.

In the few time I used pot I got high once, but the other times I got a buzz on par with having a couple of beers, which is not to the point of losing one’s faculties.

The buzz…is the intoxication.

Pot also opens doors. But that is another conversation.

You are free to defend smoking weed…and it seems you have a blessing to do so.

But I will advise the opposite…whether legal or not.

Be watchful

 

[Porknpie]

Mickey: Even that priest links the immorality of pot to becoming intoxicated, not as an intrinsic aspect of pot use. He’s simply dubious about it being possible to consume without getting high. In the few time I used pot I got high once,

:

Ghosty, in the Midwest…one smokes pot to get high. I’ve never known anyone to separate the two. Do you differentiate between getting a buz and getting high? Well, actually, I know of one person…Bill Clinton… who said that he didn’t inhale. Now why would Bill Clinton ever say that he didn’t inhale? Because he did not want to be accused of being high. That’s why everyone in the country, media included laughed at him. No one believed him because that is what you do when you smoke pot.

Those were the years:
Bill Clinton “I didn’t inhale” youtube.com/watch?v=Bktd_Pi4YJw
Bill Clinton “Depends on what your meaning of “is”, is”
Al Gore “I invented the internet”

:juggle:

 

[TimothyH]

I agree almost. Some Protestant denominations believe that it is a sin to drink, so their members are not permitted to drink. I believe the Mormon Church also prohibits drinking too.

There is nothing to agree or disagree with.

America was founded by drunks who got 20% of their daily calorie intake from whiskey, and they weren’t Catholic.

-Tim-

 

[Ghosty]

:

Ghosty, in the Midwest…one smokes pot to get high. I’ve never known anyone to separate the two. Do you differentiate between getting a buz and getting high? Well, actually, I know of one person…Bill Clinton… who said that he didn’t inhale. Now why would Bill Clinton ever say that he didn’t inhale? Because he did not want to be accused of being high. That’s why everyone in the country, media included laughed at him. No one believed him because that is what you do when you smoke pot.

Those were the years:
Bill Clinton “I didn’t inhale” youtube.com/watch?v=Bktd_Pi4YJw
Bill Clinton “Depends on what your meaning of “is”, is”
Al Gore “I invented the internet”

:juggle:

There is a difference in how I’m using buzz and high. A buzz would be feeling the effects, but still having control of your faculties. This is permitted with alcohol, it’s the point of drinking alcohol socially. It is certainly noot Catholic teaching that one can’t drink to the point of feeling effects. Getting high is the equivalent of getting drunk, intoxicated to the point of diminished or lost control. This is morally forbidden.

One can easily use pot to the point of feeling an effect without loss of control. If that is permitted for alcohol, it stands to reason that it is permitted for pot.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Mickey]

:Ghosty, in the Midwest…one smokes pot to get high. I’ve never known anyone to separate the two. Do you differentiate between getting a buz and getting high? Well, actually, I know of one person…Bill Clinton… who said that he didn’t inhale. Now why would Bill Clinton ever say that he didn’t inhale? Because he did not want to be accused of being high. That’s why everyone in the country, media included laughed at him. No one believed him because that is what you do when you smoke pot.

Good point. But alas, you wil have endless arguments involving those who try to justify the morality of smoking pot. It seems that if you try, you can even find a clergyman here or there that will agree. However, rest assured that the vast majoirty of presbyters and bishops do not view pot smoking as a morally acceptable activity.