B
bitznbitez
Guest
The degree a nation will take a simple gardening dispute to is somewhat amusing. In the end we are fighting about which plants to grow where.
- Status
M
marymary1975
Guest
Be careful with marihuana, it is a depressant and causes mood swings that you won’t notice but people around you will notice. That was the popular drug when I was a teenager and many friends used to smoke it and I did notice several changes in their behavior while they used to argue that it didn’t affect them.
P
Peerce
Guest
We’ve already had a Trudeau ruin this once great country already. If we’re seriously stupid enough to elect another I’ll have to consider defecting.if Trudeau gets elected; I’d put money on it.
P
PetiteFoi
Guest
HAHAHA!!!
You and me both brother!
M
Melek
Guest
I don’t think consuming marijuana is a moral sin per se. Alcohol is more deadly than marijuana. If someone consumes marijuana every once in a while, I can’t see that being sinful.
Many people I went to high school with have moderately smoked marijuana and many of them have become good-hearted law-abiding citizens.
Many people I went to high school with have moderately smoked marijuana and many of them have become good-hearted law-abiding citizens.
G
GWright
Guest
Hiya PetiteFoi,
I agree with what your friends say.
I would support the legalisation of it, for the private and responsible use of adults - just as per the existing social drugs of alcohol and tobacco (nicotine).
Marijuana is a natural, benign substance - plant matter. It is not physically addictive and its contents are not harmful to health (though smoking the substance with tobacco is obviously harmful, due to the presence of tobacco).
Unlike alcohol, it is actually difficult to over-indulge in Marijuana. With alcohol, if people drink quickly, there is a delayed-action “POW” in the post for them. This is because it takes time for the body to process alcohol, for it to enter the blood. People who drink quickly tend to be suddenly overwhelmed by a lot of alcohol entering the bloodstream all at once.
But, as Marijuana is generally smoked or vaporuised, it enters the blood stream immediately (via the lungs, not the stomach as per alcohol) and so people are always fully aware of the extent to which they have indulged. There’s no sudden “catch up” as can happen if someone quickly drinks a few beers/shots in succession.
This leads to the phenomenon of “auto-titration” with Marijuana, where people reach a happy place (if you will) and naturally want no more, as it is not desirable to them. But with alcohol, it is very, very, very easy to accidentally drink too much - especially for those new to it.
The social harm resulting from legal alcohol and tobacco comprehensively eclipses any negative side which could ever feasibility be possible resulting from legalised marijuana.
Yes, its true that that Marijuana is not for everyone - some people dislike its effects, or a minority may even react adversely to them. However, this is again no different to alcohol. You already said you don’t like the taste of alcohol. Other people don’t like to feel drunk. It makes other people feel sick, some violent. But that a minority of people either dislike, or react adversely to, an otherwise benign substance should not preclude its legal and responsible enjoyment by others.
Yes, its true that Marijuana can be abused. It could become a crutch or a psychological addiction for some. But then food is a crutch and a psychological addiction for some. And food can also be abused - by irresponsible overeating for example. In any case, it would be incoherent for society to allow physically addictive social drugs - alcohol and tobacco - but forbid things which people may only become psychologically reliant on. People can form a psychological dependence on anything - here the issue lies with the persons own mind, not whatever it is they think they need.
As for what the Church says, as I understand it:
Naturally the Church condemns “hard” drugs, such as heroin or cocaine, not only for causing immediate and obvious harm to the user and their society, but also to the country of origin (eg drug cartels, who profit from, drug users, are involved in a lot of violence and other types of crime).
But for “social” or “soft” drugs - which would include marijuana, alcohol and tobacco etc, though none of these is explicitly commented upon (to my knowledge) - the Church is realistic and balances the obvious need to respect ourselves and our bodies, with the fact that human beings enjoy using such drugs.
This leads to a situation where, for example, it is acceptable to enjoy alcohol, but not to the irresponsible extent where we become so drunk that we lose (i) our dignity (how many people make a fool of themselves when drunk, by falling over or being sick?) and (ii) our ability to reason (people often do stupid / dangerous things when drunk, often which are out of character).
So, there is nothing wrong with a glass of wine with dinner, or a few beers with friends, but it is sinful to use alcohol irresponsibly - by becoming addicted, (harming ourselves), by getting blind drunk (losing our reason) etc. I think this is a fair, common sense and realistic approach.
I see no reason why the same thinking cannot be applied to marijuana. If all someone did was sit at home smoking marijuana all day - obviously that is not acceptable. The person is throwing their life away, misusing a substance and harming their prospects, they are neglecting responsibilities and relationships, they are being lazy and sloth - they are sinning, in other words. But where is the harm resulting from responsible adults enjoying marijuana in a social setting, at the weekend for example? Perhaps even in place of the ubiquitous alcohol. (Many adults prefer marijuana to alcohol, it doesn’t cause hangovers for a start).
Ultimately, as some of the best red wine in the world bears the symbols of the Papacy (Chatueaneuf-du-Pape) and I don’t know of any Pope who hasn’t enjoyed a smoke and a drink*, the Church would have a hard time condemning social drugs outright.
*Theres a famous picture of the then Cardinal Ratzinger holding a litre stein of German Pils, eyes glinting in happy anticipation. He also used to smoke cheroots (unfiltered cigars).
Ultimately, look at the Netherlands. They have long had a relaxed and tolerant policy towards Marijuana and the sky hasn’t fallen in there, nor are they beset with legions of mental patients resulting from their smoking marijuana.
G
GWright
Guest
It might be interesting to note why marijuana originally became illegal - it was down to political interests and racism, not evidence of social harm. This info can help in forming a balanced view on the subject, as opposed to starting from “marijuana = drug = bad”.
Marijuana was only made illegal relatively recently in the anglosphere, led by the United States. This was on very dubious grounds and If you look into the “reefer madness” era in US history, (earth 20th cent), you find the anti-Marijuana lobby is strongly associated with overt and appalling racism against Black and Hispanic people, which reflected the America of the time.
It was portrayed as an integral part of Black culture, along with other supposedly subversive and dangerous things, such as jazz music. Marijuana and jazz were the tools black men used, in their alleged campaign to seduce the white women of America.
It was easy to demonise the substance by linking it to ethnic minorities, among an already largely racist white population. This served as a front for Marijuana / Hemp (a derivative) products to be banned in the USA, as desired by big business because Hemp products threaten their own artificial products.
See here (my emphasis):
If there were indeed genuine reasons to outlaw a substance, then I would expect Government officials to be demonstrating the presence of addiction, of social harm etc, not talking about “Negroes” and “Hispanics” and “Satanic music” and concerning themselves with the relationships of white women,
That laws based on these sentiments are still largely in force today shows the cowardice and fear of change in western drug policy, which is agenda-driven, not fact-driven. This is shown by nothing better than the comical episode where the UK Government hired a drug expert to advise them, Professor David Nutt, and then quickly sacked him when his fact-based advice didn’t support their agenda-driven policies.
From Wikipedia (credible references within the article):
Government Policy should be based on facts - on the truth. The truth can never be a bad thing, right? But it is patently obvious that Government attitudes here are mostly still based on their own agenda, not facts.
Marijuana was only made illegal relatively recently in the anglosphere, led by the United States. This was on very dubious grounds and If you look into the “reefer madness” era in US history, (earth 20th cent), you find the anti-Marijuana lobby is strongly associated with overt and appalling racism against Black and Hispanic people, which reflected the America of the time.
It was portrayed as an integral part of Black culture, along with other supposedly subversive and dangerous things, such as jazz music. Marijuana and jazz were the tools black men used, in their alleged campaign to seduce the white women of America.
It was easy to demonise the substance by linking it to ethnic minorities, among an already largely racist white population. This served as a front for Marijuana / Hemp (a derivative) products to be banned in the USA, as desired by big business because Hemp products threaten their own artificial products.
See here (my emphasis):
chieftain.com/news/local/article_ba21ef7e-3563-11df-9d83-001cc4c002e0.html
If there were indeed genuine reasons to outlaw a substance, then I would expect Government officials to be demonstrating the presence of addiction, of social harm etc, not talking about “Negroes” and “Hispanics” and “Satanic music” and concerning themselves with the relationships of white women,
That laws based on these sentiments are still largely in force today shows the cowardice and fear of change in western drug policy, which is agenda-driven, not fact-driven. This is shown by nothing better than the comical episode where the UK Government hired a drug expert to advise them, Professor David Nutt, and then quickly sacked him when his fact-based advice didn’t support their agenda-driven policies.
From Wikipedia (credible references within the article):
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt#Dismissal
Government Policy should be based on facts - on the truth. The truth can never be a bad thing, right? But it is patently obvious that Government attitudes here are mostly still based on their own agenda, not facts.
T
TheSupplanter
Guest
This is a great question. Jesus drank and we know drinking in moderation is not sinful. Marijuana is a drug, its gets you “high” if you smoke it. But taking one hit of weed is not going to get you “stoned” which in my opinion is the equivalent of getting drunk. Many other drugs are not only legal, but prescribed to people by doctors. As a person who struggled with drugs in the past, I can see how smoking weed can easily lead to other sins, so maybe it wouldn’t be the best idea, but every now and again, if legal, and in small amounts, probably would not be sinful.
B
BettyBoop416
Guest
You beat me to it.
While I am not a fan of marijuana (or any intoxicant for that matter), the DEA website probably isn’t the best source of unbiased information on the subject.
M
mommamaree
Guest
The problem I have with it is this…
If you have a glass of wine or beer, enjoying it moderately, only your body is affected, and mildly at that.
If you smoke a joint, the secondhand smoke will absolutely affect everyone around you and can impact others’ bodies in significant ways, depending on their age, size, and health. Smoke can seep through apartment walls, around the edges of doors and windows.
Even if you are alone in your apartment, you smoking a mind-altering substance can affect and injure a child or elderly person or someone with respiratory impairment, in a nearby apartment. Only going out to the middle of nowhere and staying put until the high runs out would effectively exclude the possibility of injury to others.
Just my thoughts…
If you have a glass of wine or beer, enjoying it moderately, only your body is affected, and mildly at that.
If you smoke a joint, the secondhand smoke will absolutely affect everyone around you and can impact others’ bodies in significant ways, depending on their age, size, and health. Smoke can seep through apartment walls, around the edges of doors and windows.
Even if you are alone in your apartment, you smoking a mind-altering substance can affect and injure a child or elderly person or someone with respiratory impairment, in a nearby apartment. Only going out to the middle of nowhere and staying put until the high runs out would effectively exclude the possibility of injury to others.
Just my thoughts…
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Pot affects immediate and short-term memory.
P
Peerce
Guest
Yeah, right. I guess you’re one of the ones duped into believing “secondhand smoke” is worse for those around than the actual smoker. It’s this sort of thinking that will have incense burning at mass illegal one day (and oh yes; it’s been talked about before). The answer is simple; blow the smoke out the window.
M
mommamaree
Guest
You know what they say about making assumptions…
No, you guess wrong. Secondhand smoke can cause serious health problems for those exposed to it, but I would never say that it is worse than what the actual smoker breathes into their lungs. At least for the smoker, it is their body, their discretion. For others who are exposed to secondhand smoke, it is not their choice to smoke, yet they suffer the effects of the exposure anyway.
There have been cases where children have been exposed to large amounts of marijuana smoke in apartments when their neighbors were having a pot party, and got sick or had asthma attacks.
With regard to incense at Mass, while I would never want them to remove it, it is true that the incense can cause coughing fits or asthma attacks, depending on how close a person is. Thankfully, most churches have higher ceilings and are larger spaces, so people have the ability to move away. But the smells and bells Masses are beautiful.
And to remind you of a point you overlooked, marijuana contains a psychotropic compound, and secondhand smoke contains it. So mind-altering effects are possible even for people who are not choosing to be exposed.
I will refrain from making assumptions about you, but I do have a question to ask. Are in favor of legalized marijuana and do you smoke it?
L
lllj
Guest
I truly believe marijuana will be legal in the US within the next 5-10 years in most states. Whether this is right or not… I’m not sure. On a personal level, I don’t want to be legalized, but from an American libertarian-inspired point of view, maybe it should be.
I neither drink or smoke. The question you asked is hard for me to answer. My instinct tells me drinking is wrong - primarily because it is a mind-altering drug which hinders the ability to think clearly. For me, marijuana and alcohol fall right into the same box.
However, I’ve accepted that society, as well as the Catholic church, accepts that alcohol use is okay in moderation. So to be honest, I’d probably have to say that it would only make sense that they would approve of legal marijuana use in moderation as well.
Don’t ask me to quote anything official though, since I really have no idea.
I neither drink or smoke. The question you asked is hard for me to answer. My instinct tells me drinking is wrong - primarily because it is a mind-altering drug which hinders the ability to think clearly. For me, marijuana and alcohol fall right into the same box.
However, I’ve accepted that society, as well as the Catholic church, accepts that alcohol use is okay in moderation. So to be honest, I’d probably have to say that it would only make sense that they would approve of legal marijuana use in moderation as well.
Don’t ask me to quote anything official though, since I really have no idea.
P
Peerce
Guest
No to the first and to the second you can make your own assumption.
M
mommamaree
Guest
If you insist, I would assume no, since you oppose the first.
L
LongingSoul
Guest
Actually, these two substances have quite different actions in the brain. That is also obvious to observers and even partakers.
They also fall under different categories in the Bible. The Bible speaks of drunkenness often in reference to wine and beer. It speaks of other mind and consciousness altering substances under the category of ‘sorcery’. The Bible refers to two arms of sorcery. That is, MAGIC (In Greek, “mageia”) and DRUGS (In Greek, “pharmakeia”). In biblical times the use of potent substances, natural or contrived, was associated with facilitating occult activities. These substances unlike the crude alcohol, left the person open to (vulnerable to) hypnotic and enchanting forces that make a person feel supernaturally empowered. Today, mind altering drugs are still used in occult groups and are associated with the illusion of having a ‘higher’ consciousness.
Alcohol and marijuana are apples and oranges.
L
lllj
Guest
This is a concern I have. Right now, I can hang out with a group of friends who are drinking and choose to abstain. If people were smoking pot in bars, that could potentially get those who weren’t smoking a little bit high. Even if it wasn’t in a public place… I’d be hesitant to hang out in a friend’s apartment if people were smoking. Because I really am pretty fundamentally opposed to mind-altering recreational substances. And that’s a shame, because I would have to avoid hanging out with people who weren’t doing anything wrong in the eyes of the law.
B
Buick
Guest
Book, chapter, and verse?
L
LongingSoul
Guest
From the Greek, “pharmakia” literally means “drugs”, and appears five times in the New Testament: in Gal 5:20, Rev 9:21, 18:23, 21:8, and 22:15.
biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/pharmakeia.html
Of course the modern derivatives, pharmacy/pharmaceuticals etc refer to the (mostly) proper use of drugs in medicine but in biblical terms it refers to the illicit use of drugs by the practicioners of sorcery and witchcraft. It was they who concocted the ungodly uses of substances as hallucinogens and consciousness altering stuff for pagan practices. (They also concocted abortificants .)
According to Paul “pharmakia” is listed as a work of the flesh of man as opposed to the Spirit of God working in us.
- But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would. But if you are led by the Spirit you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are plain: immorality, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God*.- Galatians 5 16-21
veritasbible.com/newjerusalem1989/read/Revelation_18
- Status