Is it a sin or sinful to smoke marijuana?

[LilyM]

Here is the actual CCC text again:

2290 The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

The CCC is very clear on excessive use and abuse of a substance. But as far as the use of drugs - more clarification is needed. Common sense tells us that it can’t mean we shouldn’t use cough medicine, drink coffee or alcohol even though they are drugs too. It does mention using drugs “strictly” for therapeutic grounds. Thats why I like to have a glass of wine when I get home from work each night. It is very therapeutic. Is it possible that a person can responsibly use marijuana moderately (not in excess) for therapeutic reasons? Why are some states legalizing it for medical purposes? In an earlier post I had a link to a study that shows promising results for alzheimers patients given the main ingredient in marijuana - THC. The CCC is not black and white on the use of marijuana. Therefore I do not agree with your statement that my position disagrees with the CCC.

The CCC does say that "Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law. " No objection here. This is very clear.

Bottom line - your argument Writer that the use of marijuana is a sin and anti-Catholic does not hold weight. I’m sure for you Writer that using marijuana would be a sin. Read the words of St. Paul: "“Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother’s way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, **I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean, ** "

I make the distinction between therapeutic use and ABUSE as you mention Writer. I agree that recreational drug ABUSE could be sinful. I’m sure for you that ABUSE means any amount of marijuana use. Your definition of ABUSE and mine are not the same.

Again, thank you Writer for your opinion.

But your (individual and collective) illicit use of drugs is directly linked to the morally reprehensible activities of illicit production and trafficking.

If you didn’t BUY marijuana illicitly, there’d be that much less reason for dealers to deal and produce. It amounts to materially co-operating in evil, like the person who drives another to an abortion clinic or pays for their abortion, or who supplies Zyklon B to the Nazis knowing that they are using that chemial in thier gas chambers to murder Jews with.

 

[Reepicheep]

this wont be my last post. the phrase recreational drug abuse is an oxymoron, if its recreational its not abuse.

So there’s nothing wrong with getting drunk if I do it as recreation.

you misinterpret the CCC based on cultural antidrug values that are a creation of propaganda like the movie reefer madness.

Bald assertion is not evidence.

unless one smokes pot ones self more than a couple of times, one has no idea what one talks about

Unless you’ve been drunk a lot you can’t criticize people who want to drink.

 

[Reepicheep]

ok, so its back to morality by geography. its not illicit in many areas.

here it seems we must apply some common sense

It’s a sin to knowingly break the law, unless the law is commanding us to sin.
Refraining from pot is not sinful. So we have a duty to obey the law if it forbids us to smoke pot.
The fact that the law differs from place to place is beside the point. Our duty is to obey the law in whatever place we’re in.
The fact that we disagree with a particular law is beside the point. Our duty is to obey the law - not merely those laws we agree with.
Either pot is harmful to use or not. If it is, and we know it to be, then it’s a sin to use it even if the law allows us to.
If it’s not harmful, but the law forbids it, we must still obey the law.
If it’s non-harmful in moderation but harmful in excess, then our duty is to not use it to excess.
As I’ve made clear I believe it’s harmful in any amount.

 

[jkarp]

Read Sophocles’ “Antigone.” Or, for that matter, read the story of Saint Stephen. Sometimes unjust laws need to be opposed, but this is not an unjust law. (I realize this point could be debated by excited “pot-heads,” but the fact of the matter is that most Americans believe that this category is selfish and wrong. Our laws reflect these Judeo-Christian values.) Trying to draw a comparison between one’s desire for religious freedom and the ease of destroying one’s brain with drugs is pretty silly.

As far as the earlier arguments regarding alcohol, water can also be used inappropriately. From drowing to hyperhydration, water can also result in ill effects or death. Under the logic used in those prior posts, water would then constitute an evil. Common sense, however, tells us otherwise.

Pot does serious damage to the body. Since the body is God’s temple and we are entrusted with its care, the use of drugs certainly constitutes a serious sin. This doesn’t even begin to hit on issues relating to being a poor witness to others or supporting the black market trade of drugs. Yes, it’s true that water and French Fries can also be used for ill, but their effects (and the moral and societal implications of said use) are far less severe. After all, when is the last time you heard of a robbery or “home invasion” to steal French Fries?

If you disagree, you might want to read what the CCC tells us about the use of illegal drugs.

Good job taking my post out of context . . . how about reading the rest of my posts on this thread?

 

[LilyM]

It’s a sin to knowingly break the law, unless the law is commanding us to sin.
Refraining from pot is not sinful. So we have a duty to obey the law if it forbids us to smoke pot.
**The fact that the law differs from place to place is beside the point. Our duty is to obey the law in whatever place we’re in.
The fact that we disagree with a particular law is beside the point. Our duty is to obey the law - not merely those laws we agree with. **

Amen! If the law in my area mandates a speed limit of 40 m/h for a particular road, am I excused from obeying that road simply because a) other roads in my area allow for much faster speeds or b) in other jurisdictions the same type of road might merit a higher speed limit?

Of course not - you’d get a situation where people might drive on the wrong side of the road because some countries drive on the left and others on the right. Chaos.

As long as the law is within the range of what the government is permitted to do (ie not an immoral or sinful law) then we should obey.

If you don’t like the law, either move to Amsterdam or California or wherever the laws are to your taste, or fight to change the law but don’t whinge if not enough people share your views and it doesn’t change in spite of your campaign - in a democracy no-one gets all the laws they want.

 

[Holly3278]

I believe that it is at least a venial sin if not a grave sin to smoke marijuana. The reason being not only that it is illegal and that we are to follow just laws but also because it distorts the mind in ways similar to what alcohol does to a drunken man.

 

[Ana]

But your (individual and collective) illicit use of drugs is directly linked to the morally reprehensible activities of illicit production and trafficking.

If you didn’t BUY marijuana illicitly, there’d be that much less reason for dealers to deal and produce. It amounts to materially co-operating in evil, like the person who drives another to an abortion clinic or pays for their abortion, or who supplies Zyklon B to the Nazis knowing that they are using that chemial in thier gas chambers to murder Jews with.

You don’t HAVE to buy it. A seed, some water, and sunlight is all you need.

 

[jkiernan56]

But your (individual and collective) illicit use of drugs is directly linked to the morally reprehensible activities of illicit production and trafficking.

If you didn’t BUY marijuana illicitly, there’d be that much less reason for dealers to deal and produce. It amounts to materially co-operating in evil, like the person who drives another to an abortion clinic or pays for their abortion, or who supplies Zyklon B to the Nazis knowing that they are using that chemial in thier gas chambers to murder Jews with.

Who said it was OK to obtain marijuana illicitly? Not me
Common sense is not so common.

 

[jkiernan56]

You don’t HAVE to buy it. A seed, some water, and sunlight is all you need.

Or get a presciption from a doctor and obtain it through legal means. ASSUME = You make an A*S out of U and ME.

 

[jkiernan56]

I believe that it is at least a venial sin if not a grave sin to smoke marijuana. The reason being not only that it is illegal and that we are to follow just laws but also because it distorts the mind in ways similar to what alcohol does to a drunken man.

Who here is advocating drunkiness and abusing alcohol?
Eat too much sugar and that’s bad for you too.
This thread is NOT about ABUSE but the USE.

 

[jkiernan56]

If you don’t like the law, either move to Amsterdam or California or wherever the laws are to your taste, or fight to change the law but don’t whinge if not enough people share your views and it doesn’t change in spite of your campaign - in a democracy no-one gets all the laws they want.

The Pot Calling The Kettle Black means to say something about someone else which is actually true of you yourself.

Would you like sone WHINE with your CHEESE?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you assert that being high does not interfere with judgement or reasoning power?

no, i assert that in moderation a high does not in the way that a drunk, does.

Both involve losing the power of sound judgement.

not in the least they are completely different biological processes

please offer a non-biased source(that means non-governmental, or funded by the government) for such an a assertion

I question this assertion. Please cite your source. What evidence have you that marijuana existed “everywhere but antarctica” for “thousands of years”?

www.or-coast.net/contigo/PDF 1 Files/chpt_5.pdf

this shows it can grow anywhere, and it has been found in graves thousands of years old.

Again, please cite your sources. What evidence have you that these millions and millions of users ever existed?Or that their experience has been that pot is harmless?

drugtext.org/library/books/recreationaldrugs/marijuana.htm

Loss of judgement, loss of inhibitions, loss of control - habit forming.

thats just drunkeness there, not a moderate high, but please provide some evidence. you have never smoked much pot from the statements you are making

Billions of tests by whom? Show me evidence that these millions and millions of users even existed.

drugtext.org/library/books/recreationaldrugs/marijuana.htm

Even if they had, the sample size means nothing if the sample is biased. Do you believe an alcoholic who insists there’s nothing wrong with his drinking habit, and it’s not hurting him, even when you can see the harm it does? Why then believe a pothead who insists pot doesn’t do him any harm, if you can see evidence that it does?

its not biased because we arent looking at the self reporting aspects, rather incidents of actual deaths, or permanent disabilities, and there are none, across billions and billions of highs, there is no proof of deaths or disabilities as a result of marijuana use.

there is no evidence of such harm

Lots of things are not mentioned in scripture. The lack of evidence is not evidence.

which is why you cannot apply the scriptural prohibition against drunkenness to marijuana, they are not the same thing.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I bolded it, maybe it will be read this time.

wrong quote the keyword is ‘illicit’

 

[warpspeedpetey]

So there’s nothing wrong with getting drunk if I do it as recreation.

abusing alcohol to the point of drunkenness is not recreational

again a drunk and a high are completely different things chemically, and biologically

Bald assertion is not evidence.

civilliberty.about.com/od/drugpolicy/tp/Why-is-Marijuana-Illegal.htm

this is one of many

Unless you’ve been drunk a lot you can’t criticize people who want to drink.

drunk and a moderate high are different things, and yes if you havent tried it dont knock it, otherwise you are talking about things you know nothing about

 

[jkiernan56]

I apologize folks, but this may be my very last posting here at CA.
I started a thread called “Did God really create the world out of nothing” and while I was in the middle of submitting a reply to someone, I got the notification that the thread was closed.

There was NO notification given or warning in advance. There seems to be a rule here at CA against common courtesy. If I do not get any answer or a satisfactory answer to this issue from the Forum, I am out of here and will never again return to this site.

I should add to the statement at the end of every posting "Christian faith should not devoid a person of a sense of humor or common sense … **OR COMMON COURTESY!!! **

 

[Matariel]

You don’t HAVE to buy it. A seed, some water, and sunlight is all you need.

2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.

Even if Marijuana is referred to by this paragraph in the Catechism (which, considering alcohol and tobacco are not referred to, it may be that recreational use of Marijuana is not) it does not rule out therapeutic use. I think in Ana’s case it would be considered therapeutic use anyway, regardless of inclusion or non-inclusion of Marijuana in “drugs” in this category.

 

[Ana]

wrong quote the keyword is ‘illicit’

Not for me.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not for me.

its not a matter of personal choice here, you are expecting us to interpret a passage, then it is a matter of the objective operative word, in this case ‘illicit’, narijuana is only illicit in certain places, sense morality by geography violates common sense we must assume that this passage is inapplicable to marijuana.

so indeed it does matter

 

[Ana]

quote=Matariel;4540220]Even if Marijuana is referred to by this paragraph in the Catechism (which, considering alcohol and tobacco are not referred to, it may be that recreational use of Marijuana is not) it does not rule out therapeutic use.

Thank you, that’s what I was going to say, only you said it better.

I think in Ana’s case it would be considered therapeutic use anyway, regardless of inclusion or non-inclusion of Marijuana in “drugs” in this category.

Definitely therapeutic.

I am not sure where I stand on the recreational issue. But from one who smokes pot regularly, I cannot see it ever being more than a venial sin. It’s just not sooo bad like everyone has made it out to be. I can see, very much, how one could smoke a bit in the evening being therapeutic. No different than a nightcap.

And I agree with the others who point out that if a person has never smoked pot, it would be impossible for the person to compare the effects to those of alcohol. Conversely, if someone who smokes pot, has never had a drink, they would not be able to compare the two either. I don’t understand what is so hard to understand about this. It’s simple logic.

***Is there anyone in the house who has ever smoked pot more than 3 times, smoked only a moderate amount, and found they were with impaired judgement similar to being in a drunken state? Please speak up! (Experience must also include drunkeness.) ***

---

---

---

---

 

[Ana]

its not a matter of personal choice here, you are expecting us to interpret a passage, then it is a matter of the objective operative word, in this case ‘illicit’, narijuana is only illicit in certain places, sense morality by geography violates common sense we must assume that this passage is inapplicable to marijuana.

so indeed it does matter

I didn’t say it didn’t matter at all, just “not to me.”

I felt the objective operative word was EXCEPT, defending and being an advocate of medical marijuana. In which case the law would be unjust, confirmed by the CCC specifically excluding this scenario.

YOU felt the objective operative word is ILLICIT, defending recreactional smoking, which is not what I am representing. ALTHOUGH, as I stated above, from my experience, my opinion is that recreational pot smoking could be therapuetic. I wholeheartedly feel it should be decriminalized all the way around.

It makes criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens. Those who smoke pot and are criminals are not criminals because they smoke pot. Maybe I run in different circles than some others on this thread, but in my experience I have met personally, pot smokers who are teachers, policeman, college professors, electricians, soccer moms, lawyers etc. There was even a congressman last year, who revealed that he smoked prescribed marijuana at National Smoke Out Day in DC. These people are not criminals and should not be treated as such.