Is it a sin or sinful to smoke marijuana?

[Ana]

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

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

Or that it is only applicable in places it is illicit. Yours seems the more logical interpretation, but it is important to consider the other.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

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.

ok, i see.

it looked like you were trying to answer my argument with out supporting it,

 

[Matariel]

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

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.

I agree, but we have to remember, if it was found to be merely a venial sin, that’s still not an excuse to indulge (unless, like you, people do it for therapeutic reasons).

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.

I agree. When I used to smoke Marijuana, I never really had a bad experience where I did something stupid or messed something up. Conversely, there were two instances where I overindulged on alcohol and messed up big time, including messing up a relationship.

So I worry more about alcohol than Marijuana. With Marijuana, I actually had laid-back, quality time with very close friends. It was a way of bonding.

If it was found to be a sin, I wouldn’t go back to it. I don’t even smoke now, and haven’t for like 10 months. But as far as I can tell, it’s no sin in moderation, and the government is overstepping their authority to regulate a free choice under the constitution. So it’s arguable whether it’s truly illegal or not.

Just my thoughts.

 

[fbl9]

I agree. When I used to smoke Marijuana, I never really had a bad experience where I did something stupid or messed something up. Conversely, there were two instances where I overindulged on alcohol and messed up big time, including messing up a relationship.

So I worry more about alcohol than Marijuana. With Marijuana, I actually had laid-back, quality time with very close friends. It was a way of bonding.

. So it’s arguable whether it’s truly illegal or not.

.

i would have to agree with you on the first part,except the messing up a relation…
that is the context in which i see use of pot,kinda like getting together with the boys and have a social drink/or i mean puff…now that my group has aged we don’t go crazy with the stuff,in our experience one can only get so high.after that it’s just a waste.

 

[LilyM]

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

Of course you’re going to go see a doctor who

a) likely as not will decide you DON’T need medicinal marijuana and won’t give the prescription and

b) probably charges more and takes more time about it than your friendly neighbourhood dealer.

That’s even assuming (who’s making an a** of you and me now, mate) that you’re in a jurisdiction where it’s legal, d’uh. It still isn’t in most places, even for medicinal purposes.

 

[Ana]

Of course you’re going to go see a doctor who

a) likely as not will decide you DON’T need medicinal marijuana and won’t give the prescription and

b) probably charges more and takes more time about it than your friendly neighbourhood dealer.

That’s even assuming (who’s making an a** of you and me now, mate) that you’re in a jurisdiction where it’s legal, d’uh. It still isn’t in most places, even for medicinal purposes.

It doesn’t matter if he has a prescription, or needs one. He was making the point that participating in drug traffiking is not the only way to obtain marijuana. He offered one example of obtaining it (by prescription), that countered your implication that the sin of would lie in it’s association with the underworld. I also offered the example of growing your own. It’s as simple as a tomato plant. Would it still be sinful in these circumstances.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say he does live in a state where it is legal, and that he does have a prescription for it. Is he sinning, in your opinion?

 

[Ana]

I agree, but we have to remember, if it was found to be merely a venial sin, that’s still not an excuse to indulge (unless, like you, people do it for therapeutic reasons).

Yes … IF.
The Church is always right.

 

[Matariel]

Yes … IF.
The Church is always right.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Would smoking marijuana be a sin if it was done somewhere where it was legal and if you took only one toke?

 

[LilyM]

It doesn’t matter if he has a prescription, or needs one. He was making the point that participating in drug traffiking is not the only way to obtain marijuana. He offered one example of obtaining it (by prescription), that countered your implication that the sin of would lie in it’s association with the underworld. I also offered the example of growing your own. It’s as simple as a tomato plant. Would it still be sinful in these circumstances.

For the sake of argument, let’s just say he does live in a state where it is legal, and that he does have a prescription for it. Is he sinning, in your opinion?

Well, the mere fact of the state legalising something doesn’t automatically make it morally OK of course (obtaining a legal abortion being an example).

As for having a prescription for it - not all doctors are bound by a Catholic sense of morality either. So the mere fact that a doctor might approve also doesn’t make it morally OK. Again, example being the fact that a doctor might be happy to perform an abortion for you.

What it boils down to for me is that you can’t do something that is wrong merely because it achieves some good. Catholicism does not subscribe to an ‘ends justify the means’ view of morality.

It wouldn’t be morally OK to get drunk in order to get rid of a headache, for example. Getting drunk is plain wrong, and the fact that some good comes out of it additional to the harms wouldn’t, so it seems, make it OK.

Fact is for all your attempts to equate alcohol with cannabis they are morally totally different categories. Responsible use of alcohol is not only permitted but encouraged in scripture - whilst drunkenness (intoxication) is of course warned against.

Not least its responsible use is endorsed by Our Saviour’s own examples at Cana and His command to drink at the Last Supper. There are legitimate pleasures to be got from responsible drinking. Many people enjoy their wine or beer or spirits for their taste, as they enjoy their food, and not simply for the alcoholic or intoxicant effect.

There is simply no indication that cannabis is remotely in the same category morally speaking, nor any firm teaching that any use of it in any amount for any reason.

If you took a toke and it did NOT give you a high most smokers would consider it a waste, no? At the very least you certainly wouldn’t be enjoying it for any of the legitimate reasons associated with alcohol - for its taste or anything. And using it medicinally is, as I have indicated above, fraught with problems morally. You certainly couldn’t get yourself drunk for medicinal purposes, so I wouldn’t concede that it would be OK to use marijuana even medicinally.

Remember the section of the Catechism contains a blanket reference to drugs, including the legal ones as well as the illegal. So it may well not mean that it’s OK to use drugs that have the proven harms of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, even if legal. Certainly use of legal drugs (as with other legal medical treatments) can of course be abused or immoral in certain situations.

Bottom line - cannabis does NOT have the Saviour’s explicit endorsement of its use. So we can’t lump it in the same category as alcohol.

 

[jkiernan56]

Well, the mere fact of the state legalising something doesn’t automatically make it morally OK of course (obtaining a legal abortion being an example).

As for having a prescription for it - not all doctors are bound by a Catholic sense of morality either. So the mere fact that a doctor might approve also doesn’t make it morally OK. Again, example being the fact that a doctor might be happy to perform an abortion for you.

What it boils down to for me is that you can’t do something that is wrong merely because it achieves some good. Catholicism does not subscribe to an ‘ends justify the means’ view of morality.

It wouldn’t be morally OK to get drunk in order to get rid of a headache, for example. Getting drunk is plain wrong, and the fact that some good comes out of it additional to the harms wouldn’t, so it seems, make it OK.

Fact is for all your attempts to equate alcohol with cannabis they are morally totally different categories. Responsible use of alcohol is not only permitted but encouraged in scripture - whilst drunkenness (intoxication) is of course warned against.

Not least its responsible use is endorsed by Our Saviour’s own examples at Cana and His command to drink at the Last Supper. There are legitimate pleasures to be got from responsible drinking. Many people enjoy their wine or beer or spirits for their taste, as they enjoy their food, and not simply for the alcoholic or intoxicant effect.

There is simply no indication that cannabis is remotely in the same category morally speaking, nor any firm teaching that any use of it in any amount for any reason.

If you took a toke and it did NOT give you a high most smokers would consider it a waste, no? At the very least you certainly wouldn’t be enjoying it for any of the legitimate reasons associated with alcohol - for its taste or anything. And using it medicinally is, as I have indicated above, fraught with problems morally. You certainly couldn’t get yourself drunk for medicinal purposes, so I wouldn’t concede that it would be OK to use marijuana even medicinally.

Remember the section of the Catechism contains a blanket reference to drugs, including the legal ones as well as the illegal. So it may well not mean that it’s OK to use drugs that have the proven harms of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, even if legal. Certainly use of legal drugs (as with other legal medical treatments) can of course be abused or immoral in certain situations.

Bottom line - cannabis does NOT have the Saviour’s explicit endorsement of its use. So we can’t lump it in the same category as alcohol.

LilyM - I am preparing a response to your assertions. Most of them are true and some of them I’m not sure hold water.

 

[krispy]

The same logic applies to Smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, or indulging in masturbation. The Church may say that one or other of these things, and others, may be wrong; they may even say that they are sinful. However, if, after informing your conscience of all the teachings and reasonings, both for and against, you firmly believe in the deepest recesses of your conscience that what you are doing is not, in essence, wrong, then you cannot be committing a sin, no matter what the church says.

I am in counselling with my local parish priest at the moment, and this issue has caused me much confusion and anguish over the years. My PP said that many Catholics fall into the trap of confusing sin with right and wrong. They are two different concepts. A lot of Catholics mistakenly believe that they commit a sin if they contradict the churches teaching. He said that an awful lot of Catholics believe that the definition of sin is deliberately committing an act that the church says is wrong, whereas the true definition of a sin is to deliberately and knowingly commit an act that you believe is wrong. He also admitted that the Church does very little to dissuade the laity from their misguided notions. Presumably they prefer to keep the laity on a short lead and use ignorance as a weapon to help keep their powerbase intact.

The notion that the church can assign a sin to you for doing something you honestly see no wrong in is tantamount to stealing your conscience, which the church also teaches is inviolate and your final and supreme authority. For the Church to endorse the supremacy of your conscience and then claim to have the authority to override it is not only illogical and hypocritical, but in my mind is bordering on the spiritually criminal.

 

[jkiernan56]

The same logic applies to Smoking marijuana, drinking alcohol, or indulging in masturbation. The Church may say that one or other of these things, and others, may be wrong; they may even say that they are sinful. However, if, after informing your conscience of all the teachings and reasonings, both for and against, you firmly believe in the deepest recesses of your conscience that what you are doing is not, in essence, wrong, then you cannot be committing a sin, no matter what the church says.

I am in counselling with my local parish priest at the moment, and this issue has caused me much confusion and anguish over the years. My PP said that many Catholics fall into the trap of confusing sin with right and wrong. They are two different concepts. A lot of Catholics mistakenly believe that they commit a sin if they contradict the churches teaching. He said that an awful lot of Catholics believe that the definition of sin is deliberately committing an act that the church says is wrong, whereas the true definition of a sin is to deliberately and knowingly commit an act that you believe is wrong. He also admitted that the Church does very little to dissuade the laity from their misguided notions. Presumably they prefer to keep the laity on a short lead and use ignorance as a weapon to help keep their powerbase intact.

The notion that the church can assign a sin to you for doing something you honestly see no wrong in is tantamount to stealing your conscience, which the church also teaches is inviolate and your final and supreme authority. For the Church to endorse the supremacy of your conscience and then claim to have the authority to override it is not only illogical and hypocritical, but in my mind is bordering on the spiritually criminal.

The Church also teaches that certain acts are intinsically evil. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and the Church can never condone such action. I don’t think the Church can say the same about smoking marijuana. The Church acknowledges various degrees of sinfulness to acts performed. For instance, intentionally burning down someone else’s house is not the same as stealing a cookie. The Church clearly teaches that some acts are venial in nature while others are mortal. As to the culpability of the individual commiting the act, that is known to God alone. But it still does not mean that we cannot call a spade a spade.

 

[jkiernan56]

Well, the mere fact of the state legalizing something doesn’t automatically make it morally OK of course (obtaining a legal abortion being an example).

As for having a prescription for it - not all doctors are bound by a Catholic sense of morality either. So the mere fact that a doctor might approve also doesn’t make it morally OK. Again, example being the fact that a doctor might be happy to perform an abortion for you.

What it boils down to for me is that you can’t do something that is wrong merely because it achieves some good. Catholicism does not subscribe to an ‘ends justify the means’ view of morality.
It wouldn’t be morally OK to get drunk in order to get rid of a headache, for example. Getting drunk is plain wrong, and the fact that some good comes out of it additional to the harms wouldn’t, so it seems, make it OK.

Responsible use of alcohol is not only permitted but encouraged in scripture - whilst drunkenness (intoxication) is of course warned against.

Not least its responsible use is endorsed by Our Saviour’s own examples at Cana and His command to drink at the Last Supper. There are legitimate pleasures to be got from responsible drinking. Many people enjoy their wine or beer or spirits for their taste, as they enjoy their food, and not simply for the alcoholic or intoxicant effect.

I AGREE

If you took a toke and it did NOT give you a high most smokers would consider it a waste, no? At the very least you certainly wouldn’t be enjoying it for any of the legitimate reasons associated with alcohol - for its taste or anything.

Remember the section of the Catechism contains a blanket reference to drugs, including the legal ones as well as the illegal. So it may well not mean that it’s OK to use drugs that have the proven harms of cannabis for therapeutic purposes, even if legal. Certainly use of legal drugs (as with other legal medical treatments) can of course be abused or immoral in certain situations.

Bottom line - cannabis does NOT have the Saviour’s explicit endorsement of its use. So we can’t lump it in the same category as alcohol.

There is simply no indication that cannabis is remotely in the same category morally speaking, nor any firm teaching that any use of it in any amount for any reason.

And using it medicinally is, as I have indicated above, fraught with problems morally. You certainly couldn’t get yourself drunk for medicinal purposes, so I wouldn’t concede that it would be OK to use marijuana even medicinally.

Fact is for all your attempts to equate alcohol with cannabis they are morally totally different categories.

I DO NOT AGREE

LilyM - I see that you accept that responsible drinking of alcohol can be therapeutic and thus morally OK. I’m not sure how you take the leap to say that ANY and ALL use of marijuana is not morally OK because people do not smoke it for therapeutic reasons, but for the purpose of getting high. Your logic doesn’t hold water. First of all, some states have legalized the use of marijuana for MEDICINAL purposes. While I know that you suspect the intent of those using it for other reasons than medicinal (for the purpose of getting high) - you don’t have any right to make that judgement. Let me put it in a very simple formula for you to understand:

MEDICINAL = THERAPEUTIC

Please don’t judge everyone that has a doctor’s prescription to use marijuana that they are using it ONLY to get high. While I agree with you that one of the BENEFITS of smoking marijuana responsibly is a certain psychological euphoria, there are those who use marijuana for it’s Medicinal effects (ie - glacoma, Ana’s story).

Just because alcohol is explicity endorsed by Christ in the scriptures and marijuana is not, you act like a PROTESTant to infer that it is NOT ok.

I know I like to have a drink or two of wine or beer not only because of the taste and social setting, but also because of the way it makes me feel and helps me to relax after a long day at work. Thus drinking of alcohol in my opinion has a therapeutic effect. I also think that the responsible and moderate use of marijuana for the purpose of getting a physical and psychological effect (high) can also be THERAPEUTIC.

The CCC says that drugs should be used for therapeutic reasons.
Please use some common sense when you interpret the Catechism. I drink coffee not just because of the taste, but because of how coffee effects me. My basic premise is that responsible and moderate use of marijuana (just as the consumption of alcohol) can be used THERAPEUTICALLY - which means getting a high or “buzz”. When I drink alcohol it has the same THERAPEUTIC effect - a high or buzz. I don’t drink it just for the taste. In other words, the high of marijuana can and does have a therapetic effect just as an alcohol high. Again, this does not endorse drunkiness or immoderate use of marijana.

What seems to be very clear here is that your understanding about the use of marijuana is from books and other articles and not personal experience.

Your conclusion that moderate and responsible use of marijuana cannot be THERAPEUTIC does NOT hold water.

 

[krispy]

The Church also teaches that certain acts are intinsically evil. Abortion is an intrinsic evil and the Church can never condone such action. I don’t think the Church can say the same about smoking marijuana. The Church acknowledges various degrees of sinfulness to acts performed. For instance, intentionally burning down someone else’s house is not the same as stealing a cookie. The Church clearly teaches that some acts are venial in nature while others are mortal. As to the culpability of the individual commiting the act, that is known to God alone. But it still does not mean that we cannot call a spade a spade.

Just because the Church says something is wrong does not necessarily make it wrong, much less a sin, if we are defining sin as a specific offence which carries consequences, much like points on a driving licence. It is only possible to commit a sin if you deliberately do something which you believe to be wrong. Equally, it is perfectly possible to commit an act which you believe to be sinful but the church does not regard as wrong. In that case you would be commiting a sin regardless of what the church says. It cuts both ways.

When the Church issues rulings on matters such as abortion, artificial contraception, stem cell research etc. etc. it may say that it is wrong to indulge or partake in those activities; it may even say that it is sinful, which is misleading, because the Church is simply expressing its view on a moral dilemma of the times in which we live. It does not, by definition mean they are right. Although the Church has been wrong on many occasions in the past, it never makes these statements as being *in the Church’s opinion * It is content to make a categoric and unequivocal statement and let it stand, with all its implied divine authority. These matters are not in the same league as the articles of faith contained in the Nicene Creed. The teachings regarding such matters as one God, the Holy Trinity, the resurrection etc.etc have remained unchanged and inviolate since the foundation of Christianity. If you do not subscribe to those, then it is doubtful whether you are a Christian, let alone a Catholic, and discussion of such matters as sin becomes purely academic and hypothetical.

When taking a view on matters of social morality, though, your conscience plays every bit as important a part as the Church’s teachings, and, ultimately, must have the last word.

In the end, we are all personally responsible for our own lives and to invest the church with more authority than it rightfully has, in order to transfer our own spiritual responsibility on to the church, thus appearing to avoid the need to inform and exercise our own consciences is spiritually weak and irresponsible.

 

[jkiernan56]

Just because the Church says something is wrong does not necessarily make it wrong, much less a sin, if we are defining sin as a specific offence which carries consequences, much like points on a driving licence. It is only possible to commit a sin if you deliberately do something which you believe to be wrong. Equally, it is perfectly possible to commit an act which you believe to be sinful but the church does not regard as wrong. In that case you would be commiting a sin regardless of what the church says. It cuts both ways.

I think you are misguided in your understanding between objective acts of sin and whether those who commit such acts are committing a sin. There are acts that are intrinsically evil regardless of the beliefs of the person committing them. Case in point, you mention embryonic stem cell research as an example. The Church will not and cannot condone this because these acts are instrinsically evil (the destroying of human life regardless of the goal to save life). We call those acts sin (ie - objectively wrong). Now to your point about the PERSON who is committing those acts, the acts are wrong regardless of their belief system. Whether or not a person is committing a sin (knowingly doing something wrong) that alone is known to God. There is a difference between the objective act itself and the culpability of the person committing the act.

Hitler may not have believed what he did in WWII was wrong - but his actions were objectively and intrinsically evil no matter what (ie - mortal sin because they were aggregiously evil). As far as Hitler’s culpability for his actions - that alone God can judge. For all we know he may have been completely insane. Can an insane person be held accountable for their actions? Why are they insane to begin with? Was it because of other actions they took that brought them to that place? We don’t know. God alone knows and alone can judge their actions and whether or not they were sinful. Are you understanding the difference between identifying specific acts as sin and culpability for those acts?

I can jump off a building believing there is no such thing as gravity. Regardless of my belief system, there is objective reality and consequences to my actions. Is jumping off a building wrong? Yes and No. Jumping off a building to commit suicide is a sin. Is the person committing a sin by committing suicide? Objectively YES. Subjectively that alone God can judge. If I jump off a building because the building is on fire and I am on fire, the act in this case would not be considered wrong.

You have to understand and differentiate between the objective act itself and the subjective intention of the person committing an act. The Church will never say that a person who performs embryonic stem cell research is NOT doing wrong regardless of what they believe. Whether or not it is subjectively sinful is known to God alone.

That is why I said I think you are a little misguided. You seem to lump everything into one basket. That is why your statement “Just because the Church says something is wrong does not necessarily make it wrong.” That is TRUE in one sense, but FALSE in another. It is TRUE in that God alone can judge why the person did what they did. It is FALSE to say that the Church cannot say that it is objectively and intrinsically wrong regardless of the person’s belief system (ie - a sin).

 

[AHapka]

It is only possible to commit a sin if you deliberately do something which you believe to be wrong.

Well, since I don’t believe it’s wrong to murder someone and take all of their money, can I come over?

Since it’s not a sin (since I don’t believe it’s wrong), God has no problem with it by your logic.

 

[krispy]

I actually agree with both of you! I think the misunderstanding is a matter of semantics. It depends on what we each mean by the word sin. I agree that if a devout Catholic misguidedly came to genuinely and sincerely believe that it was his holy duty to kill all muslims, then yes I agree that the act itself and his intention to carry that out are both intrinsically evil, but if he genuinely and sincerely believed with all his heart and soul that it was his duty and the right thing to do then he could not possibly be committing a sin, as the intention to do something he believes to be wrong is entirely absent. So yes, I agree that someone can do something that is intrinsically evil but not subjectively be committing a sin. Conversely one can deliberately do something that one believes to be wrong, that the Church sees no harm in. In that case it is the reverse of the first case and one would be committing a sin by doing something that is not wrong (Can’t think of many/any examples of that scenario,but it must hold good if the first scenario holds good.

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly.

 

[jkiernan56]

I actually agree with both of you! I think the misunderstanding is a matter of semantics. It depends on what we each mean by the word sin. I agree that if a devout Catholic misguidedly came to genuinely and sincerely believe that it was his holy duty to kill all muslims, then yes I agree that the act itself and his intention to carry that out are both intrinsically evil, but if he genuinely and sincerely believed with all his heart and soul that it was his duty and the right thing to do then he could not possibly be committing a sin, as the intention to do something he believes to be wrong is entirely absent. So yes, I agree that someone can do something that is intrinsically evil but not subjectively be committing a sin. Conversely one can deliberately do something that one believes to be wrong, that the Church sees no harm in. In that case it is the reverse of the first case and one would be committing a sin by doing something that is not wrong (Can’t think of many/any examples of that scenario,but it must hold good if the first scenario holds good.

Perhaps I should have expressed myself more clearly.

I’m not so sure I can quite agree with your conclusion about someone who thinks they are doing something wrong is actually committing a sin even if the Church does not objectively acknowledge the act as sinful. Have you ever heard of people who suffer from scrupulosity? It is an inordinate psychological disorder. Just because a person thinks something is a sin, doesn’t necessarily make it a sin in my opinion. Scrupulosity definitely hinders an individual’s spiritual growth and walk with Christ.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrupulosity