Is it a sin or sinful to smoke marijuana?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jkiernan56
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He didn’t even quote you! He probably didn’t even know you were on this thread! Please stop acting like you know what’s in peoples’ minds and assuming the worse from them. That’s not good.

I just think you could use a little charity sometimes. What you said to him in the other thread was uncharitable. Sorry, but it was.
Was it uncharitable when Christ made a whip out of rope, knocked over the market tables at The Temple, and called the Pharisees “blind guides, white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones”? What is uncharitable in your opinion is not necessarily uncharitable in anothers. But I will honestly take your suggestion into consideration.
 
He didn’t even quote you! He probably didn’t even know you were on this thread! Please stop acting like you know what’s in peoples’ minds and assuming the worse from them. That’s not good.
On this thread? I’m the one who started it. You’re right about assuming the worse just after having engaged the same person minutes earlier in another thread about “being mad at fellow Catholics. Deal with it.” My assuming didn’t come out of nowhere. There actually is a precedent.

I am also mad at Catholics (as if you can’t help) and the knife cuts both ways.
 
Was it uncharitable when Christ made a whip out of rope, knocked over the market tables at The Temple, and called the Pharisees “blind guides, white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones”? What is uncharitable in your opinion is not necessarily uncharitable in anothers. But I will honestly take your suggestion into consideration.
I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but I have heard this particular Scripture passage quoted before, and always by someone who has just lost their temper and is being called on the carpet for it. (And for the record I’ve tried to use it myself, lest I be accused of hypocrisy. 😉 )

Back to the topic - other than its being illegal, and thus making it difficult to procure without commiting the sin of acting against the law, I don’t see anything particularly sinful about marijuana, used with moderation.

However, as others have pointed out, unless you are growing it yourself, perhaps from wild plants you just happened to find growing in a nearby forest :rolleyes: , there is this pesky criminal element you have to deal with, and that probably would constitute a few occasions of sin.
 
On this thread? I’m the one who started it. You’re right about assuming the worse just after having engaged the same person minutes earlier in another thread about “being mad at fellow Catholics. Deal with it.” My assuming didn’t come out of nowhere. There actually is a precedent.

I am also mad at Catholics (as if you can’t help) and the knife cuts both ways.
Well, the knife cuts all ways. I am “mad at my fellow Catholics. Deal with it,” but for multiple reasons.

That doesn’t mean I’m uncharitable for them.

Also, let’s get back on topic. Noöne responded to my post about constitutionality and legalization. 🤷
 
Now if we are talking about a Driving under the influence case than one would need to know if they were tested for THC or for cannibinoids quantitatively to prove that they were not under the influence of weed at the time. It would also be helpful to know the actual number and what the sensitivity of the test used was, such that if the person was positive at 11mg/DL and the cutoff for negative is 10mg/DL they might be able to argue that in court. But if the negative is 10mg/DL but the result of the test was 300mg/DL than they would not be able to dispute it.
Not necissarily depending upon the state. Not sure of the laws where you are, but in Wisconsin cases involving drugs are not prosecuted under operating while intoxicated. We have a law that makes “operating with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance” illegal. Whether or not the person is “under the influence” of the substance is irrelevant. So as long as you can detect it, it’s illegal.
 
Not necissarily depending upon the state. Not sure of the laws where you are, but in Wisconsin cases involving drugs are not prosecuted under operating while intoxicated. We have a law that makes “operating with a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance” illegal. Whether or not the person is “under the influence” of the substance is irrelevant. So as long as you can detect it, it’s illegal.
Which state was it that recently legalized possession of small quantity of marijuana for medicinal reasons - Michigan or Wisconsin?

Personally I have a problem with the constitutionality of any business or agency that thinks they have a right to drug test and then fire them if an illegal controlled substance is found. This is George Orwell’s 1984 in real life - Big Brother is watching you.
If a person does their job duties according to expectations, what they do on their own time is none of the company’s or agencies buisness. Where does the slippery slope stop? Some companies have even let workers go because they smoke tobacco. This is non-sense.
 
Well in Maryland Marijuana is legal for therapeutic use, but, strangely, the hallucinogen Salvia is legal, even for people under 18! And that stuff will mess you up… have you seeing all kinds of things, out-of-body experiences, identifying with inanimate objects, etc.

And yet Marijuana’s illegal? Geez, that seems backwards. 🤷
 
Well in Maryland Marijuana is legal for therapeutic use, but, strangely, the hallucinogen Salvia is legal, even for people under 18! And that stuff will mess you up… have you seeing all kinds of things, out-of-body experiences, identifying with inanimate objects, etc.

And yet Marijuana’s illegal? Geez, that seems backwards. 🤷
You are so right about that. I recently saw on a tape of the show “The Doctors” about Salvia … common sense isn’t so common.
 
You are so right about that. I recently saw on a tape of the show “The Doctors” about Salvia … common sense isn’t so common.
And the fact that the law isn’t up on some drugs makes it OK for them to legalise others?

Get real. You could apply the same argument to cocaine, LSD or heroin - ‘see, they haven’t banned alcohol or salvia, and THEY’RE harmful, so therefore they shouldn’t ban crack or ice’.
 
You’re right - everyone has right to voice their own opinion. What you don’t know is that this person and I were voicing our “opinions” in another thread minutes earlier - “I’m mad at my fellow Catholics and pulling no punches. Deal with it.” It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out why all of a sudden he jumped into this thread trying to engage me. I asked him before he continued to read the other posts before he rehashed his ideas. Sorry, but I don’t think thats an unreasonable thing to ask. As far as the tone of our banter, the knife cuts both ways. For me, recreational is therapeutic - they aren’t mutually exclusive. I wasn’t going to get into it with this guy. I apologize if my bed side manner is not up to par with expectations.
I haven’'t read all the posts, but I’ll say this, I smoked it a lot years ago. I believe it and other drugs open you right up to invasion by spirits that are not from above. That is something God would not want you to have any part in, don’t you think? Anything that keeps his spirit from being able to speak clearly to us is also wrong, I think.
 
And the fact that the law isn’t up on some drugs makes it OK for them to legalise others?

Get real. You could apply the same argument to cocaine, LSD or heroin - ‘see, they haven’t banned alcohol or salvia, and THEY’RE harmful, so therefore they shouldn’t ban crack or ice’.
Someone who uses common sense doesn’t think that a person who is OK with legalizing marijuana for medicinal reasons is also OK with giving a blank check to all other drugs. I’m not for going back to Prohibition either. Get real yourself.
 
I will let him speak for himself rather than have you do the speaking for him.
frankly i stopped doing more than a cursory scanning of the thread because people kept presenting the same arguments long after they were defeated.

and i dont think that people with no or limited experience smoking pot really have any ground to give an opinion about it.

i know what i know from years of experience, not once or twice, not what i think i saw someone else do.

its like people who live in caves seriously trying to convince you the sky is orange. its nice they have an opinion, but if youve spent much time outside, you know the truth
 
frankly i stopped doing more than a cursory scanning of the thread because people kept presenting the same arguments long after they were defeated.

and i dont think that people with no or limited experience smoking pot really have any ground to give an opinion about it.

i know what i know from years of experience, not once or twice, not what i think i saw someone else do.

its like people who live in caves seriously trying to convince you the sky is orange. its nice they have an opinion, but if youve spent much time outside, you know the truth
In my younger days i have made some dreadful mistakes thanj you very much. My argument was simple and valid. If you choose to think we can pick and chosse which laws to follow you are sadly mistaken. We are to follow laws not in conflict with teachings of the CHurc, and the illegalization of drugs is not in conflict.
 
In my younger days i have made some dreadful mistakes thanj you very much. My argument was simple and valid.
i havent read your argument but from the qoute below i can see you are offering the same as many others.
If you choose to think we can pick and chosse which laws to follow you are sadly mistaken.
we do it all the time. morality cannot be decided by geography. if thats true, than to be moral all i have to do is step across a state line, but thats my point that argument has been knocked down already, and people don’t read the thread and repost it.
We are to follow laws not in conflict with teachings of the CHurc, and the illegalization of drugs is not in conflict.
as above that argument is defeated by stepping over a state line.

that said, i just gave my reason for not continuing to argue the point, i have to keep defeating the same arguments because people don read the thread. that just becomes boring. especially when its people with no real experience in the matter.
 
… but thats my point that argument has been knocked down already, and people don’t read the thread and repost it.

that said, i just gave my reason for not continuing to argue the point, i have to keep defeating the same arguments because people don read the thread. that just becomes boring. especially when its people with no real experience in the matter.
And when you ask them to read previous postings before engaging on the subject, they act indignant and insulted.
 
Unfortunately you have defeated nothing. At all.
And according to you, neither have I added anything of value to any thread - but each person has the right to their own opinon.

CWBetts - last evening you and I exchanged some very different ideas in another thread titled “Mad at fellow Catholics. Deal with it.” Please correct me if my assumption was wrong about your intention for coming over to this thread about a minute after having a heated personal exchange in the other. Someone else tried to tell me what your intentions were and I told them I would let you speak for yourself. If you honestly can tell me you came here without any connection to our other exchange, then I owe you an apology. It just seemed to me that you had an axe to grind.
 
I agree with jkeirnem that morality is not dictated by geography. It is either immoral or it isn’t. The law does not dictate morality. Something cannot be objectively immoral just because it is illegal. It might be objectively moral while being subjectively illegal, but it cannot be MADE objectively immoral because it is illegal. The objective morality exists regardless of the subjectivity of the law. I think abortion is a good example. Again, I am not arguing one should break the law, only that the law does not dictate the OBJECTIVE morality of smoking marijuana. …PHEW! Did I make sense?:o

Another analogy … Drinking alcohol was not objectively immoral during the prohibition, ONLY ILLEGAL.

I am an advocate for medicinal marijuana and work for change conerning the laws pertaining to the decriminilization of marijuana.

Even if it was a venial sin (which I am not sure of), along the lines of smoking cigarettes, then I think all could agree that to punish these people with jail is innapropriate. The sentence should fit the crime. These people are no more criminals than those who might double park,

I also agree with Matariel that the laws pertaining to marijuana are unconstitutional.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top