Is it a sin or sinful to smoke marijuana?

[Coder]

Ed, please do the same regarding alcohol … did you know it kills brain cells?

Actually I have heard that alcohol really doesn’t kill cells so much as put them to sleep. A small amount (a drink or two on occasion) of alcohol is not particularly harmful and in fact can be healthful (red wine in particular). A small amount of alcohol can impair your reflexes a bit etc. However alcohol does not alter your perception of reality like marijuana does. Also, marijuana does damage the brain and the lungs and significantly affects performance. The Catechism refers to this aspect of drugs as serious:

“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.”
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

 

[jkiernan56]

Render unto Ceasar what us Ceasar’s, render unto God what is God’s" translation: we are to obay the legal authorities under which we live, unless doing so puts us in direct opposition with the commands of God. For example, if we lived in a land that required us to worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then we would be obliged to violate this law, because it is in direct opposition to the law of God. since we are not commanded to smoke pot, we must obey the law of man that forbids it.

Hello again. Some states have already “legalized” possession of small quanties with a doctor’s prescription for medicinal reasons. Your supposition that man forbids it is false and therefore your conclusion is also false.

 

[Matariel]

Hello again. Some states have already “legalized” possession of small quanties with a doctor’s prescription for medicinal reasons. Your supposition that man forbids it is false and therefore your conclusion is also false.

C’mon! What’s with the negative attitude already?

Anyway, CWBetts is obviously referring to places where it’s illegal, so his conclusion is ligitimate (although I’m not sure I agree, since it may be against The Constitution).

 

[CWBetts]

Hello again. Some states have already “legalized” possession of small quanties with a doctor’s prescription for medicinal reasons. Your supposition that man forbids it is false and therefore your conclusion is also false.

I am beginnig to get you. You aren’t open to learning. You have decided laready that there is nothing wrong with Marijuana, and you are just using this forum to ridicule those who disagree. My supposition is not false, and neitehr is my conclusion. If the use of marijuana for recratinal use is illegal, as it is in all 50 states, then to use it recreationally is the sin of lawlessness. SOmetimes civil disobedience is warrented, such as in the Civil Rights movement, but just so you can take something into your body which is inherently harmful, and can serve as a gateway to even more dangerous substances, is not one such case. So now I put to you, what is the justification FOR breaking the law and using marijuana? Remember, for it to be justified, it either has to be cause it is something we are commanded to do, or it has to be combating a grave wrong. I am interested in seeing this.

 

[jkiernan56]

I am beginnig to get you. You aren’t open to learning. You have decided laready that there is nothing wrong with Marijuana, and you are just using this forum to ridicule those who disagree. My supposition is not false, and neitehr is my conclusion. If the use of marijuana for recratinal use is illegal, as it is in all 50 states, then to use it recreationally is the sin of lawlessness. SOmetimes civil disobedience is warrented, such as in the Civil Rights movement, but just so you can take something into your body which is inherently harmful, and can serve as a gateway to even more dangerous substances, is not one such case. So now I put to you, what is the justification FOR breaking the law and using marijuana? Remember, for it to be justified, it either has to be cause it is something we are commanded to do, or it has to be combating a grave wrong. I am interested in seeing this.

No one said recreationally … we said therapeutically. And while I do agree that having a drink can be both recreational and therapeutic, the same can be said of marijuana. Do me a favor, go back and read the previous posts from the beginning. It is starting to ECHO …ECHo … ECho … Echo … echo … in here.

 

[CWBetts]

I am NOT going to go read through 240+ posts! Face it recreational use is against the law. By not smoking we are not breaking a commandment. Therefore using pot recreationally is sin. End of story.

 

[jkiernan56]

I am NOT going to go read through 240+ posts! Face it recreational use is against the law. By not smoking we are not breaking a commandment. Therefore using pot recreationally is sin. End of story.

And I am not going to rehash what has already been shared “ad naseum” in all the previous posts. If you are curious to learn what has already been said on this topic, you will make the effort.

 

[CWBetts]

Consider yourself ignored. On the two threads I have seen your posts, you have yet to contribute naything worthwhile.

 

[jkiernan56]

Consider yourself ignored. On the two threads I have seen your posts, you have yet to contribute naything worthwhile.

Nice to meet your aquaintance … ditto

Who in their right mind is going to rehash what has already been talked to death about in 240 posts… to a person who won’t even take the time … and then expects to jump right in the middle of a conversation … and expect a response …

 

[Matariel]

Nice to meet your aquaintance … ditto

What do you have against him? Why are you so cruel to him on purpose?

Who in their right mind is going to rehash what has already been talked to death about in 240 posts… to a person who won’t even take the time … and then expects to jump right in the middle of a conversation … and expect a response …

No, that’s not what he was saying. He was talking about non-therapeutic usage, and then you started speaking of therapeutic usage. So it seems you just wanted to anger and insult him because you held something against him in the Obama/Mortal Sin thread. Go figure.

 

[jkiernan56]

What do you have against him? Why are you so cruel to him on purpose?

No, that’s not what he was saying. He was talking about non-therapeutic usage, and then you started speaking of therapeutic usage. So it seems you just wanted to anger and insult him because you held something against him in the Obama/Mortal Sin thread. Go figure.

You don’t seem to realize he wanted to discuss what has already been discussed. He jumped right in the middle of the discussion expecting to be engaged and indicated no interest to see what has already been said. Now I ask you … in all honesty … why did he come here … to sing Kum Ba Ya with me? He was looking for a fight … because of the other thread you mention.

 

[RubyT]

This is a question for RubyT, as a clinical scientist… drug testing for marijuana test for all cannabinoids, not just TCH specifically. The TCH (what makes people high) is metabolized within a few hours and is metabolized, and it’s in fact the (inactive) metabolites that get stored in the fat cells. So just because there are cannaboinoids in the system doesn’t mean the person is under the effects of the drug? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Also, the whole mental illness/marijuana debate, I feel, is a case of which came first, chicken or the egg. I know one or two people who actually use it for treatment of bipolar disorder, and I have seen quite a few more anecdotes of people using this for the treatment of severely med-resistant forms of mental illnesses. I think those who happen to be more depressed, anxious, or even manic tend to gravitate towards marijuana as a means of self-medication. Yes, marijuana can cause episodes of psychosis (can’t alcohol do the same, as well?) but I’ve only seen that in “newbies”. People who first drink alchohol also tend to have a more drastic reaction than those who drink it regularly. There are also those who, for many reasons such as being “lightweights” and can’t moderate, cannot drink alchohol. As with any substance… It can be used in moderation, and if eaten, with less side effects than alchohol…

Just my :twocents: …
God Bless!
Ericka

To answer your question. It depends on the methodology of the specific test. In other words the chemical scientifc method used in each specific test. So there are test methods which test for THC and also test methods which test for presence of the Cannabinoids. But they are really one and the same since THC stands for tetrahydrocannabinol which is one substance that gets you stoned. I think the THC is stored in the fat cells and not just the cannabinoids part of the molecule but I would have to research that to be sure. Also some of the test actually quantitate the amount rather than give a qualitative result(positive or negative).

The majority of screening test do not actually quantitate the amount of THC or cannabinoids but rather give a (qualitative)positive or negative. Say negative for less than 10mg/DL or positive for greater than 10mg/DL. (mg/DL of urine or serum). Just because the test result is positive for cannabiniods it doesn’t mean that the person is under the effects but shows that it has been in the body in the last 30 days. Cannabinoids are not naturally occuring in the human body nor are they found in food(except maybe some brownies). Like poppy seeds will give a positive opiates test but you have to eat alot of them and it is virtually impossible but it can happen.

Moral of the story don’t smoke weed and eat lots of poppy seed muffins and then go in for your drug test and expect to pass.

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.

If a person is getting a drug screen in the emergency room for possible drug overdose or for legal reasons(probation) it is probably quantitative for all drugs of abuse. THC (cannabinoids)is included in these but I don’t know why since I have never heard of an overdose from smoking weed. If a person is getting the drug screen for employment it is probably qualitative. The quantitative methods are more expensive to assay than the simple screening qualitative tests.

I have done both tests through the years with several different methodologies. Depends which chemical reaction they are using, what kind of answer they are looking for etc. etc.

I see health problems and overdoses from alcohol frequently. I never see health issues from marijuana except maybe long term smoking health issues like emphysema.

Hope this answers your questions. Feel free to PM me everyone if you have more questions. Have a very Merry Christmas, but not too merry. lol :whacky:

 

[Matariel]

You don’t seem to realize he wanted to discuss what has already been discussed. He jumped right in the middle of the discussion expecting to be engaged and indicated no interest to see what has already been said. Now I ask you … in all honesty … why did he come here … to sing Kum Ba Ya with me? He was looking for a fight … because of the other thread you mention.

No, I know CWBetts, he wouldn’t just come here to fight. He probably didn’t even know you were subscribed to this thread. All he was doing was presenting the “render unto caesar” verse, which so far I can’t remember anyone quoting and I joined this thread fairly early.

 

[jkiernan56]

No, I know CWBetts, he wouldn’t just come here to fight. He probably didn’t even know you were subscribed to this thread. All he was doing was presenting the “render unto caesar” verse, which so far I can’t remember anyone quoting and I joined this thread fairly early.

I will let him speak for himself rather than have you do the speaking for him.

 

[Matariel]

I will let him speak for himself rather than have you do the speaking for him.

FYI, you’re on his Ignore List. You aren’t going to get a response from him. He said so earlier.

 

[Ana]

I think it is important to discuss both branches of the marijuana debate … recreational and therapeutic use. One does not necessarily carry the other. Nor does one necessarily cancel out the other. Trying to insist that recreational and therapeutic be lumped together does not serve the integrity of the thread, and I don’t feel CWbetts is being redundant. His posts deserve a charitable reply and he has a right to his opinion, whether is is page 1 or page 100.

Welcome to the discussion CWbetts. 240 posts is a lot to read.

Matarial … God bless the peacemakers.

 

[CWBetts]

Thank you for your support, and your points are taken

 

[Matariel]

Thank you for your support, and your points are taken

Speaking of which, I would, just for the sake of arguement, say that some believe that banning Marijuana is not inline with the Constitution or a free society. I think alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana. If banning Marijuana goes against the Constitution, then, the bans on it are null and void. But this I’m not sure of, this is just for the sake of arguement.

Although I respect CWBetts view on the issue, I also think that recreational use of Marijuana should be legalized, as long as it is regulated and kept out of the hands of minors. But maybe that’s just 'cause I’m a college-going 19-year-old.

 

[jkiernan56]

I think it is important to discuss both branches of the marijuana debate … recreational and therapeutic use. One does not necessarily carry the other. Nor does one necessarily cancel out the other. Trying to insist that recreational and therapeutic be lumped together does not serve the integrity of the thread, and I don’t feel CWbetts is being redundant. His posts deserve a charitable reply and he has a right to his opinion, whether is is page 1 or page 100.

Welcome to the discussion CWbetts. 240 posts is a lot to read.

Matarial … God bless the peacemakers.

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.

 

[Matariel]

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. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to figure out why all of a sudden he jumped into this thread trying to engage me.

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 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 just think you could use a little charity sometimes. What you said to him in the other thread was uncharitable. Sorry, but it was.