Is it ethical to sell marijuana?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaramieHirsch
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I couldn’t agree more.

If we apply CCC 2291 to marijuana, then I think to be consistent it must also be applied to alcohol – unless someone wants to argue that alcohol isn’t an injurious drug.
You’re wrong because that article of the Catechism is not talking about drugs in the broad sense of the word, it is addressing specifically illicit drugs. Everyone knows what that means.
In addition, arguing that selling marijuana in states where it has been legalized is immoral just because marijuana is still illegal under federal law seems to do some violence to the principle of subsidiarity.
That’s nonsense.

We have all kinds of examples of crimes that violate federal law without necessarily violating a state law.

Copyright and patent laws are federal. No one tries to argue that just because a particular state lacks any copyright or patent laws of its own, that makes violating those laws morally acceptable, or that the federal laws violate subsidiarity.

Counterfeiting US currency violates federal law, even in the absence of any state laws.

There are plenty of examples of acts which are crimes under federal law without necessarily being crimes under state law (or some states, not others). Attempting to make marijuana laws some kind of special exception is just plain nonsense.
 
You’re wrong because that article of the Catechism is not talking about drugs in the broad sense of the word, it is addressing specifically illicit drugs. Everyone knows what that means.
Aside from the fact that the term “illicit drugs” is never actually used in 2291, that seems like one of those distinctions without a difference.

In any case, in that it is not an illicit drug in those jurisdictions that have legalized the production, possession, sale and use of medical marijuana, it would seem then that 2291 cannot be used to prohibit someone’s participation on moral grounds.

If someone should object on the grounds that it is still illegal on the federal level, then I’m going to need to see some justification for why federal law should always take moral precedence over conflicting local laws (and hence my reference to subsidiarity). I would also encourage them to research why marijuana was initially prohibited on the state and federal level. I think they’ll find that that prohibition had almost everything to do with cultural, racial and political factors and almost nothing to do with human health and safety.
Distractions aside, the answer is no.

It is never ethical, and is always a moral evil.
Why?
 
…]

A moral right? No. Those religious practices are not divinely revealed. Everyone has a moral right to choose a religion, but there is no moral right to engage in a particular act which is objectively sinful.
Of course a Muslim could say exactly the same thing about Catholicism and the use of alcohol in the liturgy.
You’re wrong because that article of the Catechism is not talking about drugs in the broad sense of the word, it is addressing specifically illicit drugs. Everyone knows what that means.
Aside from the fact that the term “illicit drugs” is never actually used in 2291, that seems like one of those distinctions without a difference.

In any case, in that it is not an illicit drug in those jurisdictions that have legalized the production, possession, sale and use of medical marijuana, it would seem then that 2291 cannot be used to prohibit someone’s participation on moral grounds.

If someone should object on the grounds that it is still illegal on the federal level, then I’m going to need to see some justification for why federal law should always take moral precedence over conflicting local laws (and hence my reference to subsidiarity). I would also encourage them to research why marijuana was initially prohibited on the state and federal level. I think they’ll find that that prohibition had almost everything to do with cultural, racial and political factors and almost nothing to do with human health and safety.
Distractions aside, the answer is no.

It is never ethical, and is always a moral evil.
That’s been asserted at least twice, but unless I missed it, it hasn’t been explained why that is so. For the life of me, I don’t see how a case can be made for the prohibition of marijuana on moral grounds that doesn’t also take down the recreational use of alcohol on the same grounds.
 
^^^^^^

A moral argument based on logic and reason in favor of legal alcohol and prohibiting marijuana just simply cannot be formed. If one has been put forth by the Catholic church then the Church is wrong. The more research that comes out the more the propaganda against marijuana falls aside. It is no more a gateway drug than alcohol is, it is not physically addictive as alcohol is, no links to lung cancer have ever been found, and people do very little harm to others while intoxicated on it unlike with alcohol which is affirmative in all but one of the aforementioned effects.

It is a profound tragedy that so many men and women are in prison for charges related to Marijuana while many people abuse alcohol legally in there own homes.

I am not saying that marijuana causes no harm of any kind in any people but when compared with alcohol it is absolutely miniscule and it should be a matter of choice.
 
MJ is an addictive substance.

Used as directed, it is a mind-altering substance. Nobody supports MJ because they like to see things burning. They support it because of the mind-altering part.

It is the Stockholm syndrome speaking. Addiction is holding someone hostage and they defend their hijackers.

Addiction is slavery. How is selling MJ (or other addictive drugs) not the same as the slave trade?

In addition, MJ is a gateway drug for even harder drugs. Eventually the high is not enough so gotta find something higher. This is why the light drinker, looking for the buzz (mind altering) becomes an alcoholic. Same thing with illicit drugs.

In addition, even if one doesn’t move past MJ, it still alters the mind, reduces conscience, reduces unselfishness since addiction always increases selfishness.

Here’s the test.

If MJ did not alter the mind and make one high, how many people would support it? I’d say 99% fewer than they do now.

Don’t ALTER the mind, ALTAR the mind instead.
 
Of course a Muslim could say exactly the same thing about Catholicism and the use of alcohol in the liturgy.

Aside from the fact that the term “illicit drugs” is never actually used in 2291, that seems like one of those distinctions without a difference.

In any case, in that it is not an illicit drug in those jurisdictions that have legalized the production, possession, sale and use of medical marijuana, it would seem then that 2291 cannot be used to prohibit someone’s participation on moral grounds.
You’re twisting the words. The English translation of the Catechism says “clandestine” rather than “illicit.” Regardless, we all know what that means.

The Church does not say that illicit drugs are immoral merely because they’re illegal–which is what you are trying to make it sound.

Illicit drugs (and we all know what that term means) are immoral because they are immoral. Whether they are legal or not does’t change that.

We all know what that term means. The absence of a state law prohibiting marijuana does not somehow “move” that into the category of legitimate.
If someone should object on the grounds that it is still illegal on the federal level, then I’m going to need to see some justification for why federal law should always take moral precedence over conflicting local laws (and hence my reference to subsidiarity). I would also encourage them to research why marijuana was initially prohibited on the state and federal level. I think they’ll find that that prohibition had almost everything to do with cultural, racial and political factors and almost nothing to do with human health and safety.
Again, you’re merely twisting words.

No one needs to justify to you why marijuana is illegal under federal law in order to prove that it is indeed illegal. The United States Code states that it is illegal—that is all the proof anyone needs.

If a state repeals its own laws making marijuana illegal (as some have) that does not change the fact that it is illegal under federal law, and therefore it is still illegal within that state.
That’s been asserted at least twice, but unless I missed it, it hasn’t been explained why that is so. For the life of me, I don’t see how a case can be made for the prohibition of marijuana on moral grounds that doesn’t also take down the recreational use of alcohol on the same grounds.
Whether alcohol is illegal or not has nothing to do with whether it is illegal or immoral to use/possess/sell marijuana.

Marijuana is immoral. Period.

Other laws dealing with other substances, or other types of behavior don’t change that—regardless of whether they prohibit or allow those other acts.

The argument you’re trying to make is a classic fallacy.
 
If it’s legal and if it’s only being sold for medicinal purposes, I’d say it’s ethical. If it’s just being sold as a recreational substance, no.
 
What medicinal purposes? If I thought that marijuana could cure glaucoma or cancer or anything at all, I’d be happy to see the results of a clinical trial. But it seems that it’s primary effect is not medicinal, it just makes people stoned and stupid.
 
What medicinal purposes? If I thought that marijuana could cure glaucoma or cancer or anything at all, I’d be happy to see the results of a clinical trial. But it seems that it’s primary effect is not medicinal, it just makes people stoned and stupid.
Marijuana can be used therapeutically either as a treatment in itself or to help patients withstand the effects of other treatments (such as pain, nausea or seizures). That said, there is a distinction between pharmaceuticals containing cannabis and cannabis itself. a stronger argument can be made IMHO for the morality of the former than the latter.
 
What medicinal purposes? If I thought that marijuana could cure glaucoma or cancer or anything at all, I’d be happy to see the results of a clinical trial. But it seems that it’s primary effect is not medicinal, it just makes people stoned and stupid.
As InThePew said, there are legitimate medicinal uses for marijuana. I have heard that there is a more pharmaceutical kind of marijuana that has more CBD’s and less THC, so the patients don’t get high but still receive the medicinal benefits which I think is a lot better then just throwing raw marijuana at them. I think many states have legalized marijuana only under this form for medicinal purposes. In my opinion, marijuana prescriptions should only be given to very seriously ill patients, such as cancer patients, and not to people that just have anxiety or something.
 
I missed where marijuana was determined to be objectively sinful. Why, again?
 
…]

Whether alcohol is illegal or not has nothing to do with whether it is illegal or immoral to use/possess/sell marijuana.

Marijuana is immoral. Period.

Other laws dealing with other substances, or other types of behavior don’t change that—regardless of whether they prohibit or allow those other acts.

The argument you’re trying to make is a classic fallacy.
Marijuana laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of other drug laws. As such, for as long as we have a legal recreational drug that gets a virtual pass for all the harm it does – while prosecuting other citizens for their recreational use of a less harmful drug – then the comparison seems not only relevant, but demanded. I really do see this as a social justice issue.
 
Alcohol is way way worse than marijuana in every conceivable way.

Only a relatively small percentage of those who try marijuana will become addicted. For example, in a large-scale survey published in 1994 epidemiologist James Anthony, then at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and his colleagues asked more than 8,000 people between the ages of 15 and 64 about their use of marijuana and other drugs. The researchers found that of those who had tried marijuana at least once, about 9 percent eventually fit a diagnosis of cannabis dependence. The corresponding figure for alcohol was 15 percent; for cocaine, 17 percent; for heroin, 23 percent; and for nicotine, 32 percent. So although marijuana may be addictive for some, 91 percent of those who try it do not get hooked. Further, marijuana is less addictive than many other legal and illegal drugs.

Possible Perils

A hotly debated issue is whether marijuana is a “gateway” drug, leading to the use of more dangerous substances. Many studies have found that most people who used other illicit drugs had, in fact, used marijuana first. Although results such as these are consistent with the gateway hypothesis, they do not prove that using marijuana causes the use of other drugs. Those who are drawn to marijuana may simply be predisposed to drug use in general, regardless of their exposure to pot. In addition, individuals often smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol before they latch on to marijuana. Should we also be asking whether nicotine and alcohol are gateway drugs?

Researchers have also demonstrated that heavy marijuana use can lead to increased tolerance and withdrawal symptoms when trying to stop. In addition, heavy use can contribute to respiratory and cardiovascular problems as well as impairments in short-term memory. Marijuana may also trigger certain disorders, such as schizophrenia, in vulnerable persons [see “A Mind in Danger,” by Victoria Costello], although researchers continue to debate the evidence on this issue. Finally, because marijuana is still illegal in most states and under federal law, people who possess or sell marijuana may face legal consequences.

On the other hand, marijuana has significant upsides for individuals with certain illnesses. In glaucoma patients, it can reduce the dangerously high eye pressure that can lead to vision loss. In addition, pot can provide relief from chronic pain, reduce nausea and vomiting from cancer chemotherapy, and limit the severe weight loss that results from AIDS and other diseases.

When a person does become addicted, several types of psychotherapy can help him or her kick the habit. One of the more effective types is a form of cognitive-behavior therapy (CBT) tailored to the addictive mind-set. Using CBT, therapists teach patients practical coping skills that lead to a change in behavior. They also try to modify the thoughts that contribute to a person’s addiction. Two faster treatments are motivational interviewing and the closely related motivational-enhancement therapy. The goal of these methods is to boost a person’s drive to stop or reduce their use of pot.

Unfortunately, relapse rates remain high for all addiction psychotherapies. In a study published in 2003 psychologist Brent A. Moore, now at Yale University, and his colleagues found that 41 percent of successfully treated marijuana addicts had relapsed within six months. Scientists are searching for ways to bring about long-term abstinence more consistently.

The public needs to be aware of the facts about marijuana so that it can dismiss fictions about the drug’s effects. Only by knowing when marijuana presents a real threat and when the risk is minimal can people properly weigh its dangers and benefits in specific situations. Both our health and sound social policy depend on it.
Rights & Permissions

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

HAL ARKOWITZ and SCOTT O. LILIENFELD serve on the board of advisers for Scientific American Mind. Arkowitz is a psychology professor at the University of Arizona, and Lilienfeld is a psychology professor at Emory University.
 
Marijuana laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of other drug laws. As such, for as long as we have a legal recreational drug that gets a virtual pass for all the harm it does – while prosecuting other citizens for their recreational use of a less harmful drug – then the comparison seems not only relevant, but demanded. I really do see this as a social justice issue.
ETA

The undeniable disparity between the legal treatment of marijuana and alcohol users makes those laws seem entirely arbitrary and capricious. Our unwillingness to acknowledge – let alone rectify that disparity – tends to foster a cynical mistrust and disrespect for law in general among those citizens who don’t happen to consume their recreational drug of choice in liquid form.
 
I missed where marijuana was determined to be objectively sinful. Why, again?
A thing is not sinful, an action is.

Using MJ as directed, means the mind is altered. Conscience is negatively affected. Reasoning negatively affected. This is objectively sinful. My previous post made it clear.

Addiction is slavery. Why make it complicated?

Don’t ALTER your mind. ALTAR it instead.
 
As a Catholic, is it an ethical thing to sell marijuana in a marijuana store if it has become legalized in your state?
Yes, I don’t find any ethical problem with the sale of alcohol, tobacco, fast food, unhealthy desserts or marijuana to consenting adults. I do have a problem selling any or all of these to children, however in many places unhealthy desserts are legal to sell to minors without a parents consent
 
Marijuana laws don’t exist in a vacuum. They exist in the context of other drug laws. As such, for as long as we have a legal recreational drug that gets a virtual pass for all the harm it does – while prosecuting other citizens for their recreational use of a less harmful drug – then the comparison seems not only relevant, but demanded. I really do see this as a social justice issue.
You’ll get nowhere with this line. It is a classic form of fallacy.

Laws about alcohol have nothing to do with whether or not we should legalize marijuana.
 
Yes, I don’t find any ethical problem with the sale of alcohol, tobacco, fast food, unhealthy desserts or marijuana to consenting adults. I do have a problem selling any or all of these to children, however in many places unhealthy desserts are legal to sell to minors without a parents consent
Fast food and unhealthy desserts don’t make someone high and alter the mind.

Tobacco is addictive. It is a mind altering substance.

Alcohol can be addictive, when abused (because it alters the mind)

So don’t support ALTERING the mind. Support ALTARING the mind instead.

“Consenting adults” - anything can be justified by those two words alone. Should we see what the “sexual revolution” has done?

Now, why do you have a problem selling MJ to children?

Murder is wrong, regardless how old the murderer is. Stealing is wrong, regardless how old the murderer is. Same thing on how old the victim is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top