Is it ethical to sell marijuana?

[cornbread_r2]

The way I see it, marijuana is a mortal sin to use so it should be illegal and the law should be enforced at any cost. Alcohol is not a mortal sin unless it is abused, so it doesn’t have to be illegal (although I would not mind it being illegal as long as priests may still use wine for saying Mass).

As for the enforcement of the current laws, I don’t believe that the harm that illegalizing marijuana is supposed to prevent has been exceeded by the enforcement of the law; however, it seems likely that marijuana is going to be legalized in this country due to the shift in public opinion, much like how prohibition was repealed. Obviously, one of our confessors is wrong.

Thanks for answering my question.

If marijuana use should be legally prosecuted at any cost because it’s a mortal sin, are they any other mortal sins that you think should also be legally prosecuted at any cost?

As I understand it, an act cannot be a mortal sin without free consent of the will. If that is true, then wouldn’t that mean that addicted marijuana users could not commit mortal sin by using that drug? If their marijuana use isn’t a mortal sin, then why should they be prosecuted?

Finally, I think you have to seriously over-estimate the actual harm of typical marijuana use and woefully under-estimate the true cost of that prohibition – monetarily and in many other ways – in order to justify your position.

Consider that tobacco use among young adults in the US has fallen significantly in the past two decades – even while that drug remained legal to purchase. Now consider that that was accomplished without jailing anyone for tobacco use and at a tiny fraction of the cost of marijuana prohibition. Might it not be possible then to accomplish your goals without all of the collateral damage associated with marijuana prohibition?

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

Thanks for answering my question.

You’re welcome.

If marijuana use should be legally prosecuted at any cost because it’s a mortal sin, are they any other mortal sins that you think should also be legally prosecuted at any cost?

As I understand it, an act cannot be a mortal sin without free consent of the will. If that is true, then wouldn’t that mean that addicted marijuana users could not commit mortal sin by using that drug? If their marijuana use isn’t a mortal sin, then why should they be prosecuted?

Finally, I think you have to seriously over-estimate the actual harm of typical marijuana use and woefully under-estimate the true cost of that prohibition – monetarily and in many other ways – in order to justify your position.

Consider that tobacco use among young adults in the US has fallen significantly in the past two decades – even while that drug remained legal to purchase. Now consider that that was accomplished without jailing anyone for tobacco use and at a tiny fraction of the cost of marijuana prohibition. Might it not be possible then to accomplish your goals without all of the collateral damage associated with marijuana prohibition?

I would say abortion, homosexual acts, euthanasia, and the like should be illegal since these sins affect society as a whole.

You’re correct in that addiction may mitigate the culpability of the sin, but that doesn’t mean the addicted person shouldn’t be prosecuted. People are prosecuted for breaking the law, not for committing a sin. The law may be in place because of the sinful nature of the prohibited act, but prosecution is secular justice. The addicted person has still broken the law and must be justly prosecuted.

It wouldn’t make sense to legalize marijuana then seek to make people dislike it since they will be attached to it even more than they are now. Keeping marijuana illegal prevents it from being fully accepted by society, but the lack of medical data concerning the full effects of marijuana has led public opinion to change, much like how the lack of medical data about the effects of tobacco made people think it was not very harmful at all. There is so little data concerning the complete effects of marijuana that the FDA hasn’t accepted it as a legitimate medicinal substance.

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . still trying to figure out how this thread ended up in a “vocations” subforum - :ehh: , but FWIW :

Personally (speaking as one who used to use marijuana recreationally until roughly 20 years ago ) , I’ve never agreed with this flimsy “medical use” argument , because back when I was using, my family physician was concerned enough to ask me to read up on the medical information available at that time, pertaining to the effects of marijuana use.

I used to play music in touring bands and I saw enough pothead friends of mine go on to use stronger, even more addictive drugs such as cocaine and heroin (one died from an intentional heroin overdose, another is permanently changed and has drastic mood swings) that I think anyone who asserts marijuana is not a gateway drug . . . has to either be aloof , exceptionally ignorant or lying to themselves.

Marijuana today is largely hydroponically grown. So the active ingredient - THC , is more concentrated , making the marijuana up to 7 times , but on average 4 times more potent than the substance considered standard street marijuana of 30 years ago.

The THC, commensurate to use, stays in a person’s system much longer than alcohol does because it is fat soluble. THC is not metabolized the same way alcohol is - there really are no grounds for comparison from a physiological perspective

An article in the British Medical journal - The Lancet back in 2007 , revealed an English research team had found that marijuana smokers have, on average, a 41% increased risk of developing psychotic disorders later in life. As Christopher Wanjek writes for Live Science :

"If you think marijuana is harmless, you might be suffering from the delusional tendencies caused by smoking pot, as revealed in a health study published in The Lancet on Friday.

The research team, based in England, found that weed smokers have on average a 41 percent increased risk of developing psychotic disorders later in life. The heaviest users doubled their risk; yet even infrequent smokers had a modest increased risk . . .

Health experts debate whether potency makes pot more dangerous, some arguing that smokers smoke until the get high and stop. What is increasing clear, however, through the smoke, is that the habit will have a negative effect on your brain.

A more recent article published by the Lancet only 2 weeks ago (Jan 14, 2016) , Continued versus discontinued cannabis use in patients with psychosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis concludes:

Interpretation

“Continued cannabis use after onset of psychosis predicts adverse outcome, including higher relapse rates, longer hospital admissions, and more severe positive symptoms than for individuals who discontinue cannabis use and those who are non-users. These findings point to reductions in cannabis use as a crucial interventional target to improve outcome in patients with psychosis.”

Back when my family physician had asked me to start reading medical articles on marijuana use, it was already known that marijuana use progressively impairs a person’s immune system. Even further back - in the late 1980’s actually, medical science was already aware that *marijuana use damages the immune system *- actually the word one article used back then, was “destroys” the immune system : BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE; January-February 1989 ; How Marijuana Destroysw the Immune System , John Grauerholz, M.D.

Marijuana Drug Treatment confirms these facts in their 2016 article Effects of Marijuana on the Immune System.

So regardless of whether it is legalized or not medical science says marijuana use screws with your brain; damages/destroys/or severely compromises your immune system,causes a deterioration in your cognitive abilities, increases susceptibility to developing psychotic disorders and/or relapsing into them,.

Hence to the question being asked,* “Is it ethical to sell” marijuana to someone ?* It would appear that faith and reason combine to offer us the most obvious answer:

 

[cornbread_r2]

…]

You’re correct in that addiction may mitigate the culpability of the sin, but that doesn’t mean the addicted person shouldn’t be prosecuted. People are prosecuted for breaking the law, not for committing a sin. The law may be in place because of the sinful nature of the prohibited act, but prosecution is secular justice. The addicted person has still broken the law and must be justly prosecuted.

The point I was making was that the bolded bit above seems to contradict the previously-written bolded bit below.

The way I see it, marijuana is a mortal sin to use so it should be illegal and the law should be enforced at any cost. Alcohol is not a mortal sin unless it is abused, so it doesn’t have to be illegal (although I would not mind it being illegal as long as priests may still use wine for saying Mass).

Here it seems as though you were saying that marijuana use should be illegal because it’s a mortal sin. You even went on to note that alcohol use which wasn’t abusive didn’t need to be illegal because it wasn’t a mortal sin. If you really don’t feel that way, then it’s something of a relief – though your willingness to proceed “at any cost” is still quite disturbing.

It wouldn’t make sense to legalize marijuana then seek to make people dislike it since they will be attached to it even more than they are now. Keeping marijuana illegal prevents it from being fully accepted by society, but the lack of medical data concerning the full effects of marijuana has led public opinion to change, much like how the lack of medical data about the effects of tobacco made people think it was not very harmful at all. There is so little data concerning the complete effects of marijuana that the FDA hasn’t accepted it as a legitimate medicinal substance.

I’m suggesting that education and rehabilitation, when necessary, makes more sense than merely tossing people in jail where they get little to no rehab and more often than not just learn how to become better criminals. Those new “skills” come in handy upon release when their arrest records prevent them from getting legitimate employment. Punishing users may satisfy some primal urge for retribution, but it hasn’t seemed to have deterred use in the least.

Finally, I call your attention to two extensive, government-sponsored studies (here and here) commissioned roughly 80 years apart, on populations half a world apart which basically reached the same conclusion: despite the potential harm, a criminal justice response to cannabis use was unwarranted. A third government-sponsored study (here) , debunked the notion that marijuana was a “gateway drug”, among other things. You may disagree with the conclusions of these studies, but you cannot hold that the issue hasn’t been studied.

It still doesn’t work. …]

Persons A pay a considerable criminal penalty for their recreational drug use while persons B pay no criminal penalty for their recreational drug use – even though their recreational drug of choice is no less harmful to either themselves or society.

Try as I might, I really and truly cannot force myself to believe that this is just. As that opinion is unlikely to change without a significant infusion of new evidence, it’s probably best to end my participation in our exchange here.

Have a good one.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

The point I was making was that the bolded bit above seems to contradict the previously-written bolded bit below.

…

Persons A pay a considerable criminal penalty for their recreational drug use while persons B pay no criminal penalty for their recreational drug use – even though their recreational drug of choice is no less harmful to either themselves or society.

Try as I might, I really and truly cannot force myself to believe that this is just. As that opinion is unlikely to change without a significant infusion of new evidence, it’s probably best to end my participation in our exchange here.

Have a good one.

To be honest, I would not change my views on marijuana either, even if the Church said that it was not a mortal sin. After seeing the type of people who use it and what it has done to my family, I can never look upon it favorably since I have grown to abhor it.

 

[Polluted]

There is also the issue of tax evasion

 

[NeedImprovement]

The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) “supports most of the world’s research on the health aspects of drug abuse and addiction.”

The Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse - research psychiatrist and scientist Nora D. Volkow, M.D., explains in her February 2013 article Challenging Marijuana Myths , that adolescents - young people of middle and high school age are at an even greater risk of sustaining long-term damage from marijuana use :

". . . marijuana use, particularly when initiated at a young age, sets the user on a downward life trajectory, one that is driven by a constellation of factors that include altered cognitive and social development. (I’ve discussed some of the recent evidence for this in previous messages.) Unfortunately, cognitive ability that declines over a span of months or years (as well as other, long-term effects on life and well-being) may not be the kind of harm that young people are easily able to perceive.

Given the increases we are seeing in marijuana use among this age group, it is more crucial than ever to challenge the impression many of them have that marijuana is a benign, unfairly demonized substance. We must also do more to counter their dangerous misconception that marijuana is not addictive. Research suggests that about 9 percent of all users become addicted and that, among those who start young, the percentage is closer to 17 percent—or one in six. A quarter to a half of those who use marijuana daily are addicted to the drug. Thus many of the nearly 7 percent of high-school seniors who say they smoke marijuana on a daily or near-daily basis are already addicted or are well on their way—besides functioning at a sub-optimal level all of the time.

We clearly face an uphill battle getting this message across. . . "

 

[Verne_Collins]

Selling, producing, marketing anything with a tendency to be abused and can cause harm to one self and to others is unethical. Sometimes people may have good intentions but the result is quite uncertain…Just…NO.

 

[FrDavid96]

The question was “it it ethical…?”

The answer is “no.”

It’s rather straightforward. It is not ethical. It is not moral. It is objectively evil.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The question was “it it ethical…?”

The answer is “no.”

It’s rather straightforward. It is not ethical. It is not moral. It is objectively evil.

Would that also be true in jurisdictions where marijuana is legal to purchase for either recreational and/or medicinal use? If so, why?

 

[FrDavid96]

Would that also be true in jurisdictions where marijuana is legal to purchase for either recreational and/or medicinal use?

Yes.

If so, why?

Selling marijuana is objectively evil. There is no justification for it.

Just because an act is legal (or simply not in violation of any law) does not make that act moral.

See the Catechism. It’s been quoted a number of times already.

I don’t know why you seem to think that by calling an evil act “recreational” that somehow changes it into a moral act. I can assure you, morality doesn’t work that way.

 

[GreyWings]

As an herbalist, I’m going to address this from a medicinal perspective:

Marijuana is not “evil.” Please research how this plant helps cancer patients and people with glaucoma, for example. Marijuana is no more evil than the morphine you may be injected with in the hospital for pain. Of course, this is medically speaking, not recreational.

Put it this way: do you drink alcohol? How is alcohol not “evil” but marijuana is? Bob Marley had a lot to say on the subject…

Personally, I do not think pot in of itself is evil, because it’s a plant. It’s how humans use it, determine whether something, the act, is evil.

 

[JimG]

I have never known an ophthalmologist to recommend marijuana as a glaucoma treatment.

aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/medical-marijuana-glaucoma-treament

 

[cornbread_r2]

Thanks for responding.

…]

Just because an act is legal (or simply not in violation of any law) does not make that act moral.

Of course that’s true, but sometimes people argue that acts are immoral just because they’re illegal. By putting the question in the context of legal acts, I was seeking to eliminate that potential objection.

See the Catechism. It’s been quoted a number of times already.

CCC 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.

In that marijuana has recognized therapeutic uses, I don’t see how the Catechism supports the position that selling marijuana for medicinal uses is objectively evil.

I don’t know why you seem to think that by calling an evil act “recreational” that somehow changes it into a moral act. I can assure you, morality doesn’t work that way.

That’s a laughable inference. I use the term “recreational use” to distinguish it from medicinal use.

 

[NeedImprovement]

I have never known an ophthalmologist to recommend marijuana as a glaucoma treatment.

aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/medical-marijuana-glaucoma-treament

Thankyou for the link JimG. Although some opinions on this thread desperately beg to differ, people shouldn’t really argue with true, medical science ; that is, unless they are intent on deluding themselves. From the article JimG linked (bolds mine):

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF OPTHAMOLOGY ;Does Marijuana Help Treat Glaucoma ?

. . .The research found that when marijuana is smoked or when a form of its active ingredient is taken as a pill or by injection, it does lower IOP. However, it only lowers IOP for a short period of time—about three or four hours.

This short period of time is a major drawback for the use of marijuana as a glaucoma treatment. Because glaucoma needs to be treated 24 hours a day,** you would need to smoke marijuana six to eight times a day around the clock to receive the benefit of a consistently lowered IOP.** Because of marijuana’s mood-altering effect, smoking so much of it daily would leave you too impaired to drive, operate equipment or function at the peak of your mental ability.

. . . Scientists are still exploring whether the active ingredients in marijuana may yet offer a glaucoma treatment. However, such developments require much more research and are many years from becoming a reality.

So, while marijuana can temporarily lower your IOP, it’s not recommended for treating glaucoma. Prescription medication and surgical treatments have been tested and proven as effective treatments for the condition. On June 27, 2014, the American Academy of Ophthalmology reiterated its position that it does not recommend marijuana or other cannabis products for the treatment of glaucoma.

No recognized therapeutic uses in this medical category: The risks far outweigh the marginal benefits which might be gleaned.

 

[FrDavid96]

As an herbalist, I’m going to address this from a medicinal perspective:

Marijuana is not “evil.” Please research how this plant helps cancer patients and people with glaucoma, for example. Marijuana is no more evil than the morphine you may be injected with in the hospital for pain. Of course, this is medically speaking, not recreational.

Put it this way: do you drink alcohol? How is alcohol not “evil” but marijuana is? Bob Marley had a lot to say on the subject…

Personally, I do not think pot in of itself is evil, because it’s a plant. It’s how humans use it, determine whether something, the act, is evil.

As Catholics, we do not look to Bob Marley as a source of moral theology, we look to the Catechism.

 

[FrDavid96]

Thanks for responding.

Of course that’s true, but sometimes people argue that acts are immoral just because they’re illegal. By putting the question in the context of legal acts, I was seeking to eliminate that potential objection.

Nonsense. You were doing what is called “needling.”
The question had already been answered several times.
Even if marijuana were to be legal (and it is illegal in the entire United States), it is still immoral.

The fact that it is illegal compounds the immorality of it. It adds to the list of reasons why possessing/selling/distributing/growing etc. is immoral.

In that marijuana has recognized therapeutic uses, I don’t see how the Catechism supports the position that selling marijuana for medicinal uses is objectively evil.

It has no “recognized” therapeutic uses.

Such claims are nothing more than an excuse for people who want to get high.

The Catechism 2291 makes a distinction between legitimate drugs and illegitimate ones.

Any drug potentially has some therapeutic effect. Even a fatal dose of some drug might have some temporary therapeutic effect. Medical professionals conduct legitimate research to determine if the positive effects outweigh the negative (or in moral terms, the benefit outweighs the burden). There is no doubt that there is no legitimate medical use for marijuana.

 

[FrDavid96]

As a Catholic, is it an ethical thing to sell marijuana in a marijuana store if it has become legalized in your state?

The answer is still “no.”

 

[SyroMalankara]

I have never known an ophthalmologist to recommend marijuana as a glaucoma treatment.

aao.org/eye-health/tips-prevention/medical-marijuana-glaucoma-treament

They won’t in the US due to fear of losing license, however, in legal nations this is commonly prescribed - also there are various methods of consumption that does not have to include smoking:

nltimes.nl/2015/10/23/medical-marijuana-use-jumps-45-pct-in-netherlands/

The Office of Medical Cannabis (BMC) controls the production and supply of marijuana in the Netherlands as part of the Ministry of Health. Scientific studies conducted by the BMC have shown cannabis work for chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and decreased appetite and weight loss caused through AIDS and cancer. Though medical marijuana is not a registered medicine, and is only prescribed in cases where other drugs have failed or had too many side effects.

The use of medical marijuana is experiencing strong growth, and pharmacies are predicting some more than 4,000 users in 2015, the SFK website reporting more than 11,000 medical marijuana prescriptions from 2012.

The BMC currently has five varieties of medical marijuana on the market, ranging in composition and concerntration of the active substances THC (tetrahydrocannabinol or dronabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol). In order of popularity: Bedrocan (65%), Bedoil (17%), Bedrobinol and Bedica (10%), and Bedrolite (1%).

The average amount provided is 16 grams. The BMC recommends use of medical marijuana via a tea or vaporizer, as they discourage the smoking of medical cannabis

 

[FrDavid96]

They won’t in the US due to fear of losing license, however, in legal nations this is commonly prescribed - also there are various methods of consumption that does not have to include smoking:

nltimes.nl/2015/10/23/medical-marijuana-use-jumps-45-pct-in-netherlands/

The Office of Medical Cannabis (BMC) controls the production and supply of marijuana in the Netherlands as part of the Ministry of Health. Scientific studies conducted by the BMC have shown cannabis work for chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and decreased appetite and weight loss caused through AIDS and cancer. Though medical marijuana is not a registered medicine, and is only prescribed in cases where other drugs have failed or had too many side effects.

The use of medical marijuana is experiencing strong growth, and pharmacies are predicting some more than 4,000 users in 2015, the SFK website reporting more than 11,000 medical marijuana prescriptions from 2012.

The BMC currently has five varieties of medical marijuana on the market, ranging in composition and concerntration of the active substances THC (tetrahydrocannabinol or dronabinol) and CBD (cannabidiol). In order of popularity: Bedrocan (65%), Bedoil (17%), Bedrobinol and Bedica (10%), and Bedrolite (1%).

The average amount provided is 16 grams. The BMC recommends use of medical marijuana via a tea or vaporizer, as they discourage the smoking of medical cannabis

There might be the potential to make legitimate drugs from marijuana.

That is not what the OP is asking about (far from it), and it’s not the topic of the thread.