Is it ethical to sell marijuana?

[HelenRose]

The same could be said for the selling of booze.

Possibly. However, the people I know who use marijuana also drink booze and smoke tobacco. Those who sell marijuana are just giving addicts of these drugs another poison to take put in their bodies.

 

[HolyCrusader007]

One most be of sound mind and body. And it is understandable that some Catholics are against Cannabis use. At the same time, another poster @ the start of this thread showed the Church approves of using substances that are for therapeutic use, and there are cancer patients whose doctors proscribe medical cannabis.

Cannabis has also proven to not be a lethal drug as opposed to alcohol, cocaine, or heroin for example which can kill a person through what is known as an overdose. ,

I would also like to figure out how our society can defeat the evil that is the Cocaine, Meth, Heroin and other hard core drug trades. Inner cities in the USA have young kids being shot by drug dealers in so called revenge attacks,

washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/11/27/chicago-man-arrested-charged-in-9-year-old-tyshawn-lees-execution-style-murder/

This is a Christian issue^ This is within Christianity. Its also an American issue, as an American I can say there is an issue wrt illegal drugs and the crime that is associated with illegal drugs. The question now becomes how do we defeat these illegal drug dealers and illegal drug cartals/gangs who exhibit huge power in Mexico and South America as well as some power in the USA. My solution for the USA is to legalize the hardcore drugs and treat patients in clinics, similar procedures have had success in Euro countries. One thing is for sure, the illegal Drug dealers have to be defeated, these illegal drug dealers are tearing apart families and the current status quo is not working

 

[NeedImprovement]

. . . . . .just wondering how long that list of “legal” nations might actually be - were we to leave the US and Uruguay off of it because as of now, despite efforts, marijuana is not legal in either nation.

Rather fortuitous that a link from the Netherlands was posted since, the Dutch have not legalized marijuana either.
And in 2014 marijuana began to “move further from legalization” in the Netherlands:Marijuana In Holland Moves Further From Legalization (May 13, 2014)

Perhaps that might account for what was stated in the linked Netherlands article several posts ago , that

An increase of 45 percent has been recorded for the use of medical marijuana in the Netherlands compared to 2014

. . . Makes sense to me: If legislation begins tightening up , and the only way a person in the Netherlands is allowed to possess marijuana is with a medical prescription - then it’s only logical that those who are addicted are going to run to whichever doctor will write them a prescription (recalling here that an article quoted earlier in the thread from the Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse - research psychiatrist and scientist Nora D. Volkow, M.D ) :

“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.”

That other article several posts ago from the Netherlands said that "scientific studies conducted by the BMC have shown cannabis work for . . . " So they conduct their own studies.

They claim “cannabis work for chronic pain, multiple sclerosis, glaucoma, and decreased appetite and weight loss caused through AIDS and cancer” but they don’t talk about the side effects of smoking marijuana. It would’ve been nice to be able to view their ,um, “study” results, to see if they began with the most important question of all : Did the subject use marijuana before the study . . .? . . .otherwise, how might we suppose all these (how many again ?) patients were approached to participate in the , um, “studies?” Seriously : “Free pot - a place to stay, and all you can eat.C’mon down !” Who’s going to turn something like that down ? Here, people get paid to participate in studies too.

Given that marijuana is not legal in the Netherlands, we have yet to see any statement from the Dutch Academy of Opthamology (or its equivalent) on this matter. Maybe they haven’t published a statement due to

fear of losing license

too ?

And on that note, the Glaucoma Research Foundation has published a Statement which concurs with all points listed in the one published by the American Academy of Opthamologists . . . but they don’t have a license to lose . . .How can that be ?

“The take-home message is that although marijuana can lower the eye pressure, recommending this drug in any form for the treatment of glaucoma at the present time does not make sense given its side effects and short duration of action, coupled with a lack of evidence that its use alters the course of glaucoma.”

American Academy of Opthamologists

Say . . .:newidea:. . . You don’t suppose the* Glaucoma Research Foundation* actually* did *the research because they care about those suffering from this debilitating disease and that the American Academy of Opthamologists share that same concern for their patients ?

It’s kind of disappointing watching some people trying to turn this into a poll thread. Some rather, um , extravagant accusations are being leveled without a shred of substantiation. I was hoping, seeing how this is CAF, that we might be able to accept the **truth **- particularly when it comes from genuine medical science.

One just has to use their search engine for 10 or 15 minutes to discover a proliferation of lies about marijuana posted all over the internet . I saw one yesterday claiming that “marijuana cures breast cancer.” I think that type of lie is in extremely poor taste. I’ve known some women who had breast cancer and it is a total lack of respect for what they go through to post a pile of BS like that.

Too bad this thread couldn’t have stayed a little more focused on the factual.

It was a great question. @ LaramieHirsch ,

 

[franklinstower]

youtube.com/watch?v=hDnZu2XRg7U

 

[cornbread_r2]

Nonsense. You were doing what is called “needling.”

…]

I won’t pretend to be able to read your mind if you won’t pretend to be able to read mine. Deal?

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.

As I read it, paragraph 2291 makes a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate uses of drugs and not between the drugs themselves.

In any case, licensed medical professionals in 20 or so states and the District of Columbia would seem to disagree that there are no legitimate medical uses for marijuana.

 

[NeedImprovement]

“Harmless ?”

Ouch !

From the American Cancer Society :

Study Links Marijuana Use to Testicular Cancer

.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Several Ethical Definitions from MODERN CATHOLIC DICTIONARY ; Fr. John Hardon, S.J.

ETHICAL DUTY.

A true obligation but not binding in strict justice. It is a moral responsibility that is not also juridical.

ETHICS.

The science of human conduct as known by natural reason. It is a normative science because it determines the principles of right and wrong in human behavior. It is also a practical science because it does not merely speculate about moral good and evil but also decides what is right or wrong in specific human actions.

Also called moral philosophy, the purpose of ethics is to study this fact of human experience, that people distinguish right from wrong and have an instinctive sense of what they should do. The subject matter of ethics, therefore, is human conduct; its point of view is that of rightness and wrongness.

Although related to other human and social sciences, ethics is different from them by its unique point of view, namely the word ought. It is also different from moral theology by restricting itself to native reason as opposed to revealed religion.

Ethics is a science, not in the sense of the experimental sciences, but as a philosophical science that assumes certain postulates from philosophy and from them derives practical conclusions. It borrows three main premises from natural philosophy: the existence of a personal God, the freedom of the human will, and the immortality of the soul. Implicit in these premises is the idea that a good moral action is done freely by humans, in conformity with the mind and will of God. It is good precisely because it leads a human to the goal or destiny set by God in a future immortality. Ethics comes from the Greek ethos, which denotes a fixed custom and is often used to mean a person’s character.

 

[FrDavid96]

I won’t pretend to be able to read your mind if you won’t pretend to be able to read mine. Deal?

No. It doesn’t work that way.

You have repeatedly re-posted the same question over and over again.

I’ve answered it repeatedly.

There is no legitimate purpose to keep re-posting the same question.

The word that describes what you are doing is “needling.”

It shows that the one doing the needling has a weak argument.

Look it up.

How about you just accept that I’ve answered the question already and stop repeating it, because the answer won’t change. Deal?

As I read it, paragraph 2291 makes a distinction between legitimate and illegitimate uses of drugs and not between the drugs themselves.

That’s called a “distinction without a difference.”
Again, look it up.

If an illicit drug is immoral to use, then it’s obviously immoral to own or distribute it for someone else to use.

When a substance is immoral to use, then it’s quite obvious that the answer to the OP’s question about selling it is still “no.”

Also, the Catechism was written in those words because it recognizes that some drugs can be prescribed for legitimate reasons while the same drugs can be used for illicit reasons. Example, morphine can have legitimate medical uses when prescribed or it can be an illicit drug when used by someone who does not obtain it legitimately.

In any case, licensed medical professionals in 20 or so states and the District of Columbia would seem to disagree that there are no legitimate medical uses for marijuana.

Which proves that there are unethical doctors.

We already know this.

There are unethical doctors out there. There are doctors who will write fake disability papers, for a fee. There are doctors who will submit false insurance claims. There are doctors who willfully neglect the welfare of their patients. I am willing to trust that most doctors are ethical professionals—by no means am I trying to blight the profession; on the contrary, most doctors will not write RXs for marijuana because they know that it has no legitimate medical use.

I’ve done some quick internet searches. It seems that these doctors (it’s a shame to call them by that word) will write RX’s for marijuana for any reason at all. Just pay the fee and you get your RX.

I know enough about the sale of legitimate RX medicines to know that every RX drug out there has accepted/recommended uses. Certain medicines are used to treat high blood pressure. Some are used to treat low blood sugar. Some are used to treat high cholesterol. Etc. etc. As far as I know, there is not one single RX medicine that lacks any accepted use. Non-professionals can buy guides to RX drugs in any bookstore. Many nationwide pharmacies have web pages where one can do basic research on any RX drug. Every drug listed (again, to the best of my knowledge) has an accepted use.
Marijuana has NONE. A doctor (or whoever can write a RX depending on state laws) can apparently write a RX for marijuana for any reason at all.

I’ve done a little research. I’ve checked the website for a number of medical professionals who write marijuana RX’s in California. I’ve seen enough to detect a definite pattern, in fact one that does not vary. For every one of them, there is no criteria at all for obtaining a RX for so-called medical marijuana. None. The only criteria the so-called patient must meet is to pay the fee*. All someone needs to do is to visit the doctor, claim some kind of illness (literally any kind of illness), pay the fee, and leave with a RX for marijuana.

So again, all that proves is that there are unethical people out there with licenses to practice medicine.

---

*the other criteria is to be 21 years old and be a resident of the state, neither of which are medical criteria.

 

[HelenRose]

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.

I too, have seen family members I love harmed by this drug. Those whom I love can’t see how vague and distant they have become. It is if I have lost them in a distant hazy cloud.

 

[Confiteor_Deo]

I’ve done a little research. I’ve checked the website for a number of medical professionals who write marijuana RX’s in California. I’ve seen enough to detect a definite pattern, in fact one that does not vary. For every one of them, there is no criteria at all for obtaining a RX for so-called medical marijuana. None. The only criteria the so-called patient must meet is to pay the fee*. All someone needs to do is to visit the doctor, claim some kind of illness (literally any kind of illness), pay the fee, and leave with a RX for marijuana.

That is how one of my friends got a prescription for marijuana. All he did was walk into his doctor’s office, say he had anxiety (which wasn’t true) and that he wanted a prescription for marijuana. The doctor, without asking any questions, prescribed it to him.

 

[FrDavid96]

That is how one of my friends got a prescription for marijuana. All he did was walk into his doctor’s office, say he had anxiety (which wasn’t true) and that he wanted a prescription for marijuana. The doctor, without asking any questions, prescribed it to him.

Yep.

So called “medical marijuana” is either the great miracle panacea that can cure absolutely anything and everything or it’s just a thinly-veiled excuse for those who want to get high.

I think it’s pretty clear by now where I stand on that one.

 

[HelenRose]

The reasons given are that mj is a mind altering substance. But so is alcohol

The problem I have with this argument is: It implies that this is an either/or situation. But, the people I know who use marijuana also drink alcohol and smoke tobacco. I wonder what the combination of all three of these drugs does to the human body.

 

[GreyWings]

Yep.

So called “medical marijuana” is either the great miracle panacea that can cure absolutely anything and everything or it’s just a thinly-veiled excuse for those who want to get high.

I think it’s pretty clear by now where I stand on that one.

It DOES have medicinal benefits. Do you know that many, many pharmaceutical drugs are derived from plants? Medicine has come a long way since medieval apothecaries but there is such medicine in plants. I am an herbalist, I know this well.

I don’t understand your hatred of marijuana. Again, it’s people that make things evil. God did not create marijuana as an “evil” plant. That view doesn’t make sense when you consider how herbs have an affect on us. Opium, derived from a plant, is a pain-killer and is used in a form, morphine, in hospitals all the time after a person has surgery. Is opium “evil”? No, it is not. What’s unethical are those who are abusing it, and are disrespecting the plant itself. Medicinal plants demand respect. The knowledge of herbs as medicine is great.

 

[FrDavid96]

It DOES have medicinal benefits. Do you know that many, many pharmaceutical drugs are derived from plants? Medicine has come a long way since medieval apothecaries but there is such medicine in plants. I am an herbalist, I know this well.

I don’t understand your hatred of marijuana. Again, it’s people that make things evil. God did not create marijuana as an “evil” plant. That view doesn’t make sense when you consider how herbs have an affect on us. Opium, derived from a plant, is a pain-killer and is used in a form, morphine, in hospitals all the time after a person has surgery. Is opium “evil”? No, it is not. What’s unethical are those who are abusing it, and are disrespecting the plant itself. Medicinal plants demand respect. The knowledge of herbs as medicine is great.

You are confusing different issues.

I recognize that legitimate pharmaceuticals may be made from plants. Of course, I do. In fact, I just wrote that in a recent post.

That is not the topic of this thread.

 

[cornbread_r2]

Yep.

So called “medical marijuana” is either the great miracle panacea that can cure absolutely anything and everything or it’s just a thinly-veiled excuse for those who want to get high.

I think it’s pretty clear by now where I stand on that one.

False dichotomy.

Just because some people may promote marijuana as a miracle cure doesn’t mean that everyone does. In addition, as I understand it, the two most compelling reasons cited for medical marijuana – for pain relief and to counteract the debilitating nausea associated with chemotherapy – are readily admitted to be treatments of symptoms and not cures of any kind.

Just because some people might game the system just to cop a buzz doesn’t mean that everyone does. As I understand it, there are no empirical tests to accurately determine physical or psychological discomfort levels and that medical professionals can only rely on the self-reporting of their patients. Consequently, society runs the risk of the system being gamed each and every time a physician prescribes any psychotropic or analgesic medication – including some that are more dangerous than marijuana in terms of immediate and long-term effects as well as dependency. Despite that considerable risk, we haven’t prohibited the prescription of those drugs.

While it’s true that some unethical physicians might turn their practices into “pot mills” – in the same way that some physicians turn their practices into “pill mills” – that doesn’t mean that all physicians do so. There are ways for regulatory agencies to sort the good from bad actors in the case of unethical prescription of pharmaceuticals without a complete prohibition of those drugs and I see no reason why the same methods cannot be employed in the case of medical marijuana without completely prohibiting its use.

Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines ruled in August of 2015, during that country’s ongoing public debate on medical marijuana, that it is morally and ethically permissible to use marijuana for palliative and medical reasons, subject to certain strict ethical guidelines. See its statement here. If medical marijuana becomes legal in the Philippines, then it would seem that the highest Catholic authority there would not agree that its use/sale/procession would always be immoral, unethical or objectively evil.

Now, if we employ the CBCP’s rationale in jurisdictions in this country where medical marijuana is legal, then it would seem that the only remaining objection to its use would be that it is still illegal under federal law. In view of the fact that the federal government has generally chosen to ignore the issue in those jurisdictions and that states are not required to enforce federal laws, it would seem that even that objection is largely moot.

 

[Lormar]

Don’t ever vote to legalize marijuana.

The presence of two stores in my neighborhood have completely destroyed my neighborhood and brought in drug cartels to the area. Even our sheriff makes a distinct connection between the presence of the stores and the influx of drug dealers As a result, we have an increase in crime, it is unsafe to go out at night, cars and home must be securely locked at all times. We do not live in a big city. It had been a nice small suburban area. Thanks to the legalization of the drug, our neighborhood has been destroyed.

 

[FrDavid96]

Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines ruled in August of 2015, during that country’s ongoing public debate on medical marijuana, that it is morally and ethically permissible to use marijuana for palliative and medical reasons, subject to certain strict ethical guidelines. See its statement here. If medical marijuana becomes legal in the Philippines, then it would seem that the highest Catholic authority there would not agree that its use/sale/procession would always be immoral, unethical or objectively evil.

The bishops did NOT say what you are attempting to make them say.

They only offered the potential that use of marijuana might be possible. They also clearly refer to medical professionals.

The OPs question is about a very different situation than what the bishops were writing about.

The bishops wrote about legitimate medical professionals and legitimate medical science.

The OP is asking about someone who sells marijuana to anyone who wants to buy it and is willing to pay for it. That’s the reality, like it or nor.

 

[cornbread_r2]

The bishops did NOT say what you are attempting to make them say.

They only offered the potential that use of marijuana might be possible. They also clearly refer to medical professionals.

The reason I cited the CBCP’s statement was because I’ve gotten the impression that you held that there was no possibility for even the use of medical marijuana being permissible. (See posts 68, 69 and 70.) If your position is that it might be permissible, subject to the removal of whatever objections you currently have, then I guess I’m confused about what you mean by “objective evil” – which implies to me that an act is evil always, everywhere and for everyone. My apologies in advance if I’ve gotten the wrong impression of your position.

The OPs question is about a very different situation than what the bishops were writing about.

The bishops wrote about legitimate medical professionals and legitimate medical science.

The OP is asking about someone who sells marijuana to anyone who wants to buy it and is willing to pay for it. That’s the reality, like it or nor.

That appears to be an assumption on your part. The OP did not specify the uses for which the marijuana might be legally sold.

 

[FrDavid96]

The reason I cited the CBCP’s statement was because I’ve gotten the impression that you held that there was no possibility for even the use of medical marijuana being permissible. (See posts 68, 69 and 70.) If your position is that it might be permissible, subject to the removal of whatever objections you currently have, then I guess I’m confused about what you mean by “objective evil” – which implies to me that an act is evil always, everywhere and for everyone. My apologies in advance if I’ve gotten the wrong impression of your position.

No. It is not at all my position that it might be permissible. As usual, you’re twisting words. I never said that. I’ve said every time that marijuana use is objectively evil.

There is no such thing as “medical use.” That’s nothing more than a euphemism employed by people as an excuse to get high.

Someone else might say that there is a possible medical use for it. I say that those people are wrong.

The only possibility to which I do admit is the potential that there might be some legitimate medications derived from the plant. Just as many other medications are derived in part from one plant or another.

That appears to be an assumption on your part. The OP did not specify the uses for which the marijuana might be legally sold.

No. It is not an assumption. It is based on the simple fact that “we all know what that question means.”

And further, no matter how much you deny it, marijuana use is illegal under federal law. Therefore, there is no place in the United States where it can be legally sold.

 

[HolyCrusader007]

False dichotomy.

Just because some people may promote marijuana as a miracle cure doesn’t mean that everyone does. In addition, as I understand it, the two most compelling reasons cited for medical marijuana – for pain relief and to counteract the debilitating nausea associated with chemotherapy – are readily admitted to be treatments of symptoms and not cures of any kind.

Just because some people might game the system just to cop a buzz doesn’t mean that everyone does. As I understand it, there are no empirical tests to accurately determine physical or psychological discomfort levels and that medical professionals can only rely on the self-reporting of their patients. Consequently, society runs the risk of the system being gamed each and every time a physician prescribes any psychotropic or analgesic medication – including some that are more dangerous than marijuana in terms of immediate and long-term effects as well as dependency. Despite that considerable risk, we haven’t prohibited the prescription of those drugs.

While it’s true that some unethical physicians might turn their practices into “pot mills” – in the same way that some physicians turn their practices into “pill mills” – that doesn’t mean that all physicians do so. There are ways for regulatory agencies to sort the good from bad actors in the case of unethical prescription of pharmaceuticals without a complete prohibition of those drugs and I see no reason why the same methods cannot be employed in the case of medical marijuana without completely prohibiting its use.

Finally, I call your attention to the fact that the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines ruled in August of 2015, during that country’s ongoing public debate on medical marijuana, that it is morally and ethically permissible to use marijuana for palliative and medical reasons, subject to certain strict ethical guidelines. See its statement here. If medical marijuana becomes legal in the Philippines, then it would seem that the highest Catholic authority there would not agree that its use/sale/procession would always be immoral, unethical or objectively evil.

Now, if we employ the CBCP’s rationale in jurisdictions in this country where medical marijuana is legal, then it would seem that the only remaining objection to its use would be that it is still illegal under federal law. In view of the fact that the federal government has generally chosen to ignore the issue in those jurisdictions and that states are not required to enforce federal laws, it would seem that even that objection is largely moot.

Hello my friend,

Fellow Catholics itt have brought forth Church teachings which approve of the usage of medicine to help with illnesses.

There have been cases where patients have positively benefited from the medical use of Cannabis…such as the following,

youtube.com/watch?v=98pQ04ZNIiI
youtube.com/watch?v=HLTF2b1Cies