"Is Marijuana Sinful for Christians?" (an article discussing this)

[Robert_Sock]

In Missouri a misdemeanor amount (< 1 oz) is up to one year in jail. Fines are seldom given. First offenders are likely to get probation. There are a few cities–not mine–which specify a fine for a first offense, but this only takes in the minority of possession cases in the state.

The state laws need to change to fit the ‘crime,’ but I still contend that pot use is not moral by Catholic standards.

 

[Reep]

The state laws need to change to fit the ‘crime,’ but I still contend that pot use is not moral by Catholic standards.

I understand what you are saying, I am just challenging the automatic assumption that victimless crimes (or “vices” or whatever you call drugs, gambling, drunkenenss, sexual sins, etc) must have a criminal punishment at all.

http://freeisbeautiful.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/not-every-vice1.jpg

 

[Trigonometric]

is it yours or my place to lock people in prison cells who commit that sin?

If John Paul II is to be believed, it is our duty-and the state’s duty- to reduce drug usage. You can read his full message here. vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/pont_messages/1987/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_19870604_conferenza-vienna_en.html
In it, he said :

The phenomenon of drug abuse is one of the greatest tragedies plaguing society today, a tragedy of ever-widening proportions that strikes both industrialized and developing countries with devastating effects on individuals, families and the whole social fabric.

In this regard, my encouragement and admiration go to all those countries in which government leaders and citizens are truly committed to combatting the production, sale and misuse of drugs, sometimes paying a very high price

Reep:

I have heard evidence–and it bears consideration–that rather than a simple explosion of marijuana use, there would be a displacement of alcohol use, which on balance would not be any worse than the current situation with regard to substance abuse.

Can you explain to me why replacing alcohol with pot would be a good thing considering pot is worse than, for instance, cigarettes?

From Chemical Research in Toxicology
pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/tx700275p

ammonia was found in mainstream marijuana smoke at levels up to 20-fold greater than that found in tobacco. Hydrogen cyanide, NO, NOx, and some aromatic amines were found in marijuana smoke at concentrations 3–5 times those found in tobacco smoke.

 

[Reep]

If John Paul II is to be believed, it is our duty-and the state’s duty- to reduce drug usage.

Can you explain to me why replacing alcohol with pot would be a good thing considering pot is worse than, for instance, cigarettes?

Everything you wrote is true, but nothing in your argument, nor the quotes from the great JP2 demand the use of violence and prison against those who slip into this problem. Even when the catechism disapproves of drug abuse (CCC 2291), it does not call for criminal punishment.

It is a moral problem; a mental and physical health problem and the Christian response should not involve harming these people with consequences even harsher that the damage they do themselves. Our laws show a lack of compassion and cause greater evils that they prevent.

 

[Trigonometric]

Everything you wrote is true, but nothing in your argument, nor the quotes from the great JP2 demand the use of violence and prison against those who slip into this problem

I’m not advocating the use of vigilante-style violence, but I am advocating using the power of the law to stop it, which John Paul II said the problem required.

In the same speech, he said:

The great variety of needs represented requires the possibility of a** threefold treatment: medical, social and legal**. In this, the Church is ready to be of assistance, especially through the centres which she has herself established and by her cooperation with centres which are provided by other agencies.

(bold mine).
Now, if he wanted drug usage to be decriminalized, why would he be advocating bringing the force of law against drugs?

 

[Reep]

I’m not advocating the use of vigilante-style violence, but I am advocating using the power of the law to stop it, which John Paul II said the problem required.

In the same speech, he said:
(bold mine).
Now, if he wanted drug usage to be decriminalized, why would he be advocating bringing the force of law against drugs?

No one suggested you were a vigilante. I don’t happen to believe that aggressive violence becomes legitimate just because government is the one doing it. Most people think there is some moral difference if they can enlist government to do their dirty work–which would otherwise be a crime if they were to do such things (i.e. kidnapping and felonious restraint) to their own neighbors. I do not think the difference is as significant as they do…

I hope you are not arguing that government violence should be the presumed default answer to these problems. I wish we could agree that aggression is always a last resort, never the first. And even then, not when it creates more trouble than it fixes.

 

[Trigonometric]

Was John Paul II wrong then to have advocated a legal solution? What could this mean if we assume government penalties are wrong?

Furthermore, an arrest is not, by nature, violent. Violence only becomes necessary if the one being arrested physically resists.

Most people think there is some moral difference if they can enlist government to do their dirty work–which would otherwise be a crime if they were to do such things

There is a difference between those who have lawful authority to arrest someone for a just law and, as previously alluded to, vigilante style violence. Thomas Aquinas affirms this difference, as does Saint Paul:
Romans 13:3-4:

For rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil. Do you wish to have no fear of authority? Then do what is good and you will receive approval from it, for it is a servant of God for your good. But if you do evil, be afraid, for it does not bear the sword without purpose; it is the servant of God to inflict wrath on the evildoer.

I wish we could agree that aggression is always a last resort, never the first.

At the point someone needs to be arrested for drugs, all preventative measures have failed.

And even then, not when it creates more trouble than it fixes.

John Paul II, and now Pope Francis, appear to believe that legal restraint of drugs is necessary to prevent harm.

 

[andrewstx]

I suspect controlled medicated marijuana will have its uses just like any other drug. If you look up the history on how marijuana became illegal in the US and several other countries, it’s a bit shady and poorly founded. That being said, marijuana is strongly linked to turning a person into a retard. The crowd that is sympathetic to recreational marijuana likes to point to negative consequences of alcohol abuse. What they omit is that alcohol is everywhere, and marijuana is a niche group. If it were to ever explode to the same level of alcohol use, the consequences of recreational marijuana would become a lot more obvious.

Retard??? :banghead:

 

[Reep]

Furthermore, an arrest is not, by nature, violent. Violence only becomes necessary if the one being arrested physically resists.

Right. And robbery “is not, by nature, violent. Violence only becomes necessary if the one being [robbed] physically resists.” Good heavens, Trig. Next you will be telling me you pay your taxes voluntarily.

Imagine that the United States of America sends me an annual tax bill. It’s not really a bill. It’s just a notice telling me that my family’s share of the national budget is $7,325.00. The payment is purely voluntary, but I really ought to “do my part” and send in the money. Other than the social ostracism my failure might engender, there is no penalty for non-compliance.

Would anyone pay this bill? Of course not. We pay because the government will take take the money if we do not pay voluntarily. If that doesn’t work they will arrest us. If we resist, they will use violence. And if we resist more,** they will kill us**.

Violence is at the bottom of all government action. It is the essence of government. This is practically the definition of the modern state: “What essentially sets a nation-state apart,” declared candidate Barack Obama, is that it has a “monopoly on violence.”

 

[andrewstx]

Retard??? :banghead:

Maybe I should explain. I worked with the developmentaly disabled for years, starting at a school connected to a monastery. I find the word “retard” to be extremely uncharitable.

I was forced to retire from a bad stroke which made cognition difficult for even myself, so I kind of relate to people with mental retardation.

“Retard” indeed!