Is smoking marijuana a sin?

[Daniel_David]

For me, it is all about intent… why do you smoke pot (drink, take drugs, gamble, watch too much TV, obsess over video games)?

From all of the addicts of whatever drug of choice (and yes alcohol is included) that I have talked to over the years, the majority have spoken of wanting to “escape”, or to numb themselves so that they do not have to deal with their problems/issues or a given situation. Think about it for a moment… even social drinkers will say that having a couple of drinks will “loosen them up”, make them a better dancer, make them less shy, etc… pot smokers will talk about being “more creative” (as if that creativity came form the actual chemicals and not something that was already in them)… how many smokers do you know that will light-up when they are stressed?

So much of wanting to escape has to do with our fears and wanting to avoid them. (And of course then there are the physical addictions that eventually take hold)

Jesus, on the cross, was offered something which would have dulled or numbed his senses, but he said no… THAT is strength! And a very important lesson. I’ve done my share of “escaping” - not proud of it, but I’ve come to realize that everytime i want to escape i need to look at what i am wanting to escape from…

Is it a mortal or venial sin? I really don’t know… there are going to be a lot of people who say yep! and others who say nope! And they are all going to have scripture passages, etc to back up their views.

But I return to my original question… What are you escaping from? What are you avoiding? I believe that if I can answer this question honestly, then i know whether or not I am sinning

BTW, yes Jesus drank. No I do not think he was “escaping”. He is perfect and beyond our human weaknesses.

Thanks for letting me put my 2 cents in!

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Dont smoke MJ before Mass.

**It makes the Mass seem hours longer. **

Its not the right place to get the munchies.

and

You forget everything that was just preached to you.

LOL

A rather disgusting joke, I’d say.

 

[fix]

AlanFromWichita:

No, I’m asking why you think Jesus and His followers drank. Was it therapeutic, or was it recreational? You have given therapeutic v recreational as a measure of sinfulness for consuming a mind-altering substance. My question is, what possible reason, then, could have driven Jesus to drink? Was He endorsing or at least accepting recreational use of this substance?

Wine was the drink of the day. I think it was both recreational and therapuetic. Wine is understood as a drug today, but that does not mean it is sinful or that it must be consumed as a drug, it just means it must be consumed in moderation so as not to dull our free will.

Whether marijuana use or alcohol consumption is good or bad is not my point, but whether it is sinful.

I think in an eartlier post I referenced some statements from Rome saying that wine is always licit as long as it is consumed in moderation. “Soft” drugs are never licit for recreational reasons.

The point I’m trying to make is that if the drug is made to reduce pain or to heal, and it happens to produce an altered state of awareness, then what difference does it make whether the pain is from a physical or mental illness.

No difference.

Then, if it is from a mental illness, how are we to justify whether we are in sufficient anguish to receive drug therapy?

Like many issues we need the virtue of prudence.

Finally, is it a matter of being prescribed by a physician, in which case we really need to be drinking under the guidance of a physician, too.

Wine is not a medicinal drug. It may have some medicinal value in some way, but that is not the intended use.

Once we have determined whether easing mental pain is as valid a reason as easing physical pain, then we can go on to a more important point, which is how much pain relief does it take to cross the line between necessary therapy and gratuitous recreation. This can becomes a quantitative issue rather than a qualitative one, completely blurring the line between sin and no sin.

I do not see this issue any differently than many other moral issues that we face each day.

That’s quite a curious statement. I’m interested to hear more about his views. Would he consider Amsterdam evil for allowing there to be marijuana bars?Alan

Yes, it would be wrong.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Lisa N:

Do you wonder though if John’s ascetism was self imposed and a way of setting himself apart? Sort of like the purification rituals of the Essenes. Not everyone was expected to follow suit. Jesus obviously saw no compelling reason for everyone to live on locusts and wild honey and wear scratchy clothing. So I’m not sure how that fits into the discussion…did John think Jesus sinful for drinking wine and enjoying food? I don’t know.

The reason I brought it up, was to emphasize that we cannot say Jesus drank because everybody did, or because they had to because that was all there was to drink. Clearly, drinking was then, as now, a choice that society does not force us to make. Therefore, in my worldly mind, Jesus must have had a reason for drinking or He wouldn’t have done it. If there are two choices for doing so – therapeutic v recreational – and one is sinful and the other isn’t, then my question to the poster who made this distinction was which one?

If therapeutic, was He trying to reduce risk of heart disease, which is one of the reasons people give today that alcohol is OK in small quantities, for other medicinal reasons, or was it recreational? If recreational, then we must conclude that recreational use must not be intrinsically sinful.

Then, that brings up another issue of word usage and judgment. What’s the difference between treating depression and anxiety in a social setting v in a clinical setting?

As to the sinful nature of alcohol or marijuana, if the latter is illegal then yes it’s sinful. Over imbibing seems to get bad press in both Hebrew Bible and NT. Since IME marijuana cannot be controlled as to dosage and effect, I just don’t see how it can be considered a life affirming activity.

I think you are clearly making your point, and I respect it because it appears very reasonable, and not derived out of judgment or emotions.

That said, I do see ways in which it can be a life affirming activity, so I am not personally convinced it is intrinsically evil.

Against possibly better judgment, I will at least reveal to you one way in which it can be life affirming. At certain times when I was trying to deal with very difficult people, I used to become very upset and confused because they were ignoring the expert advice they paid me to provide, and couldn’t even recognize that they were working against their own best interests.

Before I learned not to care whether somebody takes my advice, there was no advice from my psychiatrist other than to withdraw from the situation (essentially that would involve me ceasing my parental duties) and take my medications. When I got sufficiently frantic, I found myself unable to function. After seven years of abstinence from marijuana – motivated primarily by illegality of it – I tried smoking some and found that it did, in fact, help me care less, which was exactly the outcome my psychiatrist was shooting for. When I discussed it with my psychiatrist, he said he advises against marijuana primarily for legal reasons, but for a lesser reason than the researce on how it affects the dopamine levels in the brain is not conclusive yet. He prescribed valiums to take as a substitute, but honestly they just don’t do the same thing.

Meanwhile, over several years of contemplative prayer practices, I find that I can now have a nearly constant state of “interior silence” which brings me peace that I have never had before. The Holy Spirit has healed me in a way that marijuana could only temporarily Band-Aid. No I can deal with difficult people and situations pretty much without resorting to drugs to calm me down, and no longer need marijuana.

Alan

 

[fix]

Pontifical Council for the Family

    Should 'soft' drugs be legalized? 

    January 17, 1997


   [cin.org/vatcong/softdrug.html](http://www.cin.org/vatcong/softdrug.html)

The difference between drug addiction and alcoholism was emphasized in these terms by the Holy Father John Paul 11: “It is true that there is a distinct difference between the use of drugs and the use of alcohol: while a moderate use of the latter as a drink does not offend moral principles, only its abuse can be condemned; instead, the use of drugs is always unlawful because it implies an unjustified and unreasonable renunciation of thinking, desiring and acting as a free person” *(Dolentium Hominum, *19, Vll, 1992, n. 1).

 

[qmvsimp]

Personally I don’t think it is. For many reasons.

Marijuana is actually mentioned in the Bible in Ex. 30:23 where it is used to make an anointing oil. It’s probable that this oil had a light relaxation effect. See also Gen. 9:3.

The arguments against it are similar to alcohol prohibition which was a disaster. Marijuana used to be legal in the early 20th century.

You can’t smoke yourself to death, but you can drink yourself to death.

Being a drunkard is condemned in the Bible, but it’s not clear how that applies to those who drink in moderation. It is reasonable to presume that the wedding party at Cana had had much to drink prior to Jesus turning the water to wine. It’s possible that drunkard referred to those who continually drink versus a weekend or special occasion drinker.

Civil versus moral law. Clearly we first must obey moral law. Civil law has two different levels: those that protect others in society and those that protect individuals from themselves.
Going 90mph on a highway in Montana is legal since it is relatively safe. Going 90mph in a school zone is illegal since it will potentially harm others. Different locations and circumstance determine its validity.
Now take an adult coming home on Friday from a long week’s work. He comes home and smokes a little marijuana to relax. It is against the law, but has no bearing on protecting anyone other than himself. Now doing it while driving, at a concert, in front of kids is a different story.

I see this like jaywalking. It is against the law. But if no cars are coming from anywhere, then I don’t think it’s a sin to violate the law. If, however, you have your kids in tow and/or there are lots of cars coming, it would be a sin.

Like most actions, the circumstances and intentions of the actor determine it’s sinfullness. I just don’t see how all marijuana use in non-medical situations is a sin.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

fix:

The difference between drug addiction and alcoholism was emphasized in these terms by the Holy Father John Paul 11: “It is true that there is a distinct difference between the use of drugs and the use of alcohol: while a moderate use of the latter as a drink does not offend moral principles, only its abuse can be condemned; instead, the use of drugs is always unlawful because it implies an unjustified and unreasonable renunciation of thinking, desiring and acting as a free person” *(Dolentium Hominum, *19, Vll, 1992, n. 1).

That’s kind of disappointing. I didn’t expect him to consent to marijuana use but I expected a better argument than that. How in the world does this renunciation differ between alcohol and other drugs? This makes no sense. Perhaps it would make more sense in context, but I’m really not sure where to look it up.

I find these quotes from St. Paul interesting and possibly relevant:

“Everything is lawful for me,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful for me,” but I will not let myself be dominated by anything.

and

“Everything is lawful,” but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is lawful,” but not everything builds up.

Either St. Paul misspoke because he really didn’t really mean “everything” or they must not have had marijuana back then. Maybe Paul just didn’t know about marijuana, and could not have known that he should have made an exception to what is lawful. It couldn’t be that the Holy Father is contradicting St. Paul, right? Maybe the rules are different for saints than they are for us rank-and-file types.

Alan

 

[santaro75]

AsStAnselmPrays:

I do believe that smoking marijuana is a sin. We are not to harm our bodies, because the Holy Spirit lives in us. Whenever you smoke marijuana, you lose brain cells and do all sorts of damage. When you smoke cigarettes, you take times off of your lifespan and increase the odds of developing cancer.

Can the same be said of people who eat junk food and do not take care of themselves. Also isn’t drinking alcohol harming your body?

 

[chevalier]

If you pressed me, I would have to admit that it doesn’t always have to be sinful. You know, the intent does matter. I would really suggest heeding your conscience if you can rely on it. Developing an addiction to a destructive substance can’t be morally right if voluntary. If marijuana actually really is not so destructive but only a step on the road to heroine, then I would see a sin in it from following the road - but not if one didn’t follow. If you can prudently keep it in check without exposing yourself to temptation and opportunity for sin, well… but still, why smoke it? What’s so fun in it?

 

[qmvsimp]

AlanFromWichita:

Either St. Paul misspoke because he really didn’t really mean “everything” or they must not have had marijuana back then. Maybe Paul just didn’t know about marijuana, and could not have known that he should have made an exception to what is lawful. It couldn’t be that the Holy Father is contradicting St. Paul, right? Maybe the rules are different for saints than they are for us rank-and-file types.

Alan

I am not rendering an opinion on what St. Paul meant by “everything” but I do want to discuss the meaning of “all” and “everything” in Ancient Greek. The usual meaning is “no exceptions”, but alternative meanings include “a lot”, “most”, and “almost everything”. The same can be said of English.

“I had a party last night and everyone came.” This could mean everyone on the list or it could mean a lot of people came, not that everyone on earth came.

Note that this is the Catholic interpretation for St. Paul’s quote of “all have sinned”, since the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately, thus she did not sin.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

qmvsimp:

“I had a party last night and everyone came.” This could mean everyone on the list or it could mean a lot of people came, not that everyone on earth came.

Note that this is the Catholic interpretation for St. Paul’s quote of “all have sinned”, since the Virgin Mary was conceived immaculately, thus she did not sin.

This is a very interesting point…

Who knows what range of possibilities he might have had in mind?

 

[UKcatholicGuy]

Pontifical Council for the Family
Should ‘soft’ drugs be legalized?
January 17, 1997
cin.org/vatcong/softdrug.html

The difference between drug addiction and alcoholism was emphasized in these terms by the Holy Father John Paul II: “It is true that there is a distinct difference between the use of drugs and the use of alcohol: while a moderate use of the latter as a drink does not offend moral principles, only its abuse can be condemned; instead, the use of drugs is always unlawful because it implies an unjustified and unreasonable renunciation of thinking, desiring and acting as a free person” *(Dolentium Hominum, *19, Vll, 1992, n. 1).

Ok everyone . . . end of discussion! Quoted above is the Church’s stance on drug use. Nothing more to discuss. Great job, Fix! May our late Holy Father John Paul II rest in peace!

 

[AlanFromWichita]

UKcatholicGuy:
Ok everyone . . . end of discussion! Quoted above is the Church’s stance on drug use. Nothing more to discuss. Great job, Fix! May our late Holy Father John Paul II rest in peace!

Was that teaching infallible?

 

[qmvsimp]

No, it’s not infallable.

 

[Almeria]

AlanFromWichita:

The reason I brought it up, was to emphasize that we cannot say Jesus drank because everybody did, or because they had to because that was all there was to drink. Clearly, drinking was then, as now, a choice that society does not force us to make. Therefore, in my worldly mind, Jesus must have had a reason for drinking or He wouldn’t have done it. If there are two choices for doing so – therapeutic v recreational – and one is sinful and the other isn’t, then my question to the poster who made this distinction was which one?

I think it can be pretty safely said that a large amount of the alcohol drank throughout history–including when Jesus was around–was because it wasn’t very safe to drink the water. Water purification occured by mixing it with alcohol, like wine. Yes, wine was also drank for recreational reasons, but quite often it was drank for theraputic–you didn’t get sick drinking the wine, but you did with the water.

 

[Exporter]

Can you just imagine if your Priest were to have smoked three joints of MJ before he heard your confession or before he said Mass?

Since MJ alters your mental faculties negatively - yes it is a sin to smoke MJ. The degree of severity depends on how much you smoke.

Is having a drink of whiskey a sin? NO. But to drink excesively is a sin because you loose your natural inhibitions toward other sins.

 

[Antigen]

Do you believe that smoking marijuana (for non-medical reasons) is a sin? VOTE!

Non-medical use of marijuana is a sin because:

1. • DISOBEDIENCE render onto Ceasar, Ceasar has spoken on this issue
   • DESECRATION OF YOUR BODY and possibly the body of your unborn children whose genes you can mess up
   • IMPAIRMENT may result in injury to oneself or others
   Medical use of marijuana on the other hand may be justified if:
   • the law is unjustly vague, universal or does not take into consideration the needs of the ill.
   • benefits of mariuana outweighs the effects or potential side effects
   • no other remedies exist that perform the same function*
   This last one is the one that usually does it for me. With the exception of a severely increased intraocular pressure in acute wide angle glaucoma, none of the conditions for which people have claimed the need to use weed could not be treated equally well with opiates and antiemetics currently on the market.

 

[fix]

qmvsimp:

No, it’s not infallable.

I do not know if scholars would say it is infallible or not, but either way I think it is binding.

 

[qmvsimp]

fix:

I do not know if scholars would say it is infallible or not, but either way I think it is binding.

It is clearly not an issue that has been defined by the Pope while speaking “ex cathedra.” It is clearly not something that has been believed by the faithful since the beginning. It has clearly not been defined in any ecumenical councils.

I think one of these has to be present in order to be infallible.

The Pontifical Council for the Family is meant as a guide, not a rigid command that all must follow under penalty of sin.

 

[fix]

qmvsimp:

It is clearly not an issue that has been defined by the Pope while speaking “ex cathedra.” It is clearly not something that has been believed by the faithful since the beginning. It has clearly not been defined in any ecumenical councils.

I think one of these has to be present in order to be infallible.

The Pontifical Council for the Family is meant as a guide, not a rigid command that all must follow under penalty of sin.

The quote was from the Pope himself, not the Council. Are you arguing he was making a prudential judgment?