Is smoking Marijuana sinful?

[bingbang]

The left likes it when the peasants are stoned…for then they are easier to control! A person who has to rely on drugs for a high instead of prayer,or playing with their children or going to church and worshipping God instead of the almighty state…will always vote for a nanny government…one who 'cares’about them …yeh sure! This happened in Nazi germany when the enemy was the Jews.the cause of all of Germansy ills the socialists bleated! In this country its capitalism and the heat of competition,or the morals inflicted upon us by an outdate church etc etc. Drugs were once called “dope” but when more and more middle class started going to college that was changed to more inviting titles…weed,grass…pot ,fantasy,etc etc…during the dark days of russian rule in Poland etc…free vodka was given each weekend to the slaves so that they would be drunk and not rebel against the nanny state…its an ole trick by the left! well heres to ya…cheers!!!

People that smoke weed are easier to control? Yes, the hippies of the 1960’s really conformed to traditional ways and didn’t cause any troubles for the government. You know they supported whatever the government did, especially vietnam.

Part of the reason weed is illegal is because it actually causes people to question how things are.

And “dope” is still a slang word used today, but it mostly refers to heroine now.

And there is a huge difference between alcohol and weed.

 

[ManOnFire]

The left likes it when the peasants are stoned…for then they are easier to control! A person who has to rely on drugs for a high instead of prayer,or playing with their children or going to church and worshipping God instead of the almighty state…will always vote for a nanny government…one who 'cares’about them …yeh sure! This happened in Nazi germany when the enemy was the Jews.the cause of all of Germansy ills the socialists bleated! In this country its capitalism and the heat of competition,or the morals inflicted upon us by an outdate church etc etc. Drugs were once called “dope” but when more and more middle class started going to college that was changed to more inviting titles…weed,grass…pot ,fantasy,etc etc…during the dark days of russian rule in Poland etc…free vodka was given each weekend to the slaves so that they would be drunk and not rebel against the nanny state…its an ole trick by the left! well heres to ya…cheers!!!

Priceless post. The “allegedly” open-minded people can’t even see that they have become minions to the unelected pop culture media’s pronouncement of what to think and believe. “Anything goes” is the praise they heap on you for marching the party line, but when you are not thinking correctly, they label you as “not politically correct,” even though “We The People” have not elected a definition of correct. It’s funny how the hypocrisy of “anything goes” and “not correct” gets no press. But, who needs to labor in thought when the media can do it for you? Too many minions.

Our wealth has created free will choices. Choices allow us to pleasure ourselves rather than struggle, which builds character formation and fortitude. The saddest part is that those who have chosen to take the comfortable feel-good way out of life are making the easy choice, not the difficult one. Too many people actually pat themselves on the backs for being somehow enlightened when they have simply chosen to take the easy way out. Imagine a lifestyle of “selfish physical and chemical brain pleasurism” being repackaged, remarketed by the unelected media, then resold and propagandized to the public under the label of “enlightenment.” Y’all are being conned. You can tell when sex is had primarily for pleasure rather than love because one would not abort a loved one, and a man who Truly loves his woman more than himself wouldn’t turn her into a sex-and-run victim. Why should anyone admire this way of life? This is not conducive to the sacrificial love of deep relationships.

Imagine what vistas you could discover with a life of stretching your comfort zone, fortitude, struggle, sacrifice for others. Imagine how much you would appreciate the little things in life if you handed over your life to become a servant of the Lord. Imagine if the only “thing” you had in life was the ability to find the true love of Jesus Christ in every person you encounter every day. Imagine how you would value the potential true love that could be found in others. Wouldn’t this lead you to become one of the most romantic people on the planet? If you had no free will choice because it was the only “thing” you had, wouldn’t you become addicted to Love? OK, so I’m shooting for the ideal, but the point remains. We have the wealth and the free will choice to choose a lifestyle of shallow amusements, which ultimately enslaves us into junkies in search of the next temporary amusement, or choose the Way to depth.

 

[Spirithound]

Priceless post. The “allegedly” open-minded people can’t even see that they have become minions to the unelected pop culture media’s pronouncement of what to think and believe. “Anything goes” is the praise they heap on you for marching the party line, but when you are not thinking correctly, they label you as “not politically correct,” even though “We The People” have not elected a definition of correct. It’s funny how the hypocrisy of “anything goes” and “not correct” gets no press. But, who needs to labor in thought when the media can do it for you? Too many minions.

etc…
etc…
etc…

You know, some of us are actually here to have a philosophical discussion.

 

[BobObob]

The “allegedly” open-minded people can’t even see that they have become minions to the unelected pop culture media’s pronouncement of what to think and believe. “Anything goes” is the praise they heap on you for marching the party line, but when you are not thinking correctly, they label you as “not politically correct,” even though “We The People” have not elected a definition of correct. It’s funny how the hypocrisy of “anything goes” and “not correct” gets no press. But, who needs to labor in thought when the media can do it for you? Too many minions.

Saying, “Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and should be legal,” is not saying “anything goes.” Please avoid stigmatization and straw men.

Also, last I checked, the view of “Marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol and should be legal,” was the opposite of what the media usually says. However, I might be wrong because I don’t pay attention to the media very much (other than football, I watch virtually no TV).

I hope you also understand that this discussion has little to do with sex or lust, which you brought up.

 

[ThomasToo]

Imagine what vistas you could discover with a life of stretching your comfort zone, fortitude, struggle, sacrifice for others.

Others have commented on other parts of your comments and I agree with them but would like to also forward this: imagine what vistas you could discover, ManOnFire, with a couple hits of LSD or a few grams of marijuana.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

If so, is it because it is illegal? Because from what I know, marijuana is no less healthy than smoking a cigarette or eating a big, greasy McDonlads hamburger!

Well both examples are addictive, so it isn’t a real good analogy, in themselves they are amoral (morally neutral) and having just one cigarette or one hamburger isn’t a sin. It is important to take care of ones health and just like anything else you should not form bad habits that will damage your health. It’s when you form habit of smoking incessantly and you become aware that it can damage your health, then that choice to continue smoking is a sin.

The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs (narcotics) is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body a chemical (even if your under the impression that it is safe) that could affect you psyche.

 

[ThomasToo]

The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs (narcotics) is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body a chemical (even if your under the impression that it is safe) that could affect you psyche.

Like caffeine? Like immense amounts of sugar? Like alcohol? Like nicotine?

These are all chemicals that affect one’s psyche. There are many others whose influence on one’s psyche are less immediate or are not chemicals. Sex, for example, has profound impacts on one’s psyche but I’m guessing that oughtn’t to be avoided–at least not absolutely.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

Like caffeine? Like immense amounts of sugar? Like alcohol? Like nicotine?

These are all chemicals that affect one’s psyche. There are many others whose influence on one’s psyche are less immediate or are not chemicals. Sex, for example, has profound impacts on one’s psyche but I’m guessing that oughtn’t to be avoided–at least not absolutely.

Are you on drugs? If you are I’m sorry, I didn’t want to say anything that would offend you.

If you read what I said when I said chemicals in that context I am referring to ‘illegal drugs (narcotics)’

So before I answer your “Like…” question please tell me if caffeine, sugar and alcohol, nicotine are illegal drugs or narcotics.

 

[ThomasToo]

Are you on drugs? If you are I’m sorry, I didn’t want to say anything that would offend you.

If you read what I said when I said chemicals in that context I am referring to ‘illegal drugs (narcotics)’

So before I answer your “Like…” question please tell me if caffeine, sugar and alcohol, nicotine are illegal drugs or narcotics.

I’m not on drugs and you didn’t offend me. Frankly, however, you didn’t make any sense.

You said, ‘The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs… is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body a chemical… that could affect you psyche.’

Your claim was that illegal drugs are chemicals that can affect one’s psyche and as such could be avoided. Under that rubric all chemicals that affect one’s psyche–and similarly all experiences that do the same–ought to be avoided.

Your intended clarification (substitute the word ‘narcotics’ for the word ‘chemicals’ in the quote I cited above) then makes your claim the following: ‘The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs (narcotics) is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body a narcotic (even if your under the impression that it is safe) that could affect you psyche.’

This, however, begs the question because it boils down to ‘the reason you shouldn’t take narcotics is because they are narcotics’ without really defining the word ‘narcotic’ (unless you want to claim everything that affects one’s psyche is a narcotic but frankly that’s a nutty claim). Everything that exists–without getting into discussions about materialistic reductionism–is a chemical so simply saying ‘chemicals’ to intend ‘artificial chemicals,’ ‘narcotics’ or ‘dangerous chemicals’ is confusing at best and intellectually dishonest at worst (I’m assuming it was confusion here).

That said, in the strict medical meaning of the word ‘narcotic’ even marijuana fails since it is not a derivative of the poppy (i.e. not an opiate) ‘Narcotic,’ Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. 2008]. As do cocaine and MDMA along with a veritable pharmacy of illegal drugs. Again, I’m guessing this is due to an inexact use of ostensibly technical language.

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

I’m not on drugs and you didn’t offend me. Frankly, however, you didn’t make any sense.

You were the one equating sugar with illegal drugs, and quite frankly that doesn’t make sense. I thought it was your coy attempt to defend casual (illegal) drug use.

You said, ‘The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs… is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body a chemical… that could affect you psyche.’

yeah, so?

Your claim was that illegal drugs are chemicals that can affect one’s psyche and as such could be avoided. Under that rubric all chemicals that affect one’s psyche–and similarly all experiences that do the same–ought to be avoided.

Illegal drugs are effective because of the chemicals within them that has a biochemical affect on the brain, it’s those chemicals that affects the brain I was talking about - I was not talking about all chemicals, and I was not talking about sugar.

Your intended clarification (substitute the word ‘narcotics’ for the word ‘chemicals’ in the quote I cited above) then makes your claim the following: ‘The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs (narcotics) is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body a narcotic (even if your under the impression that it is safe) that could affect you psyche.’

This, however, begs the question because it boils down to ‘the reason you shouldn’t take narcotics is because they are narcotics’ without really defining the word ‘narcotic’ (unless you want to claim everything that affects one’s psyche is a narcotic but frankly that’s a nutty claim). Everything that exists–without getting into discussions about materialistic reductionism–is a chemical so simply saying ‘chemicals’ to intend ‘artificial chemicals,’ ‘narcotics’ or ‘dangerous chemicals’ is confusing at best and intellectually dishonest at worst (I’m assuming it was confusion here).

Quite frankly that’s your interpretation and I hope that other reader will understand what I meant.
*
The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs (i.e. narcotics) is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body chemicals (contained within that illegal drug - even if your under the impression that it is safe) that would disturb the biochemical equilibrium of the brain and consequently could have an adverse affect on your psyche.’ *

There are people who only think of illegal drugs about getting high not about the adverse affect it has on the body and mind. But of the two the adverse affect it has on the mind (psyche) is a more serious matter. And that was what I am concern about, and that is the reason I said what I said.

That said, in the strict medical meaning of the word ‘narcotic’ even marijuana fails since it is not a derivative of the poppy (i.e. not an opiate) ‘Narcotic,’ Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. 2008]. As do cocaine and MDMA along with a veritable pharmacy of illegal drugs. Again, I’m guessing this is due to an inexact use of ostensibly technical language.

No where did I say that marijuana is a narcotic, reread it and point out where I said that. I used narcotics as an example of illegal drugs, because if I just said “illegal drugs” I anticipate a lecture about how anything not approved from the FDA is an illegal drug or something to that extent.

 

[ThomasToo]

You were the one equating sugar with illegal drugs, and quite frankly that doesn’t make sense. I thought it was your coy attempt to defend casual (illegal) drug use.

There’s nothing coy about it; I support the right of an individual to do with his or her body whatever he pleases.

Illegal drugs are effective because of the chemicals within them that has a biochemical affect on the brain, it’s those chemicals that affects the brain I was talking about - I was not talking about all chemicals, and I was not talking about sugar.

But what is unique about the chemicals in illegal drugs? Coffee, for example, is effective because of the chemicals in it–namely caffeine–that has a biochemical effect on the brain.

Quite frankly that’s your interpretation and I hope that other reader will understand what I meant.
*
The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs (i.e. narcotics) is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body chemicals (contained within that illegal drug - even if your under the impression that it is safe) that would disturb the biochemical equilibrium of the brain and consequently could have an adverse affect on your psyche.’ *

The reason one shouldn’t consume caffeine is that one shouldn’t introduce into one’s body chemicals (even if you’re under the impression that they are safe) that would disturb the biochemical equilibrium of the brain and consequently could have an adverse effect on your psyche. The word ‘caffeine’ above can be replaced with ‘high fructose corn syrup,’ ‘alcohol’ or ‘nicotine.’ How is this a different argument from the one you make about illegal drugs (e.g. marijuana)?

No where did I say that marijuana is a narcotic, reread it and point out where I said that. I used narcotics as an example of illegal drugs, because if I just said “illegal drugs” I anticipate a lecture about how anything not approved from the FDA is an illegal drug or something to that extent.

My apology for the confusion. FDA Lecture redacted

Grammar Nazi aside (read: grammar lecture): ‘i.e.’ means ‘that is’ (id est in latin) or ‘in other words’ while ‘e.g.’ means ‘example given.’ So when you say ‘illegal drugs (i.e. narcotics)’ you are saying ‘illegal drugs (that is to say narcotics)’ not ‘illegal drugs (for example narcotics).’ I think this is the root of our confusion and my lecture above. Again, sorry for the confusion, I’ve been reading academic writing too long and forget people often mix up i.e. and e.g.

 

[bingbang]

John Paul Jones…I don’t know about your stance on the morality of marijuana but you are one hell of a bass player.

 

[Spirithound]

Well both examples are addictive, so it isn’t a real good analogy, in themselves they are amoral (morally neutral) and having just one cigarette or one hamburger isn’t a sin. It is important to take care of ones health and just like anything else you should not form bad habits that will damage your health. It’s when you form habit of smoking incessantly and you become aware that it can damage your health, then that choice to continue smoking is a sin.

The reason you shouldn’t take illegal drugs (narcotics) is that you shouldn’t introduce into your body a chemical (even if your under the impression that it is safe) that could affect you psyche.

Part of what we want to say right now is that the term “illegal drugs” is not a useful term. We have already agreed that we have a duty to obey the legitimate authority of the government, and so partaking in an illegal activity is immoral for that reason. Having decided that, we are now discussing whether the same activity/substance would still be immoral if it was allowed by the government.

I see from your post that you see damaging your health as a sin, but that one tobacco cigarette, or one Big Mac would not qualify. Is that a fair summary of your first paragraph?

I think that ThomasToo has a good point regarding your second paragraph however. How far would it be moral to alter one’s psyche? I know a lot of coffee drinkers who are rather cranky until they get that first cup.

If I may offer a summary:

1. • Where it is illegal, marijuana is immoral because we have a duty to follow legitimate authority
   • If it is not illegal, two important points follow:
   • The secular government is not compelling us on pain of sin
   • We are not supporting organized crime, since the mob does not deal in legal substances.
   • Over-consumption of marijuana falls under the same sin of gluttony that over-consumption of alcohol does
   • CCC 2291 either applies to both marijuana and alcohol, or neither.
   I think #4 is most in need of discussion.

 

[Vixit]

I would argue that just laws ought to be obeyed, and** I see nothing unjust about banning marijuana**. But let’s not get carried away…

You must still think that marijuana has effects that are anywhere as bad as alcohol. Marijuana is nothing like alcohol and is nowhere near as dangerous or unhealthy. One actually loses control of themselves when under the influence of too much alcohol. Not so with marijuana. I’d rather the people at work or on the road with me were stoned than drunk, because then I’d have little to fear other than that they might be going slower and paying attention more. There is nothing just about banning a natural substance that can in no way harm you physically and in fact has many beneficial uses. My state legalized medicinal marijuana, so as far as I’m concerned, there would be nothing just about banning it.

 

[RosaryFan]

If so, is it because it is illegal? Because from what I know, marijuana is no less healthy than smoking a cigarette or eating a big, greasy McDonlads hamburger!

It is sinful because it is illegal. Also sinful because it is damaging to your health and has no beneficial value. At least a big, greasy McDonald’s burger acts as food and sustainance. For the avarage person, there are no redeeming qualities of smoking marijuana.

By the way, I consider smoking cigarettes sinful, too. Maybe not a mortal sin, but certainly venial. As for breaking the law and smoking marijuana, I could be wrong, but I would consider that a mortal sin and would abstain from reception of Holy Communion until I could get myself to confession.

 

[ThomasToo]

It is sinful because it is illegal. Also sinful because it is damaging to your health and has no beneficial value. At least a big, greasy McDonald’s burger acts as food and sustainance. For the avarage person, there are no redeeming qualities of smoking marijuana.

By the way, I consider smoking cigarettes sinful, too. Maybe not a mortal sin, but certainly venial. As for breaking the law and smoking marijuana, I could be wrong, but I would consider that a mortal sin and would abstain from reception of Holy Communion until I could get myself to confession.

What about alcohol?

 

[John_Paul_Jones]

There’s nothing coy about it;** I support the right of an individual to do with his or her body whatever he pleases.**

If you support “whatever” that whatever could be anything: moral or immoral, healthy or unhealthy, natural or unnatural, legal or illegal. It seems that you are a true libertine who advocates anarchy via casual drug use - bending, breaking, ignoring all rules *except when it comes to grammar. * And that… (to use your own words)

ThomasToo:

… is confusing at best and intellectually dishonest at worst (I’m assuming it was confusion here).

 

[ThomasToo]

If you support “whatever” that whatever could be anything: moral or immoral, healthy or unhealthy, natural or unnatural, legal or illegal. It seems that you are a true libertine who advocates anarchy via casual drug use - bending, breaking, ignoring all rules *except when it comes to grammar. * And that… (to use your own words)

Note I said with his own body; I don’t think a person should be able to break the law locked alone in a house without an internet connection (to remove situations of fraud &c&c).

I think that the law exists to protect us from one another not from ourselves so your legal or illegal claim misses my point which is that I am for the legalization of marijuana–amongst other drugs. The law oughtn’t to care about if I’m making healthy or natural decisions or we’d close down McDonald’s and the confined feedlot operations. I do not advocate or promote either anarchy or casual drug use but I think the government is overstepping its purpose when it is telling us what sorts of chemicals we are allowed to imbibe/ingest/inject/&c.

This isn’t about bending, breaking or ignoring rules but about changing them.

You’ve also ignored the substance of my post regarding your claim that we ought not to chemically alter our psyche.

Finally, grammar is important because without those rules we’d have no idea what other people are saying as the confusion above demonstrates.

 

[BobObob]

We have already agreed that we have a duty to obey the legitimate authority of the government, and so partaking in an illegal activity is immoral for that reason.

I just want to state that I didn’t agree with that. I don’t know if by “we” you meant the majority of the persons on this thread or everyone on this thread.

Defending my position on the morality of breaking the law, which I briefly summarized back in post 45, would take too much space on this thread:

If one isn’t doing something immoral in itself (like wreckless driving or getting drunk) then IMHO it is moral to break the law if you are capable of taking the risk of the civil penalties. This is why one may morally drive drive 70 mph on a road with a speed limit of 65 and risk getting a ticket if it’s safe to drive at that speed in that situation. On the other hand, if one has children who are dependent on him, one may not risk being put in jail (since doing so would be risking the welfare of the children), even for something that is not immoral in itself (unless it is a double effect situation).

It is sinful because it is illegal. Also sinful because it is damaging to your health and has no beneficial value. At least a big, greasy McDonald’s burger acts as food and sustainance. For the avarage person, there are no redeeming qualities of smoking marijuana.

Regarding the dangers of marijuana use, Lester Grinspoon MD, professor of psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School, said, “Marijuana is remarkably non toxic. In all the years that marijuana has been used, there’s not been one single documented death from it. I don’t know that you can say the same thing about any other drug.” (abc.net.au/quantum/poison/marijuan/lester.htm ) Of course, virtually all substances have at least some risks, but alcohol is a LOT more harmful to one’s body than marijuana.

I want to also add that there are certain risks, such as lung cancer, which are associated with smoking marijuana, but not vaporizing or baking it.

Also, the use of marijuana has been show to have had certain medical benefit that other drugs don’t.

 

[ManOnFire]

Others have commented on other parts of your comments and I agree with them but would like to also forward this: imagine what vistas you could discover, ManOnFire, with a couple hits of LSD or a few grams of marijuana.

LSD and marijuana help you, the individual, create more entertainment for self. That’s all it is: entertainment. It doesn’t help humanity, society, or others. It is not sacrificial. Habitual pleasing of the self creates soft people. America and Europe are entertaining ourselves out of true love relationships and into a slow cultural take-the-easy-feelgood-way-out death, but our egos don’t want to admit it.