Is the use of marijuana in moderation immoral?

[mcliffor]

I remember from health class that the use of tobacco causes the body much more harm than marijuana, but obviously not enough harm to make its use a sin, otherwise the Church would not permit it’s use in moderation.

The immorality of drug use and drug trafficing stems from the fact that, “use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” (CCC 2291) The catechism does not define drugs, but it seems to refer to life threatening drugs such as heroin.

Therefore, if it can be shown that marijuana is less of a threat to one’s health than cigarettes, the use of which the Church does not condemn, would that mean that marijuana is not one of the “drugs” CCC 2291 reffers to and therefore not a sin, or at least not a grave sin? Can it be used in moderation like tobacco or alcohol if it is less damaging to one’s health?

I am reffering only to the use of the drug and not the guilt one would incur from using an illegal substance.

 

[deb1]

I don’t think that you can seperate the moral use of marijuana with its legality. The bible says that we are to obey the laws(can’t remember the exact verse). As long as it is illegal to use marijuana then it is immoral for Catholics to use it.

 

[mcliffor]

What if one lived in a country where its use were legal?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mcliffor:

What if one lived in a country where its use were legal?

If you lived in say, the Netherlands, then yes it would be morally acceptable to smoke dope once in a while recreationally.

It’s similar to alcohol consumption. While it’s permissable in the Church for a person to have a few beers once in a while, they shouldn’t become dependent on it. Any sort of vice or whatever that modifies the human condition would be a sin.

 

[thistle]

mcliffor:

I remember from health class that the use of tobacco causes the body much more harm than marijuana, but obviously not enough harm to make its use a sin, otherwise the Church would not permit it’s use in moderation.

The immorality of drug use and drug trafficing stems from the fact that, “use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life.” (CCC 2291) The catechism does not define drugs, but it seems to refer to life threatening drugs such as heroin.

Therefore, if it can be shown that marijuana is less of a threat to one’s health than cigarettes, the use of which the Church does not condemn, would that mean that marijuana is not one of the “drugs” CCC 2291 reffers to and therefore not a sin, or at least not a grave sin? Can it be used in moderation like tobacco or alcohol if it is less damaging to one’s health?

I am reffering only to the use of the drug and not the guilt one would incur from using an illegal substance.

Selling or taking illegal drugs is not just a sin but a mortal sin (Fifth Commandment).

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

thistle:

Selling or taking illegal drugs is not just a sin but a mortal sin (Fifth Commandment).

A sin only becomes mortal if the person knows it goes directly against Church teaching. 3 conditions must be met in order to make something mortal:

1. its subject must be a ‘grave matter’;
2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

 

[deb1]

Semper Fi:

If you lived in say, the Netherlands, then yes it would be morally acceptable to smoke dope once in a while recreationally.

It’s similar to alcohol consumption. While it’s permissable in the Church for a person to have a few beers once in a while, they shouldn’t become dependent on it. Any sort of vice or whatever that modifies the human condition would be a sin.

I am serious with this question. I really do not know.

I can drink a beer without getting drunk or even tipsy. I like the taste of some beers. Can you smoke a joint without getting high?

 

[mcliffor]

thistle:

Selling or taking illegal drugs is not just a sin but a mortal sin (Fifth Commandment).

When I was ten, I took a sip of my aunt’s wine during Thanksgiving dinner. This was technically against the civil law. Was it a mortal sin?

 

[Flopfoot]

deb1:

I am serious with this question. I really do not know.

I can drink a beer without getting drunk or even tipsy. I like the taste of some beers. Can you smoke a joint without getting high?

I’ve never tried it. However, one thing I do know is that unlike cigarettes, marijuana is not physically addictive. I’m pretty sure that if you smoke a small enough amount of marijuana then it will have no effect on you. It’s like , if you cut up a paracetamol tablet into a small enough piece then it will have pretty much no effect on curing your headache. It would be the same for any drug… some just require less of the drug to have any effect (eg, you should never try even the smallest amount of LSD, unless it’s like 1 molecule or something).

 

[betra2000]

mcliffor:

When I was ten, I took a sip of my aunt’s wine during Thanksgiving dinner. This was technically against the civil law. Was it a mortal sin?

Good question and if you want to go there…it is against the law to furnish alcohol to a minor…what about during Communion? It is wine that we give to the children!

I think that there is a reason why marijuana is illegal. I think that there are a lot of studies as to how it can affect a person. I think that because of these studies it is against the law and that makes it a sin because it is against the law. It affects the mind. It impairs you. This is why it is illegal.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

mcliffor:

When I was ten, I took a sip of my aunt’s wine during Thanksgiving dinner. This was technically against the civil law. Was it a mortal sin?

No, of course not. Please see my post #6.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sometimes the use of marijuana can help a person penetrate into social circles where one can evangelize.

When one goes into a “den of thieves” as it were, there is a unitive component in that they all share the same “guilt” and it brings people from many backgrounds together.

Many might argue that this is not a proper conclusion from Paul’s teachings, but I think it has some relevance:
1Cor9:

19 7 Although I am free in regard to all, I have made myself a slave to all so as to win over as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew to win over Jews; to those under the law I became like one under the law–though I myself am not under the law–to win over those under the law. 21 To those outside the law I became like one outside the law–though I am not outside God’s law but within the law of Christ–to win over those outside the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win over the weak. I have become all things to all, to save at least some. 23 All this I do for the sake of the gospel, so that I too may have a share in it.

Certainly I am not advocating breaking the law, but the issue is that evangelization sometimes requires the shepherd to leave the flock, as it were, and go after the lost ones. If the lost ones are smoking pot, sometimes joining them sets you up better to evangelize than not.

One might say, “breaking the law to promote truth is disgraceful” to which I ask, what did St. Paul mean in the passage above? Also I ask, did Christ even hesitate to break a civil law when there was a higher moral issue at stake?

As far as smoking marijuana and not getting “high,” that is a pretty common experience with a lot of people. Some think it has a “reverse tolerance” in many cases, and maybe even part of the “high” is actually psychologically induced from the behavior and not the actual chemical.

From a medical basis, my own psychiatrist does not approve of pot smoking based on 1) it’s illegal and there is a risk of getting caught, and 2) it affects certain nerve centers and dopamine levels and other things and its mechanics are not well understood. That said, the same is true of many prescription drugs.

From a spiritual standpoint, Christ often broke the letter of the law as perceived by others, such as talking to women He shouldn’t have been, allowing “dirty” women to touch Him, picking grain and healing on the sabbath, for example. At the same time Christ came to fulfill, not abolish the law. How is that possible? Perhaps it was by providing a “sanity check” not only to the law itself, but to enforcement of the law.

As a non-scholar, I do not claim that the Church law then was equivalent to civil law now, but evidently His ostensibly breaking the Church laws by alleged blaspheme is pretty good indication that strict literal obedience to laws is required for salvation.

Again I’m not suggesting breaking the law, but looking at some issue of morality vs. legality. I suspect I will offend some with what sounds like quite a liberal view on this, because the “war on drugs” has become so insane that as far as my children are taught by the new-and-improved politically expedient D.A.R.E. program they learn practically nothing except the implied lie that all illegal drugs are equally bad. It is such an emotionally programmed issue with such “zero tolerance” consequences that honest discussion is nearly impossible. To the assertion that all illegal drugs are just as bad (they don’t say this but it is now considered “bad” for a counselor or teacher to admit that one drug is more harmful than another – and in turn implying the other is less harmful) I beg to differ, as I recently learned of some heroin addicts (never known any before personally until this summer) and I can tell you, these kids had problems beyond anything from any pot smokers I’ve known. Also, to the charge that any breaking of civil law is wrong, then I appeal to those who break civil laws at abortion clinics. One law, according to some, is evil; another oppressive – what’s the diff?

Alan

 

[Magicsilence]

If youre having to ask about taking drugs, are you sure your relationship with Christ is real??

Being Catholic requires a full devotion to Christ. Taking drugs would never be part of the equation.

Let us be harsh but fair. The “point” of smoking pot is to get high. If youre trying to escape from the world, I know of another drug thats just as good. The pill of penance.

Smoking pot is never morally ok. Whether its a venial/mortal sin depends on the person and the situation.

Christ have Mercy on us all.

In Him.

Andre.

 

[thistle]

Semper Fi:

A sin only becomes mortal if the person knows it goes directly against Church teaching. 3 conditions must be met in order to make something mortal:

1. its subject must be a ‘grave matter’;
2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense;
3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent.

I know what is rewuired for a sin to be mortal and anybody taking illegal drugs would definitely have met all three conditions. Every person Catholic or non-Catholic knows it is illegal to take such drugs and there cannot be a single Catholic that does not know its a mortal sin.

 

[thistle]

mcliffor:

When I was ten, I took a sip of my aunt’s wine during Thanksgiving dinner. This was technically against the civil law. Was it a mortal sin?

This thread is solely about drug taking. You can start a new thread if you want comments on drinking.

 

[puzzleannie]

Flopfoot:

I’ve never tried it. However, one thing I do know is that unlike cigarettes, marijuana is not physically addictive. I’m pretty sure that if you smoke a small enough amount of marijuana then it will have no effect on you. ).

if you have never tried it, you cannot say with assurance pot is not physically addicting. as a boomer and 60s “graduate” I offer my sad experience that it is both physically and what is worse and harder to cure, psychologically addicting even when used in small amounts in a regular recreational setting.

It is my understanding from health care professionals serving our public schools and juvenile justice system that the variety of MJ being purveyed today is far more potent than what was available domestically in my day. The pot obtained overseas by those in the military in the 60s & 70s time was much more potent than what college kids were using, and the VA documents that it was much more damaging. The physiological damage of any smoked and inhaled substance on the lungs and all other susceptible organs is well documented.

Be that as it may, where it is illegal it is also immoral. Where it is illegal any use at all subsidizes organized crime, so that is enough to make it immoral.

Even if pot and other drugs were legalized globally, agriculture resources would be diverted from subsistence and food to another cash crop, destroying ability of indigenous peoples to support themselves by farming. Where other cash crops like coffee, sugar, cacao, lumber etc. have taken over the agricultural economy many harmful social effects have ensued, including pushing people off their traditional land, destruction of rain forests etc. So there is the additional problem of assessing the morality of participating in such a scenario.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Magicsilence:

If youre having to ask about taking drugs, are you sure your relationship with Christ is real??

Your question, frankly, sounds pretty scripted. I would ask the same question about a person who becomes angry easily. What about a priest who regularly gets very angry toward parishioners? OTOH, I think it is a good idea to examine our relationship with Christ, but I don’t see at all how a recommendation for doing so should be more or less triggered by the observance a person is taking certain drugs (not “taking drugs” but “taking certain drugs” unless you intend to lump aspirin into this category) than by any other act we deem to indicate possible sin.

If a person asks about masturbation, does that mean we should question their relationship with Christ? What if they ask about working on Sunday? How is it that a person’s Christianity is suspect because they ask about anything? Is it like, “if you have to ask then you can’t afford it?”

I used to become very emotional about things that didn’t make sense, and I was locked up against my will and given psychoactive drugs. My relationship with Christ was real, but very distorted and guess what? I hadn’t been smoking pot – if I had, I might have suffered fools more easily and not have gotten locked up.

Then again, I would never have been able to stand witness to what looked on the surface to be a true “healing miracle” as I attended the untying of a lady’s tongue – it was awesome. For that and other reasons, there was something good about my losing my civil rights without due cause. BTW, you pot smokers, if you think you don’t have rights, wait until you try being thought of as mentally ill – you have no right to even know why you’re locked up like the law requires if you are convicted of an actual crime … but I digress.

Of course, my opinion is naturally suspect I’m sure because after all I’m just a psycho that used to smoke pot during college and some times thereafter. That gives you a perfect out to disagree with me.

Being Catholic requires a full devotion to Christ. Taking drugs would never be part of the equation.

That is another scripted response, it sounds like to me. Taking drugs is part of the equation for many, many people these days. Legal or illegal, scores of us are on various psychoactive medication. Believe it or not, I don’t even like to take aspirin any more – I’ve gotten to the point where prayer is much more effective than aspirin if I have a headache.

Which do you think would be more disturbing to Christ? A tyrannical and oppressive leadership for a country/job/etc or the person who smokes some pot to escape some of the feelings of resentment? In previous jobs, I’ve known people who used pot to keep their anger in check when things got too disturbing at their job. To them it was like a cool glass of water to others, and yes – an escape from their emotional pain. After break, they came in and were productive again.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued from last post)

Magicsilence:

Let us be harsh but fair. The “point” of smoking pot is to get high. If youre trying to escape from the world, I know of another drug thats just as good. The pill of penance.

That suggestion was not harsh, but it was fair IMO. I agree that there are many ways to accomplish the same goal. Contemplative prayer also is an escape from the world. So is Eucharistic adoration. In my case, I am prescribed four valiums a day to treat my bipolar illness, but I do not take them unless it’s really critical because I don’t like them and they knock me out and make me less productive. Tranquilizers are not always fun, but there are times when I literally would not have slept more than an hour a day for weeks in a row without them. Also when a person is involved in a desperate psychotic depression with suicidal tendencies, the mental faculties and/or spiritual discipline required is not always presently available, so for certain people drug therapy of some sort – including self-induced – can actually save lives.

Yes, I’m also talking about prescription drugs rather than illegal drugs, but in part to make the point that when people say, “drugs this…” and “drugs that…” they are failing to take into account that this entire society is totally focused around drugs, and I don’t believe that marijuana is nearly among the most dangerous or deceiving of them except, of course, as a target of the “war on drugs” which selects certain drugs and arguably profiles and exploits them for political power. Just think, without the war on drugs, we might not be able to spy on individuals without showing them a warrant like the Patriot Act allows, and have the technology to do it.

Smoking pot is never morally ok. Whether its a venial/mortal sin depends on the person and the situation.

Never? How do you know? That’s quite an absolute statement. Do you believe the same about people drinking coffee and getting all charged up on caffeine? If not, then what’s the difference – keeping in mind that there are places where coffee and pot are equally legal.

What about when a doctor prescribes it for treatment of pain and/or despair, for a terminally ill patient? Are you prepared to look these people in the face and tell them, in Christian charity, what they are doing is immoral?

In a sense, we are all terminally ill. We suffer due to original sin and upbringing in a flawed society. We suffer mentally, spiritually, and emotionally, in addition to physically. If you agree that pot is OK for certain patients with terminally ill disease, it also brings into question what about those with the terminal disease called life (no known cure and always ends in death) which is agony for them (because, for example, they did not advance spiritually, emotionally, or socially enough to escape constant anxiety in this society) and whether drug therapy would be sinful for them.

Christ have Mercy on us all.

Agreed.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

puzzleannie:

if you have never tried it, you cannot say with assurance pot is not physically addicting. as a boomer and 60s “graduate” I offer my sad experience that it is both physically and what is worse and harder to cure, psychologically addicting even when used in small amounts in a regular recreational setting.

Pot, like any substance, is psychologically addicting. I don’t know the specifics of your experience, but how would one know “from experience” whether addictions/cravings come from physical or psychological addiction?

When I was locked up in the looney bin, I saw a person trying to “come down” off heroin and cigarettes – that was extremely troubling to see. He was a “nice guy” but got so frantic they often kept him in restraints. I’ve never heard of such a thing with marijuana, but if you have impartial research that shows that marijuana is physically addicting, then I’m willing and eager to learn.

Be that as it may, where it is illegal it is also immoral. Where it is illegal any use at all subsidizes organized crime, so that is enough to make it immoral.

Fair enough, but frankly the “war on drugs” is so corrupt that the government is intimately involved in it, even though it pretends to be against it.

Keep in mind that much organized crime came not out of liquor, but out of the prohibition of liquor. It’s really quite a schizophrenic situation… the people are paying the government to prevent them from doing something they refuse to give up. No wonder authorities are not respected – they are right in the middle – and that plays well to politicians and other criminals looking to increase their territory.

There are two ways to stop the organized crime aspect of this. Try to do what couldn’t be done during prohibition and what we have failed to do with ever increasingly sophisticated technology and somehow get everyone to just give it up, or for the government to give up its losing quagmire. The biggest obstacle to the second option is that the government itself is empowered by the drug war, much budget and spending is at stake, and therefore politicians both liberal and conservative, at the heart of the bureaucratic beast, do not want the problem solved because then goes half their money and power.

Even if pot and other drugs were legalized globally, agriculture resources would be diverted from subsistence and food to another cash crop, destroying ability of indigenous peoples to support themselves by farming. Where other cash crops like coffee, sugar, cacao, lumber etc. have taken over the agricultural economy many harmful social effects have ensued, including pushing people off their traditional land, destruction of rain forests etc. So there is the additional problem of assessing the morality of participating in such a scenario.

This is a scenario that I admit I’ve never envisioned. Do you really think that if pot (not talking about other drugs yet) were legalized globally, that there would be a significantly higher demand? What about the resources currently being used to supply the demand, with extra time, effort and money spent because of the crime associated therewith?

I’m interested to know how you believe that the “war on drugs” helps the rain forest. I’d suspect it is just the opposite, but then I haven’t heard your explanation yet.

Alan

 

[Magicsilence]

AlanFromWichita:

Your question, frankly, sounds pretty scripted. I would ask the same question about a person who becomes angry easily. What about a priest who regularly gets very angry toward parishioners? OTOH, I think it is a good idea to examine our relationship with Christ, but I don’t see at all how a recommendation for doing so should be more or less triggered by the observance a person is taking certain drugs (not “taking drugs” but “taking certain drugs” unless you intend to lump aspirin into this category) than by any other act we deem to indicate possible sin.

If a person asks about masturbation, does that mean we should question their relationship with Christ? What if they ask about working on Sunday? How is it that a person’s Christianity is suspect because they ask about anything? Is it like, “if you have to ask then you can’t afford it?”

I used to become very emotional about things that didn’t make sense, and I was locked up against my will and given psychoactive drugs. My relationship with Christ was real, but very distorted and guess what? I hadn’t been smoking pot – if I had, I might have suffered fools more easily and not have gotten locked up.

Which do you think would be more disturbing to Christ? A tyrannical and oppressive leadership for a country/job/etc or the person who smokes some pot to escape some of the feelings of resentment? In previous jobs, I’ve known people who used pot to keep their anger in check when things got too disturbing at their job. To them it was like a cool glass of water to others, and yes – an escape from their emotional pain. After break, they came in and were productive again.

And that, is how liberals argue that smoking pot CAN be a good thing.

I have no idea what you mean by scripted response.

I write what flows from my heart.

Look upon the situation with a loving but strict attitude. Taking drugs, ILLEGAL or NOT, is and always will be wrong. It may not always be a mortal sin, but it is ONE MORE ATTACHMENT to the world that we need to sever.

If people use pot to calm down that is a choice, it doesnt make it right.

I could just as easily argue that masturbating calmed me down. No doubt we both agree that is always sinful.

And just because taking drugs to relax is something many many people do these days ,it never makes it right. Just THINK about the implications of such a statement on pro - choice abortion groups.

There is a big difference between what happens in the mind as a result of sinful inclinations and WHAT WE CAUSE by taking drugs.

I challenge you to find a person, who, having given their life up for God, would see the need for recreational drugs to “escape from life” so to speak.

I suggest doing some reading on the saints, (we are all called to be saints), St Francis reportedly floated, and was in regular ecstasy with Our Lord. He had no need of drugs, nor would he have ever needed them.

If Christ is so far that drugs seem like an option, then we have a problem.

I draw your attention to the Cure D’ Ars, who, though presented with tobacco, rejected it outright, though no effects on the health were known at such a time. We need only look back in history at the great saints of the faith to see what is right and wrong.

Recreational drugs are always wrong. (culpability depends)

Im sorry if you were locked up and thought it was wrong. However, here you are talking about someone with a strong relationship with Christ being given drugs AGAINST their will for the purpose of helping them. I would not doubt that your faith was present. However, this is entirely different with regards to those, of their own free will, taking recreational drugs.

Please dont tell me that one can have a strong relationship with Christ, and still want to ask if smoking pot is ok. We both know the answer.

Lord Have Mercy On My Soul.

May the Lord Bless You.

In Christ.

Andre.