Just *why* is marijuana use wrong?

[Apryl]

I think you’re going to have a hard time finding exact biblical quotes for exact drug abuse.

Agreed. That’s just it: there IS no mention of smoking in the Bible. There is no mention of the use of what we now have as controlled substances (they weren’t controlled then)

But has any moral theologian written on these things? How would I look that up?

Where would I find any of these things?

We have Humane Vitae, but doesn’t that mostly address sexuality and the creation of life? No mention of maintaining the body, is there? What about something from Liguori? Didn’t he talk about humanity and human nature?

And since we know there is no biblical reference for exact drug abuse, but the Bible does address pretty much everything we could ever be faced with, where can I get some points to point to marijuana?

 

[Apryl]

I guess my question… Why the hair splitting? This is like asking about each different type of birthcontrol out there to see if you get a different answer. The basic answer is, if you’re using it for BC, then the answer is NO. Surely you don’t expect the bible to list specifically name brands? So why for any type of drug. If you’re abusing your body with ANY DRUG, that’s not ok… we all know that.

I was tasked with answering a particular question. I’m trying to get that answer.

I’m not answering about alcohol vs weed question… at least, not at this time (I’ve gots lots of ammunition on that from you folx already… so thanks, but I’ve got enough of that). I’m addressing the weed question. The marijuana question. The Mary Jane question. How do we address this to teen agers? When I think of talking to teens, I think in small bites. When I talk to teens, I know that I need to stay on track and be focused. They are going to try to go 'round about enough for us all, I need to, if I’m going to be prepared to discuss things with them, and to teach, and to help them to see the points that I’m trying to make, I need to be buffered fully and completely.

Nit-picking, schnit-picking… I’m scared of those kids!

 

[faithfully]

Here’s an interesting article… God & Science/Marijuana

Google is a wonderful thing…

 

[Dwyer]

Apryl wrote:

Agreed. That’s just it: there IS no mention of smoking in the Bible. There is no mention of the use of what we now have as controlled substances (they weren’t controlled then)

But has any moral theologian written on these things? How would I look that up?

Where would I find any of these things?

We have Humane Vitae, but doesn’t that mostly address sexuality and the creation of life? No mention of maintaining the body, is there? What about something from Liguori? Didn’t he talk about humanity and human nature?

And since we know there is no biblical reference for exact drug abuse, but the Bible does address pretty much everything we could ever be faced with, where can I get some points to point to marijuana?

You are forgetting the other pillar of the Catholic Church’s moral teaching: Sacred Tradition.

In the Catholic Church, Sacred Tradition is equally as important, if not more important than the Bible, because it is from Sacred Tradition that the Catholic Church receives the Bible.

Sacred Tradition includes the writings of the Church Fathers, the writings of the Doctors of the Church.

In any question involving Moral Theology, you need to consider Sacred Tradition, the Bible, the ordinary and universal Magisterium (moral teaching authority) of the Catholic Church, and the philosophy of the Catholic Church which is Natural Law.

The Ordinary Magisterium is all that the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him teach.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is part of the Catholic Church’s ordinary and universal magisterium (teaching authority).

C.C.C.:

97 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God” (DV 10) in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches.

98 “The Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes” (DV 8 # 1).

99 Thanks to its supernatural sense of faith, the People of God as a whole never ceases to welcome, to penetrate more deeply and to live more fully from the gift of divine Revelation.

100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him. Article 3

According to the Catechism, Catholics are bound to obey the civil laws passed by the civil authorities as long as they are not contrary to Natural Law.

A law prohibiting the use of drugs like marijuana is not contrary to the Natural Law.

The law was passed to protect the health and safety of citizens.

That’s the answer to your question.

There is more moral justifications explained by Fr, John Echert in the last post I made on page three of this Thread.

Here are the credentials the two priests I quoted who regularly answer questions at EWTN’s Catholic Q &A:

Fr. John Echert, S.S.L.

Father Echert is a priest of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis, ordained in 1987.

He is a member of the faculty of The Saint Paul Seminary in Minnesota and teaches Sacred Scripture. He is also an adjunt faculty member of the University of St. Thomas.
Father Echert has the Licentiate in Sacred Scripture (S.S.L.) degree from the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome with additional graduate studies at the Ecole Biblique, Jerusalem.

He is also a military chaplain in the U.S. Air Force Reserve.

Father Echert writes a column on the monthly readings of the Mass for “The Catholic Servant,” a monthly publication for Evangelization, Catechesis and Apologetics available on the internet at www.catholicservant.org .

Fr. Stephen F. Torraco

Father Torraco is currently Associate Professor of Theology at Assumption College, Worcester, Massachusetts.

He is the Executive Director of the Society for the Study of the Magisterial Teaching of the Church (SSMTC).

He is an instructor in Theology as well as Chaplain for one of SSMTC’s affiliates, the cyberspace based Regina Coeli Academy, and a member of the faculty of Catholic Distance University in Hamilton, Virginia.

He also serves as a consultant for the Pope Paul VI Institute in Omaha, and for the Cardinal Kung Foundation in Connecticut. He is the author of various books and articles in moral theology, medical ethics, the social teaching of the Catholic Church and the spiritual life.

Father Torraco passed away recently.

 

[Apryl]

Here’s an interesting article… God & Science/Marijuana

Google is a wonderful thing…

I was thinking the very same of Catholic Answers Forums… this is why I came HERE for my answers.

Thanks for the article. It fits, well.

 

[fbl9]

Here’s an interesting article… God & Science/Marijuana

Google is a wonderful thing…

Interesting site, it could be agrued on some points if one was inclined to do so.

 

[faithfully]

Interesting site, it could be agrued on some points if one was inclined to do so.

I think that ANYTHING that isn’t 2+2=4 can be argued. However, if you’re looking for support, and you don’t have a straight up answer… then there you go.

You can only use what you’ve got…

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

Actually you don’t crack open a bud; you grind it up.

Ok, I missed that. When I read “crack open a bud” I thought you were asking it he had ever opened a bottle of Budweiser beer.

 

[faithfully]

Ok, I missed that. When I read “crack open a bud” I thought you were asking it he had ever opened a bottle of Budweiser beer.

You were right… but then the thread is about pot… so he’s goofing!

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

You were right… but then the thread is about pot… so he’s goofing!

I figured it out. It just took me awhile.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I think that ANYTHING that isn’t 2+2=4 can be argued. However, if you’re looking for support, and you don’t have a straight up answer… then there you go.

You can only use what you’ve got…

Actually, it can be argued that 2+2 does sometimes equal 5 where there are very large values of 2.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Actually, it can be argued that 2+2 does sometimes equal 5 where there are very large values of 2.

Or that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle can exceed 180.

 

[Big_Ro]

This is just a lot of qualitative talk but the amount and timing of impairment from alcohol is controlled by many variables and I am not going to debate them here. You are correct in assuming that even people that do not drink to be intoxicated might end up that way, but usually it is because of lack of self control. That are amounts of alcohol that are safe and that depends on the intake process and the individual biochemistry; however lack of self control can easily put people above those limits even if they not plan intoxication. That is the same lack of control that allows you to get behind the wheel of a car when you are tired.

I am worried that our back and forth could or may have already veered in to a personal attack. I assure you my brother in Christ that I am not attacking you personally nor your drinking habits. I am not a stranger to alchohol myself. I am only taking issue with the idea that drinking some amount of alchohol is “safe”. And, it is just not true that you can drink any amount of alchohol without experiencing some level of impairment. And, it’s not a matter of self-control. There is a chemical process that takes place within your body that begins the moment that alchohol touches your lips. Now, it may very well be true that you can certainly drink one or two ounces of some excellent liquor (single malt scotch is my personal favorite) without experiencing a level of intoxication that one might consider dangerous. Also, it’s not just a function of weight, body fat, and time that affects one’s ability to function in a manner that might outwardly seem unimpaired or insignificantly impaired. Afterall, there are many, many functioning alchoholics in the world. A person can learn to “maintain” even at a blood alchohol level well above the legal limit. I hate to say it, but I’m sure there are many, many people that manage to drive themselves home without incident despite being legally intoxicated. I am also concerned that young people read this forum and are probably drawn to this type of thread. I think it’s dangerous if not irresponsible to suggest that some amount of alchohol consumption is “safe”. It’s a very slippery slope. I am also amazed that each and every time that this thread subject comes up this argument is made by someone. The problem is furtther compounded because there’s no way that you can determine your own level of impairment while you are imbibing. Alchohol impairs judgment and reduces inhibitions. Thus, we are literally incapable of judging our own level of impairment while we are drinking. Now, there are degrees. I’m sure that after consuming one sip of one ounce of alchohol your ability to determine your own level of impairment is probably good enough. The problem is that with each sip, the degree to which you are able to accurately determine your own level of impairment goes down. So, at the point at which you are dangerously impaired, your ability to judge your own level of impairment is at a level at which you are almost certainly not able to accurately determine your own impairment. This is why so many people indanger themselves and others by getting behind the wheel believing they are fine to drive. Now add to this a poorly developed frontal lobe, such as someone younger that 18 or 19 years of age might have, and you’ve got a dangerous mix. My only point is that in order to drink responsibly, if it’s possible, we must understand that the process of impairment begins with the first sip and increases with each sip. Being aware that is happenning is key to avoiding tragedy.

Again, I apologize if I have inadvertantly insulted you. My message is more for our younger readers. God Bless!

 

[Cristiano]

I am worried that our back and forth could or may have already veered in to a personal attack. I assure you my brother in Christ that I am not attacking you personally nor your drinking habits. I am not a stranger to alchohol myself. I am only taking issue with the idea that drinking some amount of alchohol is “safe”. And, it is just not true that you can drink any amount of alchohol without experiencing some level of impairment. And, it’s not a matter of self-control. There is a chemical process that takes place within your body that begins the moment that alchohol touches your lips. Now, it may very well be true that you can certainly drink one or two ounces of some excellent liquor (single malt scotch is my personal favorite) without experiencing a level of intoxication that one might consider dangerous. Also, it’s not just a function of weight, body fat, and time that affects one’s ability to function in a manner that might outwardly seem unimpaired or insignificantly impaired. Afterall, there are many, many functioning alchoholics in the world. A person can learn to “maintain” even at a blood alchohol level well above the legal limit. I hate to say it, but I’m sure there are many, many people that manage to drive themselves home without incident despite being legally intoxicated. I am also concerned that young people read this forum and are probably drawn to this type of thread. I think it’s dangerous if not irresponsible to suggest that some amount of alchohol consumption is “safe”. It’s a very slippery slope. I am also amazed that each and every time that this thread subject comes up this argument is made by someone. The problem is furtther compounded because there’s no way that you can determine your own level of impairment while you are imbibing. Alchohol impairs judgment and reduces inhibitions. Thus, we are literally incapable of judging our own level of impairment while we are drinking. Now, there are degrees. I’m sure that after consuming one sip of one ounce of alchohol your ability to determine your own level of impairment is probably good enough. The problem is that with each sip, the degree to which you are able to accurately determine your own level of impairment goes down. So, at the point at which you are dangerously impaired, your ability to judge your own level of impairment is at a level at which you are almost certainly not able to accurately determine your own impairment. This is why so many people indanger themselves and others by getting behind the wheel believing they are fine to drive. Now add to this a poorly developed frontal lobe, such as someone younger that 18 or 19 years of age might have, and you’ve got a dangerous mix. My only point is that in order to drink responsibly, if it’s possible, we must understand that the process of impairment begins with the first sip and increases with each sip. Being aware that is happenning is key to avoiding tragedy.

Again, I apologize if I have inadvertantly insulted you. My message is more for our younger readers. God Bless!

You are doing fine, it was obvious to me that it was not a personal attack at all. You have been posting in a very charitable manner.

I will just disagree with you when you say that there are no safe levels of alcohol consumption. I am just looking at it from a biochemistry point of view and by the fact that our mental abilities are not constant but continuously change because of different external and internal factors. I am just talking about a measurable metric.

I also agree with you that as a good measure we should recognize there is no sure and simple way to know if we ingested amounts alcohol above the safe limit. That it is why we should never assume that we are fine. That is the main reason why I do not like to drink even a glass of wine when I am not in my house, I always assume that I will be the one driving back home.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Or that the sum of the interior angles of a triangle can exceed 180.

I’d like to see how that works or are we talking about non-Euclidian geometry?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

I’d like to see how that works or are we talking about non-Euclidian geometry?

Yes. Draw it on the outside surface of a sphere.

 

[Big_Ro]

You are doing fine, it was obvious to me that it was not a personal attack at all. You have been posting in a very charitable manner.

I will just disagree with you when you say that there are no safe levels of alcohol consumption. I am just looking at it from a biochemistry point of view and by the fact that our mental abilities are not constant but continuously change because of different external and internal factors. I am just talking about a measurable metric.

I also agree with you that as a good measure we should recognize there is no sure and simple way to know if we ingested amounts alcohol above the safe limit. That it is why we should never assume that we are fine. That is the main reason why I do not like to drink even a glass of wine when I am not in my house, I always assume that I will be the one driving back home.

I appreciate your comments. We may be disagreeing on the “safe” thing, but I think it’s a matter of degrees. Otherwise, I totally agree with the rest of your last post. I could not agree more that if one must partake of alchohol, they should do it at home.

All the best my brother. God bless and Merry Christmas!

 

[kbwall]

I have no moral objection to marijuana, and I personally think that it should be legal. I have yet to see any argument against its legality. Any argument against the effects it has on the mind can just as easily apply to alcohol. Actually alcohol is a bit more dangerous, as I’ve never heard of stoners starting bar fights, or a guy smoking pot and then beating his wife, the same can’t be said of marijuana. I’m not saying alcohol should illegal at all, as I rather enjoy it a lot, and I know not everybody becomes an angry, violent drunk. All I’m saying is that it makes zero sense for one to be legal, and the other one to not be. As for sin, well, I would think the same rules would apply if you drank alcohol (assuming you smoke it somewhere legal like Amsterdam). By that I mean, smoking/eating a little wouldn’t be a sin, but getting so stoned that you lost control is a sin.

Also, the gateway drug theory is false. If you move onto harder drugs, that was your choice, and not the marijuana’s fault. And if you want to get technical, alcohol is also a drug (it’s just legal). Same goes for anything you do under the influence of pot; anything you do under pot or alcohol is your fault, and your choice. If you decide to get behind the wheel while impaired and endanger other people’s lives, then that is your fault, you knew the risks involved. If you decide to have premarital sex under the influence, again, your fault.

However, having said all that, I don’t smoke pot. For one simple reason. The law doesn’t care what I think of it, and no matter how much I think the law is ridiculous/unfair for banning pot, if I got caught smoking it, I’d be busted all the same. Getting caught with that stuff even once would seriously mess my life up and crush all my hopes and dreams. There’s also the fact that it’s nigh impossible to get a job with that stuff in your system. While it may seem like circular logic, that’s just the way it is.

 

[roelblomsma]

Talking with someone today and the topic of teaching right/wrong to teens came up.

When talking with youth, how do you explain that the use of marijuana is wrong?

We have (in many states) medicinal marijuana. That’s fine. We’re not arguing the validity of that. What is a problem is explaining why recreational use of marijuana is wrong.

When did people first smoke? I mean, really… I’ve never seen them smoking in any of the biblical movies… and there has been smoking since the United States was just colonies… where in the middle did the use of smoking begin?

We have priests and bishops who do smoke cigarettes… so how do we say ‘smoking is wrong’ when you have a cleric who does the same?

But what about the use of something like marijuana… which is illegal? Ok, we have that it’s illegal… and that should be enough… but WHY is it illegal (remember: we’re trying to explain to teens)

Would that tie into the commandments that speak of ‘Killing’? The use of marijuana can be read as hurting oneself, so that could tie in, right?

But how can we, as adults in the church, teach the ills of marijuana from a historical or biblical perspective.

There’s a lot of taboo and misinformation regarding marijuana. In a strict Biblical sense, you might say that all mind-alterating drug, be it alcohol or marijuana, should not be used, or only in very small portions.

From a social and legal point of view. Alcohol should be banned and marijuana should be legalized. Anyone who has a bit of a brain, understands that the effects of alcohol lead to agression, abuse, drunkdriving etc. Marijuana just leaves people in a calm mood.

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

From a social and legal point of view. Alcohol should be banned and marijuana should be legalized. Anyone who has a bit of a brain, understands that the effects of alcohol lead to agression, abuse, drunkdriving etc. Marijuana just leaves people in a calm mood.

I have to ask if you have ever used marijuana? Have you been around a lot of people that have used it on a regular bases and in large amounts 3 or more “joints” a day? If so you would know that that is a false statement. Those under the influnence of Marijuana can be just as aggressive and abuseive as those that have been drinking and do you really want to be on the road with someone driving that is “high”. I personnally would not let them ride a bycycle in my yard with no one around that they could hurt let alone drive a car on the street, and contary to what people seem to say there are quite of number of stoners out there driving.

We do know pretty much what the effect of alcholhal are on the person by their size and amount they consume in the time period they consume it. This does not hold with marijuana.