Legalized marijuana

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSainte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Casey123 said:
In an earlier post I stated the reasons why marijuana originally became, and remains, illegal. It has nothing to do with health nor science nor safety; it has to do with money. That said, even if we cannot agree that the law is just or not, then surely, we can agree that the repercussions for people that are caught using marijuana in many instances is like fining someone $10,000 for a $10 crime; something that is, of itself, unjust.

I use marijuana under my state’s medical laws, and have recreationally in the past, as well. So have 52% of Americans, as well as the past three presidents, including the incumbent. If I am indeed immoral for using marijuana, I’m certainly in good company.
Click to expand...
So the question is whether or not the federal law prohibiting marijuana is just. I certainly don’t believe it is, and I’m sure you’ll disagree with me, but I can tell you that the consequences in many cases of violating this law most definitely and certainly are.
Click to expand...
18 year old kids becoming lifelong felons because they tried a joint one summer afternoon, permanently barred from federal money for school, business, current or future employment placed in jeopardy. Cancer patients facing legal charges for using marijuana to get relief from the effects of devastating chemotherapy. People that face up to 15 years in prison or longer for having tried even the smallest amount.
Click to expand...
I agree with the issue of Federal Law causing problems. The law is the law, just or not, it is the law and until it changes people need to know that violating the law can cause problems that you point out.
 
CopticChristian said:
I agree with the issue of Federal Law causing problems. The law is the law, just or not, it is the law and until it changes people need to know that violating the law can cause problems that you point out.
Click to expand...
What problems? The Obama administration has specifically said that they have NO INTENTION of going after those who use marijuana either medicinally or recreationally in states that have legalized. What problems could it possibly cause? This is not a priority with the federal government, which says it “has bigger fish to fry”. So there is no question of anyone being arrested, ticketed, reprimanded or receiving a strongly worded letter regarding marijuana use.

So on what level is it truly immoral (not just inadvisable, but immoral, confession-worthy behavior) for a person to follow state law over (essentially obsolete) Federal law in this case? The only possible argument here is if it is ALWAYS and in every case immoral to break the law no matter what, in which case, as I stated earlier, it is a Federal crime to send dentures to someone through the mail. So if grandpa forgets his dentures at home, is it IMMORAL for grandma to send them to him, or is she just using her own prudential judgement in ignoring an outdated law that nobody had any interest in enforcing anyway?
 
LaSainte said:
What problems? The Obama administration has specifically said that they have NO INTENTION of going after those who use marijuana either medicinally or recreationally in states that have legalized. What problems could it possibly cause? This is not a priority with the federal government, which says it “has bigger fish to fry”. So there is no question of anyone being arrested, ticketed, reprimanded or receiving a strongly worded letter regarding marijuana use.

So on what level is it truly immoral (not just inadvisable, but immoral, confession-worthy behavior) for a person to follow state law over (essentially obsolete) Federal law in this case?
Click to expand...
These problems that were pointed out and then reposted, you failed to read…
**18 year old kids becoming lifelong felons because they tried a joint one summer afternoon, permanently barred from federal money for school, business, current or future employment placed in jeopardy. Cancer patients facing legal charges for using marijuana to get relief from the effects of devastating chemotherapy. People that face up to 15 years in prison or longer for having tried even the smallest amount. **
Click to expand...
and…
The only possible argument here is if it is ALWAYS and in every case immoral to break the law no matter what, in which case, as I stated earlier, it is a Federal crime to send dentures to someone through the mail. So if grandpa forgets his dentures at home, is it IMMORAL for grandma to send them to him, or is she just using her own prudential judgement in ignoring an outdated law that nobody had any interest in enforcing anyway
Click to expand...
You continue to rationalize a one time behavior into a desire to behave continually against the law.
 
CopticChristian said:
These problems that were pointed out and then reposted, you failed to read…

and…

You continue to rationalize a one time behavior into a desire to behave continually against the law.
Click to expand...
Again, nobody is going to become a felon or even get arrested in states where the local government has legalized marijuana. Obama came out and said as much. They are NOT interested in prosecuting these people. There is no risk there. No legal consequences, not even a ticket. So please stop acting like these people are going to somehow get in trouble with the law. It simply is not going to happen.

And what about riding a bike without a helmet in a regular basis? Immoral? It’s against he law, and certainly more dangerous than smoking marijuana. What about stapling a church flyer to a telephone pole or putting a flagpole up in my yard with the American flag? Are these things IMMORAL just because they are illegal?
 
40.png
LaSainte:
Again, nobody is going to become a felon or even get arrested in states where the local government has legalized marijuana. Obama came out and said as much. They are NOT interested in prosecuting these people. There is no risk there. No legal consequences, not even a ticket. So please stop acting like these people are going to somehow get in trouble with the law. It simply is not going to happen.
Click to expand...
So, then when one person gets arrested in states that have legalized marijuana based on Federal Statute that will get your attention. We wait.
And what about riding a bike without a helmet in a regular basis? Immoral? It’s against he law, and certainly more dangerous than smoking marijuana. What about stapling a church flyer to a telephone pole or putting a flagpole up in my yard with the American flag? Are these things IMMORAL just because they are illegal?
Click to expand...
Does the DEA regulate the wearing of helmets?
 
CopticChristian said:
So, then when one person gets arrested in states that have legalized marijuana based on Federal Statute that will get your attention. We wait.

Does the DEA regulate the wearing of helmets?
Click to expand...
What difference does that make? The fact is, these are laws that forbid something which in and of itself is not immoral. The DEA has nothing to do with it.
 
LaSainte said:
What difference does that make? The fact is, these are laws that forbid something which in and of itself is not immoral. The DEA has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
The thread is “Legalized Marijuana” and the DEA has everything to do with it…

The thread is not “Legalized not wearing helmets” and the DEA has nothing to do with this.
 
CopticChristian said:
The thread is “Legalized Marijuana” and the DEA has everything to do with it…

The thread is not “Legalized not wearing helmets” and the DEA has nothing to do with this.
Click to expand...
I think you understand my point, you are simply reluctant to address it.

So you are saying that regardless of the intrinsic morality/immorality of a substance, and regardless of whether or not the state has legalized it, a DEA prohibition must always be obeyed, even if they have no interest in enforcing it?

So if the DEA suddenly classified coffee as a schedule 1 substance but the government said they were not going to do anything about it, it would be immoral to drink coffee? Is that correct?

And because you are worried about medicinal users being prosecuted under Federal Law, here is what the White House’s website has to say a out it:

Department of Justice Guidelines:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance for Federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana under state law. The guidelines explain that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law or their individual non-commercial caregiver. However, persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution.

m.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-marijuana
 
CopticChristian said:
Then we are back to post 75 and post 133…
Click to expand...
Sorry, I don’t share your opinion that Thomas Aquinas is the last word on the matter of state vs. federal law, or even law in general when the matter is not significant, which it may be, but that is part of the present discussion. I am not so sure as you of the church teaching, or even Aquinas’s teaching on this matter. To you it may be black and white, but for me it is still an open question. But I do appreciate your sources, and they do have a place in the discussion. I just don’t think they decide it.
 
I will vote against this every time. I was there when the dope smoking Hippies tried to make all this cool, along with promoting other, more dangerous drugs. But stay tuned for Episode 238 of “We want to smoke dope and want you to agree with us.”

Ed
 
LaSainte said:
I think you understand my point, you are simply reluctant to address it.

So you are saying that regardless of the intrinsic morality/immorality of a substance, and regardless of whether or not the state has legalized it, a DEA prohibition must always be obeyed, even if they have no interest in enforcing it?

So if the DEA suddenly classified coffee as a schedule 1 substance but the government said they were not going to do anything about it, it would be immoral to drink coffee? Is that correct?

And because you are worried about medicinal users being prosecuted under Federal Law, here is what the White House’s website has to say a out it:

Department of Justice Guidelines:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) issued guidance for Federal prosecutors in states that have enacted laws authorizing the medical use of marijuana under state law. The guidelines explain that it is likely not an efficient use of federal resources to focus enforcement efforts on individuals with serious illnesses who use marijuana as part of a recommended treatment regimen consistent with applicable state law or their individual non-commercial caregiver. However, persons who are in the business of cultivating, selling, or distributing marijuana, and those who knowingly facilitate such activities, are in violation of Federal law, and are subject to Federal enforcement action, including potential prosecution.

m.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/federal-laws-pertaining-to-marijuana
Click to expand...
Medicinal users have to do what they have to do believing it is the only resource. Recreational users should gird their loins.
 
JamesCaruso said:
Sorry, I don’t share your opinion that Thomas Aquinas is the last word on the matter of state vs. federal law, or even law in general when the matter is not significant, which it may be, but that is part of the present discussion. I am not so sure as you of the church teaching, or even Aquinas’s teaching on this matter. To you it may be black and white, but for me it is still an open question. But I do appreciate your sources, and they do have a place in the discussion. I just don’t think they decide it.
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting anything other than Catholics have dealt with this and offered an opinion that you may or may not want to concede makes more sense than anything else.
 
edwest2 said:
I will vote against this every time. I was there when the dope smoking Hippies tried to make all this cool, along with promoting other, more dangerous drugs. But stay tuned for Episode 238 of “We want to smoke dope and want you to agree with us.”

Ed
Click to expand...
So much for the Federal Blind Eye…

huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/one-marijuana-arrest-occu_n_2041236.html

One Marijuana Arrest Occurs Every 42 Seconds In U.S.: FBI Report
**However, the big unknown still is if the federal government would allow a regulated marijuana market to take shape. Attorney General Eric Holder, who was a vocal opponent of California’s legalization initiative in 2010 saying he would “vigorously enforce” federal marijuana prohibition, has continued to remain silent on the issue this year.
Click to expand...
In September, Holder was urged by by nine former heads of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration to take a stand against marijuana legalization again. “To continue to remain silent conveys to the American public and the global community a tacit acceptance of these dangerous initiatives,” the nine said in the letter to holder obtained by Reuters.**
Click to expand...
 
CopticChristian said:
I am not suggesting anything other than Catholics have dealt with this and offered an opinion that you may or may not want to concede makes more sense than anything else.
Click to expand...
I readily concede that M usage can have deleterious effects, as can other addictive drugs that are considered both legal and moral in moderation, for example alcohol.

As a non-user, but as someone who knows many users, I am neither trying to justify nor condemn M usage, but to find out as much about it as possible.

The experts seem suspect at presenting a fair evaluation of the facts. Government and law enforcement seem biased against M usage, which supports their interest in supporting existing laws.

Also, I wonder if any “independent” studies are sponsored by groups looking for a particular result.

Users of course are totally biased toward justifying M usage in every way.

Former abusers of M are interested in condemning usage, but their usage led to serious problems perhaps wholly due to M usage, and perhaps not. In any case, they do not represent the group that appears to use without bad consequences.

The church, I am not sure of. I wonder if it is not too much reliant on government and law enforcement studies or if it has done its own independent study. Does the church have a preconceived notion that “drugs” per se are bad, as certain Christian sects have a preconceived notion that alcohol is per se bad? Does it take into account that alcohol is a drug, yet one that it blesses in moderation?

Everyone seems to have preconceived notions and preset interests to defend going in. And if that isn’t enough, the issue appears to be emotionally charged, as we have seen by some of the comments in this thread.

At this point I am not ready to accept anyone’s moral judgment on M usage, especially when it does not take into consideration individual tolerances, extent of usage, and amount of substance consumed.

If it becomes clear that M usage is always or almost always a serious hazard to health, then I would support characterizing its use as immoral and violation of laws prohibiting its use as sinful. But such characterization would be in the same vein as for cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking is almost always deleterious to one’s health, yet we all know individuals who have smoked regularly all their lives with seemingly no bad effects, the exception rather than the rule.

If it becomes clear that users can easily control the effects on themselves so that it poses minimal threat to bodily and mental health, then I don’t think violation of laws is worth debating except maybe from the aspect of the severity of penalties imposed on those in violation. Back 40 years ago I can remember young people going to jail for 20 years for possession of a single ounce.
 
JamesCaruso said:
I readily concede that M usage can have deleterious effects, as can other addictive drugs that are considered both legal and moral in moderation, for example alcohol.

As a non-user, but as someone who knows many users, I am neither trying to justify nor condemn M usage, but to find out as much about it as possible.

The experts seem suspect at presenting a fair evaluation of the facts. Government and law enforcement seem biased against M usage, which supports their interest in supporting existing laws.

Also, I wonder if any “independent” studies are sponsored by groups looking for a particular result.

Users of course are totally biased toward justifying M usage in every way.

Former abusers of M are interested in condemning usage, but their usage led to serious problems perhaps wholly due to M usage, and perhaps not. In any case, they do not represent the group that appears to use without bad consequences.

The church, I am not sure of. I wonder if it is not too much reliant on government and law enforcement studies or if it has done its own independent study. Does the church have a preconceived notion that “drugs” per se are bad, as certain Christian sects have a preconceived notion that alcohol is per se bad? Does it take into account that alcohol is a drug, yet one that it blesses in moderation?

Everyone seems to have preconceived notions and preset interests to defend going in. And if that isn’t enough, the issue appears to be emotionally charged, as we have seen by some of the comments in this thread.

At this point I am not ready to accept anyone’s moral judgment on M usage, especially when it does not take into consideration individual tolerances, extent of usage, and amount of substance consumed.

If it becomes clear that M usage is always or almost always a serious hazard to health, then I would support characterizing its use as immoral and violation of laws prohibiting its use as sinful. But such characterization would be in the same vein as for cigarette smoking. Cigarette smoking is almost always deleterious to one’s health, yet we all know individuals who have smoked regularly all their lives with seemingly no bad effects, the exception rather than the rule.

If it becomes clear that users can easily control the effects on themselves so that it poses minimal threat to bodily and mental health, then I don’t think violation of laws is worth debating except maybe from the aspect of the severity of penalties imposed on those in violation. Back 40 years ago I can remember young people going to jail for 20 years for possession of a single ounce.
Click to expand...
If the Federal Ban was to be lifted and if the States made it available…then my suggestion would be…know what you are doing and use in moderation.
 
CopticChristian said:
If the Federal Ban was to be lifted and if the States made it available…then my suggestion would be…know what you are doing and use in moderation.
Click to expand...
Personally, I would not use it even then, not even in moderation.

I have a theory that everyone is looking for that certain something that will make them feel right. Something is missing. No one feels right. People search for the answer in drugs, alcohol, sex, power, wealth, etc. Grandpa Adam threw the world out of kilter. The evidence of that is felt in our person. The corrective addictions that I prescribe are prayer, especially the Rosary, and the Holy Eucharist.

Augustine’s prescription: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you.”
 
CopticChristian said:
If the Federal Ban was to be lifted and if the States made it available…then my suggestion would be…know what you are doing and use in moderation.
Click to expand...
A good portion of this debate seems to be balancing on one’s interpretation of State vs. Fed Law. A few years back, my sons and I did a fair amount of remote camping and fishing in a National Forest. Our campsite was visited by both State Department of Natural Resource CO’c and National Forest Service CO’s. A disagreement came up as to what to do with the fish guts after cleaning. The Forest Service said their Law was dump them in a deep part of the lake. The DNR regulation book said to spread them on shore and sea gulls and turtles would take care of them. After some discussion between the two, the Forest Service CO said to go with the local (State) law even though it was a National Forest, it was in on State owned property.
Even when laws are in conflict, Catholics are morally obligated to observe them. St. Thomas Aquinas said being a good citizen means recognizing the government’s authority and following just laws.
Click to expand...
Your right, our fishing wasn’t regulated by the DEA, but a law is a law no matter which branch of the government creates it.
So the question is, what would CopticChristian do with his fish gut, knowing he could be cited by either Conservation Officer?

As someone earlier said, laws are not always black and white.

FYI, never tried it and never will and with Ed, I’d vote against it every time but if it became Legal in my State I would be interested in the Church’s idea on it’s moral implications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top