Morality of Marijuana Use

[melensdad]

I know all 3 of those passages, they all refer to laws that restrict our moral duties to follow our faith, but where specifically does it say we are obligated to fight for change of what is perceived to be an unjust law that may not be a direct impediment to our worship, to human dignity, etc?

You wrote:

Let me add that if you believe a law is unjust, you have a responsiblity to work to have it changed​

What I am questioning is the above statement you made.

Look again at the gun laws of Indiana & Illinois and again at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We are morally obligated to defend our lives and our families lives from harm and from an agressor. In fact it says it is our grave duty to do so. In Indiana, and 47 other states, I am allowed to do that. However in Illinois (and also Wisconsin) I am forbidden from doing that with a weapon. Illinois & Wisconin are the only two states in the Union that forbid licensed carry of weapons.

Let me pose this. And let me preface it by stating that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states we are obligated to defend our own lives and the lives of our families, that said, I live in Indiana, at the Indiana/Illiniois state line. In Indiana it is LEGAL to own and carry a concealed handgun for protection of yourself & your family. Across the roadway, my Illinios neighbors live where it is ILLEGAL to do the very same.

Are you saying that defending your life in Illinois is IMMORAL while defending your life in Indiana is MORAL?

Or are you saying that the CCC can only be used to apply morality in lands where it is legal to apply that morality Clearly it is moral to defend your life in Indiana but illegal to defend it in Chicago so therefore the CCC is flawed?

Or, within the state of Illinois, in Will County (the southern border of Chicago) it is legal to have a handgun in your house to defend yourself, but it is Illegal to do the same within boundaries of Chicago. The mere possession of the gun in Chicago can get you arrested. So a perfectly legal item on one side of the street is an illegal item that will get you jailed on the other side of the street.

Is it your argument that MORALITY is decided by your physical location?

Now if you are saying that morality is not based on physical location, then you are saying that the gun laws of Illinois are unjust. Therefore all Catholics, based on your comment, are obligated to fight for less stringent gun laws in Illinois because allowing more access to guns by honest citizens is required by your statement:

you have a responsiblity to work to have it changed​

Again, let me cite the most recent study published in the Harvard Law Review that clearly states that MORE GUNS = LESS MURDER and MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME. Therefore, since we oppose crime and murder on moral grounds, we need to fight for loose gun laws, at least if I apply your logic to gun laws.

 

[FLCathMom]

I know all 3 of those passages, they all refer to laws that restrict our moral duties to follow our faith, but where specifically does it say we are obligated to fight for change of what is perceived to be an unjust law that may not be a direct impediment to our worship, to human dignity, etc?
**
It doesn’t, but there is a lot that can be attributed to human dignity- freedom of all kinds.
**
You wrote:

Let me add that if you believe a law is unjust, you have a responsiblity to work to have it changed​

What I am questioning is the above statement you made.

Look again at the gun laws of Indiana & Illinois and again at the Catechism of the Catholic Church. We are morally obligated to defend our lives and our families lives from harm and from an agressor. In fact it says it is our grave duty to do so. In Indiana, and 47 other states, I am allowed to do that. However in Illinois (and also Wisconsin) I am forbidden from doing that with a weapon. Illinois & Wisconin are the only two states in the Union that forbid licensed carry of weapons.

Let me pose this. And let me preface it by stating that the Catechism of the Catholic Church clearly states we are obligated to defend our own lives and the lives of our families, that said, I live in Indiana, at the Indiana/Illiniois state line. In Indiana it is LEGAL to own and carry a concealed handgun for protection of yourself & your family. Across the roadway, my Illinios neighbors live where it is ILLEGAL to do the very same.

**
You must defend yourself. You don’t need** a concealed handgun to do that. I’m not saying it is wrong, per se, to have a concealed handgun, but it is wrong when it is illegal.

Are you saying that defending your life in Illinois is IMMORAL while defending your life in Indiana is MORAL?

No.

Or are you saying that the CCC can only be used to apply morality in lands where it is legal to apply that morality Clearly it is moral to defend your life in Indiana but illegal to defend it in Chicago so therefore the CCC is flawed?

**
No, if the law prevents you from defending your life, you do not have to obey that law. Morality is determined by God.**

Or, within the state of Illinois, in Will County (the southern border of Chicago) it is legal to have a handgun in your house to defend yourself, but it is Illegal to do the same within boundaries of Chicago. The mere possession of the gun in Chicago can get you arrested. So a perfectly legal item on one side of the street is an illegal item that will get you jailed on the other side of the street.

Is it your argument that MORALITY is decided by your physical location?
**
God orders us to obey authority. Authority varies by physical location, and so yes, what is moral in one place may not be moral in another.
**
Now if you are saying that morality is not based on physical location, then you are saying that the gun laws of Illinois are unjust. Therefore all Catholics, based on your comment, are obligated to fight for less stringent gun laws in Illinois because allowing more access to guns by honest citizens is required by your statement:

you have a responsiblity to work to have it changed​

Again, let me cite the most recent study published in the Harvard Law Review that clearly states that MORE GUNS = LESS MURDER and MORE GUNS = LESS CRIME. Therefore, since we oppose crime and murder on moral grounds, we need to fight for loose gun laws, at least if I apply your logic to gun laws.

**
If more guns are proven to save lives, then we must fight for loose gun laws. It is part of our responsibility as good Christians to also be good citizens involved as much as we can be in the affairs of our respective governments. Loving your neighbor means looking out for the well-being of all.
**

 

[melensdad]

**
If more guns are proven to save lives, then we must fight for loose gun laws. It is part of our responsibility as good Christians to also be good citizens involved as much as we can be in the affairs of our respective governments. Loving your neighbor means looking out for the well-being of all.
**

Well here is a brief review of the study: (its a very long read) cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/Gun-Ownership.htm

And here is a link to the full study showing that the more guns we have in the hands of citizens the safer we are, as studied by Harvard:
law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Here is the final word, and this study essentially rebutts all prior attempts by others to refute the notion that guns save lives, in fact they clearly started out to prove that guns were the cause of harm and found themselves defending the opposite. Much like I am doing with marijuana!

Below are the words of the authors of the study. . .
**CONCLUSION **

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the general obj ection that the persuasiveness of social scientific evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world.

Over a decade ago, Professor Brandon Centerwall of the University of Washington undertook an extensive, statistically sophisticated study comparing areas in the United States and Canada to determine whether Canada’s more restrictive policies had better contained criminal violence. When he published his results it was with the admonition:
*

If you are surprised by [our] finding, so [are we]. [We] did not begin this research with any intent to “exonerate” handguns, but there it is—a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where not to aim public health resources.150
*
​

Now I am also confused by what you wrote:
No, if the law prevents you from defending your life, you do not have to obey that law. Morality is determined by God.
. . . and then later . . .
*God orders us to obey authority. Authority varies by physical location, and so yes, what is moral in one place may not be moral in another. *
You seem to contradict yourself

But then you must be allowing for the legal use of marijuana to be moral. Perhaps as is done in Amsterdam. So it is moral there, but not somewhere else?

 

[melensdad]

And here is a passage from the CCC . . .
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
Now, we have not fully established that marijuana is even harmful to society, but it might be.

But we have reasonably established that the marijuana laws are creating a huge undergound and illegal society and economy that is violent and criminal. As stated in the CCC, it would be difficult to suggest our laws are *“defending public order and protecting people’s safety” *when we have created a violent underground economy with our laws.

Further, there is reasonable evidence to suggest that the punishment for marijuana possession may be reasonably extreme in many states and the punishment does not fit the severity of the crime, as described by the CCC.

So one should come to the conclusion that marijuana should be legalized, controlled, regulated and taxed as we do with tobacco and alcohol.

 

[FLCathMom]

Now I am also confused by what you wrote:
No, if the law prevents you from defending your life, you do not have to obey that law. Morality is determined by God.
. . . and then later . . .
God orders us to obey authority. Authority varies by physical location, and so yes, what is moral in one place may not be moral in another.
You seem to contradict yourself

It is not a contradiction. Morality is determined by God- he orders us to do certain things such as love your neighbor and obey authority. We must follow God’s law by obeying authority unless that authority tells us to do something against what God has elsewhere ordered us to do.

But then you must be allowing for the legal use of marijuana to be moral. Perhaps as is done in Amsterdam. So it is moral there, but not somewhere else?

Perhaps, so long as it does not violate any other commandment such as the prohibition against debauchery (defined in Webster’s as: 1 a : extreme indulgence in sensuality.) I suppose if one could use marijuana without losing one’s power of self control or otherwise disobeying God’s commandments and it was legal, then it would be moral.

 

[melensdad]

"Melensdad:

But then you must be allowing for the legal use of marijuana to be moral. Perhaps as is done in Amsterdam. So it is moral there, but not somewhere else?

Perhaps, so long as it does not violate any other commandment such as the prohibition against debauchery (defined in Webster’s as: 1 a : extreme indulgence in sensuality.) I suppose if one could use marijuana without losing one’s power of self control or otherwise disobeying God’s commandments and it was legal, then it would be moral.

So therefore you are saying that marijuana use is NOT INHERANTLY a sin.

That has been my point all along.

Using alcohol is NOT INHERANTLY a sinful activity. When misused it becomes sinful.

Using diary products are not inherantly sinful, but using them to the point that you clog your arteries and shorten your own life would easily fall under the sin of gluttony. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of exampls of so-called “safe” products, that if misused, would be sinful.

 

[po18guy]

But you make a very clear point about the “need” of drugs or alcohol and I made, or tried to make, a very clear point that the usage we are talking about is NOT the type of usage that requires it, but is only used in recreational setting. Are we talking apples and oranges? I think we might be.

If you want to talk about people and morality and the “need” to imbibe in any sort of drug (prescription, alcohol, etc) then I would agree that we are talking about an immoral use.

But a glass of wine at dinner does not fall into that category.

Addiction is the “Need”, if you are so inclined to call it that. “Desire” is the want, and another thing altogether. We must ask ourselves just what we desire in life and out of life. Since the Lord is all we need, and should be all that we want, mustn’t we carefully consider all else that we partake of?

We “need” food. Do we need wine, beer, drugs? I believe that some of us may “want” them, but to me it appears similar to wanting (lusting after) a co-worker, a nicer car than our neighbor, a larger house, more income, etc. We seek personal benefit from its use, since it in no way deepens our relationship with God and may, in fact, lessen it.

Beer and wine exist because the fermentation process was the only way to preserve beverages in ancient times, especially in the desert. We no longer need beer or wine, since we have refrigeration. Ethyl alcohol has morphed from preservative to recreational drug. This has become the crux of the matter.

 

[po18guy]

So are you saying that when my family has our parish priest over for dinner* (which we do)* or when we go out to a restaurant with our priest (again, something we do) and we have a drink or two (which we do) then are we being immoral? A simple YES or NO will suffice because I’m curious if my priest is an immoral person for drinking two or three beers.

First of all, I treated this as a hypothetical. And second, thanks for the “Did you ever stop beating your wife?” question.

 

[Soldier4Christ]

But we have reasonably established that the marijuana laws are creating a huge undergound and illegal society and economy that is violent and criminal. As stated in the CCC, it would be difficult to suggest our laws are *“defending public order and protecting people’s safety” *when we have created a violent underground economy with our laws.

The laws didn’t create an underground and illegal society, people rejecting and disobeying authority did. I know you may say some will smoke marijuana regardless of its legal status, and some will, but there will be many more if it is legal. It will be much easier for people to obtain the drug, and much easier for people to abuse it.

 

[melensdad]

Ethyl alcohol has morphed from preservative to recreational drug. This has become the crux of the matter.

What if you drink a glass of wine with dinner because it accents and enhances the taste of the food? The person drinking 1 glass of wine feels no ‘high’ or ‘buzz’ in any way. The drink simply has the benefit of enhancing the dining experience, it does not, turn it into debauchery. Those who drink the occasional glass of wine know this to be true. Red wine with meats, whites with fish . . . these guidelines were developed for culinary reasons, not because beef eaters like to get a buzz on red wine.

Now take a cup of coffee. It contains caffeine. Caffeine is an addictive drug. It takes 3 days to get caffeine out of your system when you stop injesting it and quitting coffee cold turkey will result in massive headaches that are similar to migranes. Still, even though an addictive drug, caffeine is not considered immoral when taken in the form of coffee. It has the benefit of a mild stimulant which may keep you alert while driving or studying. But in concentrated form or high quantities can make you irritable, hyperactive, annoying and jittery.

Again, the ORIGINAL POSTER was asking if it is immoral to smoke marijuana. It is clearly illegal in SOME parts of the world. Further, ANYTHING done without moderation is gluttony, which would be sinful. But I think to continue to argue that something is INHERANTLY IMMORAL is no longer valid.

The laws didn’t create an underground and illegal society, people rejecting and disobeying authority did.

True, but they did that because it WAS legal at one time and by the stroke of a legislator’s pen became illegal. And that is only true in SOME parts of the world.

Therefore we get back to the LOCATION arguement of morality. In some areas (like the USA) it is illegal, and therefore people argue immoral. In other nations it is legal, and consequently, in moderation, moral.

I don’t think it is reasonable to have “LOCATION MORALITY”

If something is moral then it is moral. If it is not, then it is not. The nation it is used should not matter. Again, I am not arguing ABUSE of these things is moral. But there is moderate use, and there is abuse.

Whole fat dairy is probably the #1 health threat in America today, why are we not wadding our undies in a bunch about the sin of gluttony of dairy?

thanks for the “Did you ever stop beating your wife?” question.

Clearly I don’t see it like that. Its a simple quesiton, one that deserves a simple YES or NO. When my parish priest comes over to the house for a picnic and has a few beers is he being immoral?

 

[po18guy]

Clearly I don’t see it like that. Its a simple quesiton, one that deserves a simple YES or NO. When my parish priest comes over to the house for a picnic and has a few beers is he being immoral?

A Yes means I judge him sinful. A No means it is perfectly OK. Sorry, can’t do it. Not enough information. The only thing that is clearly not sinful is to remain clean and sober. Once you depart from that state, the door is open. We live in the kingdom of the evil one, who is patient beyond patience for the destruction of souls. Alcohol has claimed my brother, my cousin, an aunt and a grandfather that I know of. What was sinful in their first drink? I would love to know the answer to that question.

Christ’s peace.

 

[melensdad]

The only thing that is clearly not sinful is to remain clean and sober. Once you depart from that state, the door is open. We live in the kingdom of the evil one, who is patient beyond patience for the destruction of souls. Alcohol has claimed my brother, my cousin, an aunt and a grandfather that I know of. What was sinful in their first drink?

While I am sorry for your losses, I simply cannot accept your situation as something that must be applied to all mankind simply because the majority of people can, in a responsible way, have a drink or two. The fact that some cannot may be very tragic, but it does not make their personal trageties something that is levied over all human action. I do agree that we are all tempted by sin every day. I also suggest that some of us may even be weaker to some temptations than to others. But I don’t think that necessarily changes the morality of a glass of wine, a cup of coffee, or a little bit of marijuana.

But on a personal note, I will pray for those you have lost and I better understand the position you are coming from.

 

[po18guy]

While I am sorry for your losses, I simply cannot accept your situation as something that must be applied to all mankind simply because the majority of people can, in a responsible way, have a drink or two. The fact that some cannot may be very tragic, but it does not make their personal trageties something that is levied over all human action. I do agree that we are all tempted by sin every day. I also suggest that some of us may even be weaker to some temptations than to others. But I don’t think that necessarily changes the morality of a glass of wine, a cup of coffee, or a little bit of marijuana.

But on a personal note, I will pray for those you have lost and I better understand the position you are coming from.

Thank you for the prayers. For me, it is just easier to avoid what may become a near occasion of sin. Actually, it wasn’t only alcohol that killed my brother, it was a combination of that and methamphetamine. Now, there is satan’s own drug!

Christ’s peace.

p.s. I’m a life member of the same organization you belong to (or should!)

 

[Bennie_P]

Marijuana use has always been related to paganism and pagan mysticisms. You might ask, is it moral to play around with 'strange gods"? If so then smoking pot is ok for Catholics.

According to this article cannibus is considered a “sacrament”, but I think it is New Age smoke to justify paganism and idoltry.IMHO.
druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/potbible.htm

According to William A. Embolden in his book Ritual Use of Cannabis Sativa L, p. 235:
"Shamanistic traditions of great antiquity in Asia and the Near East has as one of their most important elements the attempt to find God without a vale of tears; that cannabis played a role in this, at least in some areas, is born out in the philology surrounding the ritualistic use of the plant. Whereas Western religious traditions generally stress sin, repentance, and mortification of the flesh, certain older non-Western religious cults seem to have employed Cannabis as a euphoriant, which allowed the participant a joyous path to the Ultimate; hence such appellations as “heavenly guide”.
According to “Licit and Illicit Drugs” by the Consumer Union, page 397-398:
"Ashurbanipal lived about 650 B.C., but the cuneiform descriptions of marijuana in his library “are generally regarded as obvious copies of much older texts.” Says Dr. Robert P. Walton, an American physician and authority on marijuana, “This evidence serves to project the origin of hashish back to the earliest beginnings of history.”

 

[melensdad]

Marijuana use has always been related to paganism and pagan mysticisms. You might ask, is it moral to play around with 'strange gods"?

The origins of the Coptic Cross date back to ancient (pre-Christian) Egypt. The origins of the Celtic Cross can be traced to pagans. Many Christian symbols are simply symbols that we have taken over and modified for good. I’m certainly not saying that marijuana is good (I’ve never defended that in my writings) but I don’t think it is reasonable to attach it to pagan worship any longer. That does not mean that pagans don’t use it, perhaps they do. But it doesn’t automatically imbue their beliefs on others through a casual association.

There are some drugs that are clearly dangerous to virutally all those who come into contact with them. There are others, such as alcohol, that can be used by reasonable people in reasonable ways without abuse. When those same ‘reasonable’ drugs are made illegal by the stroke of legislative whimsy then we set up a situation where there could be more harm done to society by the legal system than by the drug itself. That may well be the case with marijuana. We saw it with alcohol during prohibition. Realize that legalizing it will come with a stigma, much the way it is not publicly acceptable to smoke cigarettes or to drive drunk. Just because a product is legal does not mean it is legal to abuse that product. But just because a product is illegal, does not automatically make it immoral, especially when it is legal in some nations and not in others.

Something else to consider : My daughter’s Catholic school (St. John the Evangalist School)* forbids soda and donuts on the grounds that kids get too much sugar in their diets. . . so within the school confines and within the school rules, donuts & soda are forbidden. One could suggest that might make it immoral to bring a donut onto the school property.

Interestingly, our parish * (we attend a different parish than where she goes to school) holds a donut day on the first Sunday after our 8am mass. Since my daughter attends Catholic school at one parish, but attends church at another parish (St Edward’s) *, is it reasonable to say there is a different morality applied to donuts because the parishes are 10 miles apart?

Or is it silly to apply morality to sugar? But if it is silly to apply morality to a substance that is a cause of health problems (my daughter is diabetic) and the substance can alter the mood and actions of people. . .then would it not also be silly to apply morality to other items that do something similar and are non-addictive? *(both parishes are in the Gary Diocese)

 

[Bennie_P]

The origins of the Coptic Cross date back to ancient (pre-Christian) Egypt. The origins of the Celtic Cross can be traced to pagans. Many Christian symbols are simply symbols that we have taken over and modified for good. I’m certainly not saying that marijuana is good (I’ve never defended that in my writings) but I don’t think it is reasonable to attach it to pagan worship any longer. That does not mean that pagans don’t use it, perhaps they do. But it doesn’t automatically imbue their beliefs on others through a casual association.

There are some drugs that are clearly dangerous to virutally all those who come into contact with them. There are others, such as alcohol, that can be used by reasonable people in reasonable ways without abuse. When those same ‘reasonable’ drugs are made illegal by the stroke of legislative whimsy then we set up a situation where there could be more harm done to society by the legal system than by the drug itself. That may well be the case with marijuana. We saw it with alcohol during prohibition. Realize that legalizing it will come with a stigma, much the way it is not publicly acceptable to smoke cigarettes or to drive drunk. Just because a product is legal does not mean it is legal to abuse that product. But just because a product is illegal, does not automatically make it immoral, especially when it is legal in some nations and not in others.

Did you read the article? I’m not talking about ‘crosses’. The popularity of pot smoking rose along with the re-paganism of society. Acceptance of the use of a mild hallucinogen surely cannot be conducive to a healthy spiritual life, unless that spiritual life is based and centered on something other then Christianity. There is where the danger lies. And the great lier and murderer, remember him, wants us to demiss any connection of evil to the “good herb”.

Acute (present during intoxication)
*Impairs short-term memory *
*Impairs attention, judgment, and other cognitive functions *
*Impairs coordination and balance *
*Increases heart rate *
**Persistent (lasting longer than intoxication, but may not be permanent) **
Impairs memory and learning skills
Long-term (cumulative, potentially permanent effects of chronic abuse)
*Can lead to addiction *
*Increases risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema *
*Increases risk of cancer of the head, neck, and lungs *

**Whimsey legislation? The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act may have been ill conceived, but a bad conceived law doesn’t neccessary make justification of turning something bad into good. We might reconsidered how sever we treat marihuana use, but I think it would be a grave mistake to say it is morally OK to use or legalize pot. Want to check out a society that thought legalization was Ok and pot use is not immoral, just check out the Netherlands. Real nice place to raise your kids. **

 

[melensdad]

Acute (present during intoxication)
Impairs short-term memory
Impairs attention, judgment, and other cognitive functions
Impairs coordination and balance
Increases heart rate
Persistent (lasting longer than intoxication, but may not be permanent)
Impairs memory and learning skills
Long-term (cumulative, potentially permanent effects of chronic abuse)
Can lead to addiction
Increases risk of chronic cough, bronchitis, and emphysema
Increases risk of cancer of the head, neck, and lungs

As I wrote, I never said it was good. Nor have I defended it. However, some fo the above statements have been refuted scientifically and it is no longer considered addictive.

But let’s look at whole milk.

• Causes heart disease
• Causes fat build up which is associated with numerous cancers
• Causes weight gain which is associated with numerous diseases
• Leads to diabetic complications
• Leads to high cholesterol levels

Further, it would be hard to debate the fact that supermarket milk is a brew of hormones, chemicals, DDT, fungicides, defoliants and radioactive fallout, produced by artificially inseminated creatures forced to stand around in muddy feed lots all day long.

So where is the morality in supporting the dairy industry when we give milk to our kids? If we give them any milk, perhaps it should be organic soy “milk” or at least organic skim milk?

And while we are making comparisons, how about sugar? I provided an example already. Serious health issues with sugar, side effects to mood, heart rate, breathing rate, attention span, etc too.

 

[chsngtailodogma]

As I wrote, I never said it was good. Nor have I defended it. However, some fo the above statements have been refuted scientifically and it is no longer considered addictive.

But let’s look at whole milk.

• Causes heart disease
• Causes fat build up which is associated with numerous cancers
• Causes weight gain which is associated with numerous diseases
• Leads to diabetic complications
• Leads to high cholesterol levels

Further, it would be hard to debate the fact that supermarket milk is a brew of hormones, chemicals, DDT, fungicides, defoliants and radioactive fallout, produced by artificially inseminated creatures forced to stand around in muddy feed lots all day long.

So where is the morality in supporting the dairy industry when we give milk to our kids? If we give them any milk, perhaps it should be organic soy “milk” or at least organic skim milk?

And while we are making comparisons, how about sugar? I provided an example already. Serious health issues with sugar, side effects to mood, heart rate, breathing rate, attention span, etc too.

oh GREAT. you have just inspired one certain family to buy organic milk from now on.

but by all means, continue…

 

[Guldenat]

The laws didn’t create an underground and illegal society, people rejecting and disobeying authority did. I know you may say some will smoke marijuana regardless of its legal status, and some will, but there will be many more if it is legal. It will be much easier for people to obtain the drug, and much easier for people to abuse it.

That more people will smoke marijuana if it is legal is not necessarily true at all. The American Psychology Association has done extensive research on this, and says that the best indicator of whether or not someone will abuse drugs, legal or illegal, can be determined by whether or not they abuse alcohol and tobacco.

As a nation we have yet to learn from our mistakes. During prohibition, as compared to before it, the number of bars increased by 30,000. Was that all about people simply disobeying authority, or was it people doing what they have a right to do?

 

[Guldenat]

Did you read the article? I’m not talking about ‘crosses’. The popularity of pot smoking rose along with the re-paganism of society. Acceptance of the use of a mild hallucinogen surely cannot be conducive to a healthy spiritual life, unless that spiritual life is based and centered on something other then Christianity. There is where the danger lies. And the great lier and murderer, remember him, wants us to demiss any connection of evil to the “good herb”.

Who cares if pagans used it, or if they are responsible for it’s increased popularity. That doesn’t speak to the morality of the drug, unless you are implying that everything pagans ever did was immoral.

Whimsey legislation? The 1937 Marihuana Tax Act may have been ill conceived, but a bad conceived law doesn’t neccessary make justification of turning something bad into good. We might reconsidered how sever we treat marihuana use, but I think it would be a grave mistake to say it is morally OK to use or legalize pot. Want to check out a society that thought legalization was Ok and pot use is not immoral, just check out the Netherlands. Real nice place to raise your kids.

If the legislation was based on lies and racism, I think it is very relevant, particularly when people use the argument “Obey the government”. If the government is making laws for no just reason, I question the moral imperative to follow them.