Pot Permissible...?

[Ray_Scheel]

One of them is from the angle of “underground” operations and the affect that it has on people. The illegal distribution has a widerange of negative effects.

Isn’t that out of scope when looking at economies where it would be legal? There are black markets for everything depending on what is legal where, none of which would play in if someone was growing their own legally and selling it legally .

 

[Joey1976]

Joey1976

I think you are missing the point of what I was saying. Hope I don’t come off wrong. The CCC is coming at all angles on this. One of them is from the angle of “underground” operations and the affect that it has on people. The illegal distribution has a widerange of negative effects.

The point of it being illegal has nothing to do with it. Marijuana being illegal is unjust. Go look at the facts why marijuana is illegal. There is no good reason alcohol is allowed to be legal and marijuana is not.
So, if it being illegal is the only reason marijuana is not allowed in moderation by the CCC, that does not hold any water. If it was legal would it be allowed in moderation as the other substances? It seems that it would be allowed by the CCC. If so, then it has to be allowed in moderation now even though it is illegal. It seems it would be allowed by the CCC if it was legal as you are saying the distribution practices are what the CCC is concerned with.

If it is just the distribution aspect of marijuana is the problem as you suggest, then growing it on your own with some seeds in your house would be ok then right?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

I was under the impression that the type of marijuana that is used for hemp has less of the chemical THC(did I get that right). SO, there wouldn’t be a problem with kids sneaking the hemp plants.

Its all pretty much the same plant. The greenhouse growers have done some selection to improve THC content in the flowers of their lines, but the primary distinction is whether the growing conditions are geared towards flowering (well-spaced, pampered plants) or fiber production (tightly packed and competing to grow up towards the sun).

Our country’s stance on hemp plants is silly and makes no sense. From what I understand, you can grow hemp if you get a special stamp from the government, but the US government refuses to give this stamp out.

My understanding was that the stamps were issued to help the commercial hemp fiber markets have some time to retool to growing and using cotton there when it was first outlawed. So, yes, we already have the legal framework to resume commercial fiber production, but that’s going to take big ag losing a bit of clout.

 

[JMBNH]

The point of it being illegal has nothing to do with it. Marijuana being illegal is unjust. Go look at the facts why marijuana is illegal. There is no good reason alcohol is allowed to be legal and marijuana is not.
So, if it being illegal is the only reason marijuana is not allowed in moderation by the CCC, that does not hold any water. If it was legal would it be allowed in moderation as the other substances? It seems that it would be allowed by the CCC. If so, then it has to be allowed in moderation now even though it is illegal. It seems it would be allowed by the CCC if it was legal as you are saying the distribution practices are what the CCC is concerned with.

If it is just the distribution aspect of marijuana is the problem as you suggest, then growing it on your own with some seeds in your house would be ok then right?

The reason is that St Paul in Chapter 13 of his Epistle to the Romans calls us to obey the legal authorities (when not against the Law of God, and marijuana smoking is not a commandment of God). For what it’s worth I support the legalisation of marijuana but would not smoke it while it is illegal, and maybe not if it were legalised

 

[teadough]

If it is just the distribution aspect of marijuana is the problem as you suggest, then growing it on your own with some seeds in your house would be ok then right?

If you say so.

I grew indoor bud for a number of years and in the long run it was nothing but paranoia and fear. For me those types of feelings block me from getting in touch with God.

Is getting high really that important to you? If so,are you really walking in the Spirit? Should you have to hide the things that makes you feel relaxed and comfortable?

I think Im going to let it go from here. You have your thoughts and I have mine. Either way we are still Children of God and neither one of us are going to always get it right

God Bless

 

[Joey1976]

If you say so.

I grew indoor bud for a number of years and in the long run it was nothing but paranoia and fear. For me those types of feelings block me from getting in touch with God.

Is getting high really that important to you? If so,are you really walking in the Spirit? Should you have to hide the things that makes you feel relaxed and comfortable?

I think Im going to let it go from here. You have your thoughts and I have mine. Either way we are still Children of God and neither one of us are going to always get it right

God Bless

No, i don’t smoke marijuana. It is not important to me that way. I used to smoke in college before i came to the Lord and the Church.It has been like 6 years since i smoked and 8 years since i smoked regularly which means on the weekends in college. I just had legitimate questions about the Church’s stance on it. But the reason i don’t smoke marijuana is not because i think it is bad, i don’t think it is bad. I think it should be legal if alcohol is legal. I believe alcohol is far worse yet is it allowed in moderation. The reason i don’t smoke it is because it is illegal and i do not want to get caught smoking it and i don’t want that charge on my record and it could prevent employment and those types of problems. But on another site someone explained it to me alot better and i will post their response here. I totally understand now. We have to obey civil law as Catholics, so if it would ever become legal, which again i think it should be, then I think the Church would have to make a stance on it and decide if it will be allowed in moderation such as alcohol.

Here is the answer i received and i totally agree now and see the reasoning now.

"The fact that marijuana is illegal is in fact an issue. We are obliged to follow civil law except where those laws conflict with God’s law. You cite abortion as an instance where Catholics must not follow civil law, and you are correct. However, there is nothing in God’s law saying that we are allowed to eat, drink, or smoke everything we can. The Church respects and upholds civil laws protecting the health of citizens, trusting the state as the competent authority in such matters. Therefore, we, with the Church, are obliged to follow civil law. Only when the Church’s moral and religious authority disagrees with the state may we find exception to civil law.

God bless,

PS-While the Church has not spoken explicitly about tobacco, you are right to point out its health risks as well. Some theologians consider tobacco smoking as a sin in light of what we now know it can do to a person’s body. If so, this is another area where the moral authority of the Church trumps civil law. However, there has been nothing official, so none of us may judge absolutely."

Again , this is a quote from another Catholic site and i posted the question of marijuana and the Church’s stance in their question and answer section. I gave some of the same reasoning i had in my previous posts and this is the answer i got and i am satisfied with this answer.

 

[fmagill]

to Joey 1976:

Where to begin? I guess I’ll address these comments in order. But first I would point out something very basic: the CCC is a product of the teaching authority of the Church, which all Catholics are bound to obey on pain of sin. It is the teaching of the See of Peter in consultation with all the Bishops, and is therefore an ex cathedra statement of Church doctrine, which is infallible, as that term is properly understood. John Paul II made that absolutely clear in his Apostolic Constitution published as the preface to the CCC. Trying to find alleged contradictions in the text to justify your personal opinion is not the way to interpret the CCC, or Scripture either, for that matter. It must be read as a whole, and by its very nature it cannot contradict itself. This is the promise Jesus Christ made to the Apostles when He gave them (and thus their successors) the authority to “bind and loose” on Earth, and when He promised the Holy Spirit would “guide you [again, the Apostles, and thus the Church] in all truth.” And, also keep in mind, the Church doesn’t ask you to like everything it teaches. Neither did Christ.

All that said, the Church also teaches we must have faith guided by reason, and I will readily concede these two sections require some interpretation to be fully understood. So I’m by no means saying it is improper to discuss and debate what the CCC says, only that at the end of the discussion one cannot reasonably conclude, as you appear to have done, that one section of the CCC contradicts another. That is IMPOSSIBLE. Jesus said so. Stated otherwise, any interpretation of the CCC which concludes there is a contradiction is error.

OK, on to the specifics:

Yes, I was fully aware of the preceding section when I quoted 2291. But 2291 does not address intemperance, it addresses the use of drugs. It does not specify only illegal drugs because clearly some legal drugs can be abused. It does not condemn the use of ALL drugs because legitimate medicine is obviously a virtue, and in fact the text of 2291 confirms the acceptability of the use of drugs for strictly therapeutic purposes. Therefore it must be reasonably concluded that 2291 refers to the abuse of any drug, legal or not, because of the harm such abuse causes to the abuser and to others, including but not limited to intoxication.

You say “marijuana is not a drug, it is a plant like tobacco.” Then you say “tobacco is more of a drug than marijuana because of all the things added to it.” I don’t really understand what you are trying to say here, as the two statements seem inconsistent.
In any event, while one might argue the plant itself is not a drug, it certainly contains a chemical, THC, which is, among other things, an intoxicant. It demonstrably affects perceptions, reaction times, and judgment. It increases heart rate and blood flow, and in some people can cause heart failure. At the same time, it could be reasonable to label tobacco as a “drug”, although not because “things are added to it”. Rather, like marijuana, tobacco contains a chemical substance, nicotine, which is a mild stimulant in small quantities, and in concentrated form it is lethal. Both plants also contain a lot of other stuff your body doesn’t need or want, regardless of whether anything is added to commercially sold tobacco.

So the question becomes: Is the nicotine in tobacco intended to be understood as included in the labeling of the non-therapeutic use of “drugs” as a grave offense? I think that is the point you are really trying to address here. You claim pot is not a drug, but tobacco is, because harmful things are added to tobacco by commercial sellers. Sorry, but that is not a valid definition of a drug, so it adds nothing to this analysis. What about saying tobacco is a “drug” because nicotine is a stimulant? That would be consistent in one respect with defining pot as a drug because of the psychoactive ingredient THC. But the clear implication of CCC 2290, as you correctly note, seems to be that moderate use of tobacco is not a sin, at least not against the virtue of temperance. (It could, I suppose, be a sin against the virtue of charity–love of self and of one’s neighbor–but more on that later.)
I think the correct interpretation is that nicotine, while a stimulant, is not an intoxicant, and therefore is not considered a drug prohibited by CCC 2291, when not used for strictly therapeutic purposes. Understood in this way, the prohibition against non-therapeutic use of drugs and the permissibility of moderate tobacco usage are not contradictory.

Getting stoned is a mortal sin. The confessional is waiting. God bless you.

 

[fmagill]

I have some other points to make in response to joey1976, but the forum has a word limit on posts, so i had to cut it off. Besides it’s way past my bedtime. I’ll post again tomorrow, to fulfill my “more on that later” promise.

 

[Joey1976]

to Joey 1976:
OK, on to the specifics:

You say “marijuana is not a drug, it is a plant like tobacco.” Then you say “tobacco is more of a drug than marijuana because of all the things added to it.” I don’t really understand what you are trying to say here, as the two statements seem inconsistent.
In any event, while one might argue the plant itself is not a drug, it certainly contains a chemical, THC, which is, among other things, an intoxicant. It demonstrably affects perceptions, reaction times, and judgment. It increases heart rate and blood flow, and in some people can cause heart failure. At the same time, it could be reasonable to label tobacco as a “drug”, although not because “things are added to it”. Rather, like marijuana, tobacco contains a chemical substance, nicotine, which is a mild stimulant in small quantities, and in concentrated form it is lethal. Both plants also contain a lot of other stuff your body doesn’t need or want, regardless of whether anything is added to commercially sold tobacco.

So the question becomes: Is the nicotine in tobacco intended to be understood as included in the labeling of the non-therapeutic use of “drugs” as a grave offense? I think that is the point you are really trying to address here. You claim pot is not a drug, but tobacco is, because harmful things are added to tobacco by commercial sellers. Sorry, but that is not a valid definition of a drug, so it adds nothing to this analysis. What about saying tobacco is a “drug” because nicotine is a stimulant? That would be consistent in one respect with defining pot as a drug because of the psychoactive ingredient THC. But the clear implication of CCC 2290, as you correctly note, seems to be that moderate use of tobacco is not a sin, at least not against the virtue of temperance. (It could, I suppose, be a sin against the virtue of charity–love of self and of one’s neighbor–but more on that later.)
I think the correct interpretation is that nicotine, while a stimulant, is not an intoxicant, and therefore is not considered a drug prohibited by CCC 2291, when not used for strictly therapeutic purposes. Understood in this way, the prohibition against non-therapeutic use of drugs and the permissibility of moderate tobacco usage are not contradictory.

Getting stoned is a mortal sin. The confessional is waiting. God bless you.

Did you not read my last post? You wrote all this for nothing. And i don’t get stoned so i have no need to confess it. As i stated in my last post I see the reason now it is forbidden by the Church is because we must obey civil law unless it contradicts God’s law. All your talk about stimulant vs. intoxicant still does nothing for me because alcohol is a intoxicant and it is allowed in moderation so should marijuana, IF IT WERE LEGAL. But it isn’t legal so by the Church’s teaching we must obey civil law unless it contradicts God’s Law, obviously marijuana being illegal dos not contradict God’s law so i must obey it. And i agree with this reasoning now that it was explained to me like i described in my last post. And finally, there is nothing wrong with me questioning the Church or the Catechism to find things out for myself.