Smoking Weed

[musturde]

I saw the scholarly thread on this and had to put this up for debate. I had an INTS class where we had to debate legalization of marijuana and there are a lot of ups including the end of drug trafficking (and drug mules). Also, most medical professionals will say marijuana in moderation is less harmful than alcohol. There's even a group of Police who are fighting for the legalization of this drug because the pros of legalization outweigh the cons (http://www.leap.cc/cms/index.php). I apologize if I broke any rules by debating with a thread in the scholar board but I believe being quiet on this issue would do no good, especially if the person curious was concerned on the moral gravity of this issue. Anybody agree? Disagree?

Edited June 15, 2010 by musturde

[Nihil Obstat]

In my opinion, I've never heard a strong argument against marijuana use that could not also be applied to alcohol, and on the flip side it seems that most if not all arguments for alcohol can be applied to marijuana. I would like to be wrong about this, and would welcome being corrected, but so far it's not working for me.

[MithLuin]

Legality and morality are separate issues, of course.

It is legal for an adult to drink alcohol, and illegal for most people to smoke marijuana.

But the use of alcohol is not always (or even generally) free from sin. Drinking to the point of drunkenness is explicitly condemned in the Bible, and gluttony of any sort is one of the seven deadly sins. For anyone who knows an alcoholic, it's pretty obvious that the addiction is extremely damaging to the family.

Marijuana is not good for you, which isn't terribly surprising, but from a moral standpoint, you'd have to look at when it is wrong to harm your body and at what point it becomes sinful. Meaning, most of us could probably do a better job of taking care of ourselves, but we don't generally consider minor neglect sinful. Personally, I don't get why anyone would want to take drugs (I don't even like taking medicine when I'm sick), so it really is not something that crosses my radar (using marijuana, I mean). I'm pretty sure that frequent use of it would be a vice (like many others), but it's not something I've given a lot of thought to.

[musturde]

[quote name='MithLuin' date='15 June 2010 - 03:47 PM' timestamp='1276631227' post='2129399']
Legality and morality are separate issues, of course.

It is legal for an adult to drink alcohol, and illegal for most people to smoke marijuana.

But the use of alcohol is not always (or even generally) free from sin. Drinking to the point of drunkenness is explicitly condemned in the Bible, and gluttony of any sort is one of the seven deadly sins. For anyone who knows an alcoholic, it's pretty obvious that the addiction is extremely damaging to the family.
[/quote]
That's true but I think getting drunk is not completely condemned. Jesus got people drunk in Lebanon. I mean, after the first batch of wine, people would already be tipsy.
EDIT: to clarify, I think the bible more specifically condemns getting drunk to the degree of being much more likely to act sinfully.

Edited June 15, 2010 by musturde

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 June 2010 - 03:37 PM' timestamp='1276630659' post='2129391']
In my opinion, I've never heard a strong argument against marijuana use that could not also be applied to alcohol, and on the flip side it seems that most if not all arguments for alcohol can be applied to marijuana. I would like to be wrong about this, and would welcome being corrected, but so far it's not working for me.
[/quote]


[img]http://www.cocaine.org/cokepope.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.reload.ws/blog/CocaPope.jpg[/img]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Mariani)

See also: http://wings.buffalo.edu/aru/preprohibition.htm

I am of the opinion that most illegal narcotics, if legalized and therefore subject to FDA regulations (testing, purity standards, dosage regulations, etc.), would exist in a form such that they could be abused by those who wished to abuse them (just as is the case with alcohol and over-the-counter medicines) and temperately enjoyed by those who wished to enjoy them. There was a thread awhile back in which it was argued that some drugs are simply to lethal and addictive to be released in any form, but I'm not convinced of that; [b]I am no scientist - [i]and I am not claiming certitude of any sort[/i] - [/b]but it seems to me that if something like morphine can be regulated and prescribed in dosages that won't hurt someone then the same could be done for any drug. The drug would be pure and regulated (unlike now) and the person who wanted it would know what the "safe" dosage was, even if he intended on ignoring the knowledge. I believe many lives would be saved, a great deal of tax money would be made, a great deal of harmless inmates would be freed (and in the process, a lot of tax money would be saved), and the majority of organized crime would be destroyed.

I don't have time to look it up but a few months ago, a country plagued by drug problems decided to legalize everything. Maybe one of you remembers or can track down the article. Anyway, the results very unbelievably positive (and therefore very controversial).

Edited June 15, 2010 by Ziggamafu

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't personally buy the argument that marijuana use is excessive at all levels of consumption. Common sense doesn't seem to bear that out. I can see that argument being more compelling for something like crystal meth or acid.

[goldenchild17]

I certainly disagree that smoking marijuana (and other natural narcotics) is a mortal sin, unless one was doing so with explicit intent to harm one's body. I do believe that purely (occasional, in small quantities) recreational drug use is a venial sin (not mortal, but a sin nonetheless). However I believe that any reasonable medicinal intention makes the use morally acceptable and not a sin in any regard, and I think the reasons can be quite insignificant. I believe that much that applies to alcohol also applies to natural narcotics.

Admittedly my reasons are based on only a small line of a moral theology text, but I don't think they necessarily contradict the text that was linked to in the Q&A thread, though I haven't read the whole thing yet. However I submit that I don't know as much as I should.

Fr. Heribert Jone "Moral Theology" Section 110 -

[quote]"110 c) Since morphine, opium, chloroform and similar drugs can also deprive one of the use of his reason temporarily, that which was said of intoxicating drinks holds also for narcotics (Cf. 165, 4).

a) To use narcotics in small quantities and only occasionally, is a venial sin if done without a sufficient reason. Any proportionately good reason justifies their use, e.g., to calm the nerves, dispel insomnia, etc.

Such use becomes gravely sinful if it creates an habitual craving for "dope" which is more difficult to overcome than dipsomania and more injurious to health.

B) To use drugs in greater quantities so as to lose the use of one's reason is in itself a mortal sin: but for a good reason it is permissible.

Such a good reason is had in case of operations, i.e., that the patient be rendered insensible to intense pain, or that one may remain calm under the knife. In like manner one may administer opiates to one who is suffering greatly in order to alleviate his pain."[/quote]

Edited June 15, 2010 by goldenchild17

[Hassan]

I think pot is overrated

[Ziggamafu]

Regardless of the morality of legal drug use, it is certainly immoral to use drugs that are currently illegal. Not only is the product itself not particularly trustworthy, and not only is the user risking the life-altering repercussions of getting caught, but illegal buying and selling contributes to a grossly - even horrifically - unjust criminal empire that is in turn connected to even more debase forms of crime.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='15 June 2010 - 03:13 PM' timestamp='1276632792' post='2129420']
I certainly disagree that smoking marijuana (and other natural narcotics) is a mortal sin, unless one was doing so with explicit intent to harm one's body. I do believe that purely (occasional, in small quantities) recreational drug use is a venial sin (not mortal, but a sin nonetheless). However I believe that any reasonable medicinal intention makes the use morally acceptable and not a sin in any regard, and I think the reasons can be quite insignificant. I believe that much that applies to alcohol also applies to natural narcotics.

Admittedly my reasons are based on only a small line of a moral theology text, but I don't think they necessarily contradict the text that was linked to in the Q&A thread, though I haven't read the whole thing yet. However I submit that I don't know as much as I should.

Fr. Heribert Jone "Moral Theology" Section 110 -
[/quote]
That sounds like the position I'm starting to lean towards.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='15 June 2010 - 04:18 PM' timestamp='1276633090' post='2129424']
Regardless of the morality of legal drug use, it is certainly immoral to use drugs that are currently illegal. Not only is the product itself not particularly trustworthy, and not only is the user risking the life-altering repercussions of getting caught, but illegal buying and selling contributes to a grossly - even horrifically - unjust criminal empire that is in turn connected to even more debase forms of crime.
[/quote]
...but what if a person grows their own weed, and doesn't sell it, but keeps it for themselves and a few close friends? Is it still immoral and wrong to use? As far as it being "illegal..." our government makes a lot of awful things legal, (ie. abortion)...so I don't understand how smoking weed is immoral, just 'cos the government says it's "against the law..."

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 June 2010 - 03:27 PM' timestamp='1276633664' post='2129436']
...but what if a person grows their own weed, and doesn't sell it, but keeps it for themselves and a few close friends? Is it still immoral and wrong to use? As far as it being "illegal..." our government makes a lot of awful things legal, (ie. abortion)...so I don't understand how smoking weed is immoral, just 'cos the government says it's "against the law..."
[/quote]
I agree that the legality argument is extremely weak. That argument for me only has weight from a utilitarian perspective....... i.e. "Don't do drugs because you'll wind up with a criminal record which means significantly stunted career prospects."

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 June 2010 - 02:32 PM' timestamp='1276633929' post='2129439']
I agree that the legality argument is extremely weak. That argument for me only has weight from a utilitarian perspective....... i.e. "Don't do drugs because you'll wind up with a criminal record which means significantly stunted career prospects."
[/quote]

I don't believe it should be illegal and I think people who agree should do something to work towards making it legal. However, I think the Church tells us that we should submit to any laws set down for us that are not immoral (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Whether we agree with the prohibition or not, I don't see it as an immoral law, so I don't think we have any grounds for disobeying it. However, yes I agree that the arguments against its legality are very weak.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='15 June 2010 - 03:38 PM' timestamp='1276634297' post='2129448']
I don't believe it should be illegal and I think people who agree should do something to work towards making it legal. However, I think the Church tells us that we should submit to any laws set down for us that are not immoral (someone correct me if I'm wrong.) Whether we agree with the prohibition or not, I don't see it as an immoral law, so I don't think we have any grounds for disobeying it. However, yes I agree that the arguments against its legality are very weak.
[/quote]
I guess that depends on what your view is of the place of government in society. If you lean more towards Sternhauser's ideas, then you'd definitely see it as an immoral law. Or some people might be inclined to see it as neutral (therefore to be followed while it is law) rather than strictly negative.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Speaking from the point of view of someone who knows nothing about what the Magisterium says about this subject (other than what has been posted earlier), my common sense would say "It depends."

In some states marijuana use is not illegal if used for medical reasons. Apparently, marijuana can be very helpful for those who have glaucoma or for those with very bad nausea, to name two examples.

I spent my college years in an atmosphere where marijuana use was generally accepted--and more common than either smoking tobacco or drinking alcohol. And, as I've posted before, I'd rather be around someone who is stoned, than someone who is drunk, because generally the worst thing about a stoned person is that they are usually extremely boring, while drunk people often throw up and/or get violent, two things I try to avoid, if possible.

Of course, it goes without saying that a person who uses marijuana (just like someone who is drinking alcohol) should not get behind the wheel of a car.

I'm pretty sure that studies HAVE shown that excessive use of marijuana in relatively high does on an daily basis, will, over time, have negative effects on the brain. (But, the same could be said for alcohol.) I personally know of at least two people (one a close relative) who did this and lost 20-30 IQ points and much of their ambition. But, both of them smoked marijuana daily for at least 10-20 years, and not simply a puff or two. And, both were highly intelligent to begin with, so even after losing 20-30 IQ points, they still much smarter (at least in terms of IQ) than the typical person.

The people I knew in college who smoked marijuana "socially," that is, mostly on weekends with friends, and in fairly low doses, have, in the long term, shown no ill effects from it that I have seen. I don't have any scientific data on this, but, based only on my experience, marijuana appears to be far less addictive than nicotine.

So, all that said, if it weren't for the fact that marijuana is illegal in most states, I'd say it was no worse than drinking, and much less worse than smoking tobacco. (Sorry, but I'm a rabid nonsmoker who would ban tobacco entirely if I had my way. But, since it's legal, I try to put up with it in the most polite way possible.)

In the case of either marijuana or alcohol, a person who got behind the wheel of a car, particularly one with other passengers, would be engaging in highly irresponsible behavior, and I suspect would be considered to be committing the sin of purposefully putting the lives of others (and themselves) in danger. Not to mention that to do so is illegal.

For myself, I didn't smoke marijuana (or cigarettes) in college, because I couldn't (and still can't) stand the thought of putting smoke in my lungs. And, it appears that my body doesn't have the enzyme that converts alcohol to sugar, so even a small dose of alcohol makes me sick. As a result, I've never even been tempted to drink and have never developed a taste for alcohol. But, I don't care if others drink (as long as they don't throw up on me), and I'm a convenient friend to have, because it means there is always a designated driver who doesn't feel deprived by not drinking.

So, let's face it. I'm a saint. [img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/public/style_emoticons/default/saint.gif[/img] Yeah, right.

[Lil Red]

at least here in my state, it's been very sketchy those who have gotten the 'medical marijuana' cards.

[MithLuin]

[quote name='musturde' date='15 June 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1276631582' post='2129402']
That's true but I think getting drunk is not completely condemned. Jesus got people drunk in Lebanon. I mean, after the first batch of wine, people would already be tipsy.
EDIT: to clarify, I think the bible more specifically condemns getting drunk to the degree of being much more likely to act sinfully.
[/quote]

I did not say that it was completely condemned, but explicitly condemned. Meaning, at one point, the Bible comes right out and says, "Do not get drunk."

[quote]And do not get drunk with wine, for that is dissipation, but be filled with the Spirit. [i]Ephesians 5:18[/i][/quote]

It's implicit in other passages, such as the story of Lot's daughters (Genesis 19:30-36). Basically, they get their father so drunk that he doesn't even know he is sleeping with them. Twice. They do this so they can get pregnant, since Lot's sons-in-law were left behind in Sodom.

I agree with you that the problem with drunkenness is that a drunk person will do immoral things much more readily and just in general acts irresponsibly. Drunkenness certainly does not help one to live a life in Christ or contribute to the cultivation of virtue.

The number of guests at the wedding feast at Cana is unknown. I think guesses could be made at the duration of the celebration (several days to a week?) So, while one could certainly [i]suggest[/i] that Jesus got everyone drunk by providing more wine, the Bible certainly doesn't say that. It does speak to how bountifully God provides for his people, which does not seem to me to be an excuse for intemperance. Certainly, it is good to celebrate a wedding, and drinking wine, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

But it's not as though Jesus were saying, by his actions, that everyone should go and get drunk on wine.

[CatherineM]

Some things aren't sinful, but are just stupid.

[Nihil Obstat]

Here's one perspective from the hard-right libertarian side of things.


Marijuana Is Safer: So Why Are We Driving People To Drink?

by Mark Thornton



The authors of this book work on the frontlines in the battle against marijuana prohibition. Steve Fox (Marijuana Policy Project), LRC columnist Paul Armentano (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), and Mason Tvert (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation) make the case for marijuana legalization based on the relative safety of marijuana compared to alcohol.

In the forward to the book, the former Chief of the Seattle Police Department makes the important observation that police officers experience criminals and victims of alcohol-related crime and violence on a daily basis, while such marijuana-related violence is almost unheard of.

The "marijuana is safer" message of the book is based on the fact that marijuana consumption is safer and healthier to consume compared to alcohol. It also results in far less violence and crime than alcohol and produces fewer costs on society. They make their case by presenting results from government studies and other scientific research.

In this light, our draconian marijuana laws reduce marijuana and increase alcohol consumption, as basic economics would suggest. Therefore, if we reformed our marijuana laws, consumption patterns would move away from alcohol and we would be safer, healthier, and better off in many respects.


The book does explain all the other reasons why we should legalize marijuana, but they believe their "marijuana is safer" argument will be the most effective political argument. Their strategy is presented in the final section of the book.

As an important prelude to their analysis, the authors show that the demand for intoxicating substances is widespread around the globe. Alcohol and marijuana have been the dominant products dating back to the beginning of human society, about 10,000 years ago. They also point out the various industrial and medical uses of marijuana and that our founding fathers grew and used it for a wide variety of purposes.

A basic introduction to marijuana is provided which is especially important for non-consumers interested in policy reform. What is marijuana? How does it get people "high"? What are its effects? How is it consumed? Why do people smoke it?


The core of their analysis is a comparison of the health effects of marijuana and alcohol. While the consumption of one or two drinks per day has long been associated with better health (even compared to non-drinkers), heavy long-term drinking is clearly bad for your health. It is associated with a wide variety of health problems and is the third leading cause of death in the US. Drinking too much alcohol in a short period of time can even cause sudden death.

Based on a large number of government and scientific studies marijuana is safer to consume than alcohol. In fact, there are very few negative health effects from marijuana. In addition, there are health benefits to marijuana, such as treating glaucoma. It has been shown to both treat and prevent certain diseases and can even kill certain types of cancer cells.

In addition, marijuana helps cancer patients maintain their appetites; it reduces pain and stress, and improves sleeping. These attributes help the body to heal, or at least maintain itself. This is the primary basis for the medical marijuana movement, which seeks to use marijuana to reduce the suffering from incurable diseases and to supplement the treatment of other diseases and aliments.


It is worth restating that even if you did not consume marijuana or alcohol, and even if you were perfectly healthy, you could still be safer with the legalization of marijuana in terms of crime and violence. Alcohol consumption tends to induce violence while marijuana consumption tends to suppress it.

So why was marijuana prohibition instituted in 1937? While other factors clearly played a role, the authors focus on propaganda against marijuana. Interestingly, the propagandists falsely attributed the effects of alcohol – particularly violence – to marijuana consumption. Apparently that was enough to convince state and eventually federal lawmakers.

The authors successfully address the myths of marijuana, but I do have one quibble with the case of higher potency marijuana. They argue that the potency of marijuana is only "slightly higher" than the marijuana of twenty or thirty years ago. However, even their evidence suggests a 66% increase. Data from my book The Economics of Prohibition indicates that the increase over the last thirty-five years could be as high as 1000%.


Even so, I would still maintain that highly potent marijuana is safer than alcohol. We know that the increase in potency is due mainly to marijuana prohibition and that marijuana consumers tend to prefer lower potency marijuana, if it was available. They also consume smaller quantities if it is highly potent. So it is not a major problem in a free market.

This aside, I do believe the authors have successfully made the case that reforming marijuana laws would increase the consumption of marijuana at the expense of alcohol consumption. This would reduce the overall health and social costs from recreational drugs. I also believe that they have developed a potentially successful political strategy.

Support for marijuana prohibition is based largely on ignorance and fear. If you can show the electorate the facts and demonstrate the benefits of reform, then prohibition’s days are numbered. The time is ripe for reform given that alcohol prohibition was undone during America’s First Great Depression.

Some LRC readers will no doubt object to the authors’ tax and regulate alternative to prohibition. Here they follow the alcohol "market" as a model of reform. This approach is unnecessary and potentially harmful to the long-term interests of reform. It socializes the costs of alcohol where a truly free market would focus the costs on those who abuse or misuse alcohol. However, I congratulate the authors on producing a fine book and look forward to debating the finer points of reform as we approach the end of marijuana prohibition.

December 1, 2009

Mark Thornton [send him mail] is an economist who lives in Auburn, Alabama. He is author of The Economics of Prohibition, is a senior fellow with the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and is the Book Review Editor for the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics. He is co-author of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation: The Economics of the Civil War and is the editor of The Quotable Mises.

[goldenchild17]

I don't see anything I'd disagree with in that article. Seems like an interesting book. And I am actually quite interested in the Sternhauser political idea, though never pursued it on PM as some here (who shall not be named ) like to condemn people as heretics who ascribe to certain various political ideas. However, at this point, I'm not sure how it applies to the marijuana laws as (I THINK, again I'm going off of memory so correct me if wrong) the Church says that if the law prescribes you to actively do/support something that you morally cannot, then you are not obligated to follow such law. However, this immorality (if there is some, and I think a case could be made that there is) is on the part of the lawmakers and enforcers. However, it doesn't particularly require you to do something you are morally against (unless you believe that you are morally required to smoke pot for spiritual purposes ) Since (as far as I'm aware) no such Catholic teaching exists that requires us to smoke it, I don't think we can actively disobey a law which forbids us to smoke.

I don't know if that made ANY sense whatsoever, sry...