Smoking Weed

[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...

[goldenchild17]

Adding to the discussion. From the "catnip" thread :

[quote]CCC 2291 The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law.[/quote]

Worthy of consideration, though I think it is too broad and too basic. I don't know if there is a fuller explanation of this passage (I looked in the Compendium but it wasn't much more helpful. I can't say, at this point, that I agree with the statement that "drugs" (if it refers to all drugs) inflict grave damage on the body. And I can't say at this point, that I agree that their use (outside of therapeutic) is a "grave" i.e. potentially mortal offense, unless one was going beyond the occasional use and in small amounts.

There certainly are drugs that are clearly damaging to the body with little to no good benefits (i.e. Meth). But I can't necessarily agree that the same is true of ALL drugs, especially used in small amounts on an occasional basis. Yes, the production and trafficking of drugs is a very sinful practice the way it is now. However (and maybe I'm being too optimistic) but I see legalization as a very reasonable solution to a good deal of this problem.

All in all, I think this section throws around the world "grave" a little too lightly, and doesn't take all considerations into the equation.

[Jesus_lol]

i find it a bit weird when people say "but alcohol is better than drugs..." because alcohol IS a drug. most people dont realize that, they just think of it as a drink that makes them feel good etc, but alcohol is a drug and has many comparable effects to other drugs. as long as alcohol is legal, i see no reason to restrict other drugs that are less potent and dangerous.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='musturde' date='15 June 2010 - 03:34 PM' timestamp='1276630499' post='2129388']
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). [b]I apologize if I broke any rules by debating with a thread in the scholar board[/b] 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?
[/quote]
Dude, you didn't break any rules at all. I think the issue is highly debatable and I personally don't know what to make of "grave sin" and "weed is a hard drug" type of statements. It is a fascinating question and I'm glad that you started this thread so that it can be discussed at length.

[KnightofChrist]

Drinking alcohol is not a sin so long as you don't get drunk. So in like manner it would seem that perhaps smoking weed is ok so long as you don't get high. But then what would be the point?

[Laudate_Dominum]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFDRUGS.HTM"]SHOULD 'SOFT' DRUGS BE LEGALIZED?, Pontifical Council for the Family[/url]



"It is true that there is a distinct difference between the use of drugs and the use of alcohol: while a moderate use of the latter as a drink does not offend moral principles, only its abuse can be condemned; instead, the use of drugs is always unlawful because it implies an unjustified and unreasonable renunciation of thinking, desiring and acting as a free person." - Pope John Paul II, [i]Dolentium Hominum[/i], 19, VII, 1992, n. 1

[Hilde]

I hear this issue being discussed more by americans than over here. It's illegal here and there haven't been a lot of discussion about it here that I've heard.

Alcohol is a legal drug, and I don't know much about the difference. What about pot being a so-called gateway drug? Is it a good thing to keep it illegal to prevent the hard drug business flourishing and people getting their lives ruined? And to be a little cynical, leech off of health care and welfare because of their dumb decisions.

And can't the alcohol argument be used in the opposite effect. Bringing up alcohol as a drug might make people think it should be illegal. I dunno.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='15 June 2010 - 07:01 PM' timestamp='1276650093' post='2129571']
[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCFDRUGS.HTM"]SHOULD 'SOFT' DRUGS BE LEGALIZED?, Pontifical Council for the Family[/url]



"It is true that there is a distinct difference between the use of drugs and the use of alcohol: while a moderate use of the latter as a drink does not offend moral principles, only its abuse can be condemned; instead, the use of drugs is always unlawful because it implies an unjustified and unreasonable renunciation of thinking, desiring and acting as a free person." - Pope John Paul II, [i]Dolentium Hominum[/i], 19, VII, 1992, n. 1
[/quote]

thanks for posting. I did read that article... Aside from the fact that I thought it also was completely over-generalizing once again, I'll just say that I really disagree with a lot in there, and if there is anything infallible in any of this, then I'll accept it, but I definitely don't get it.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Hilde' date='15 June 2010 - 07:09 PM' timestamp='1276650565' post='2129576']And can't the alcohol argument be used in the opposite effect. Bringing up alcohol as a drug might make people think it should be illegal. I dunno.
[/quote]

I think the difference (in people's mind) is that alcohol is not a sin as long as you don't lose faculties of the mind, but that with drugs it is not a sin unless you do the same. Their argument is that you can enjoy a beer without completely losing control of your mind, but that you cannot do so with drugs, because allegedly you can't gain any of its benefits without being stoned out of your mind. I don't agree that this is true.

But for now I'll just post some more from Jone speaking on the effects of alcohol and its morality, since He said that what pertains to alcohol is relevant to narcotics as well:

[quote]"b) Intemperance in drinking which has as its immediate effect the loss of the use of reason is a graver sin than immoderation in eating.

a) Intoxication that results in a partial loss of reason is only a venial sin.

It may be a mortal sin because of scandal, injury to health, harm to one's family, etc.

B) Intoxication that ends in complete loss of reason is a mortal sin if brought on without a sufficient reason.

Complete loss of reason is presumed in him who can no longer distinguish good from bad, or if, after the drunkenness has passed, he cannot remember what he said or did while under the influence of drink, or if one does a thing which he never would have done when sober.

A sufficient reason to deprive oneself temporarily of his use of reason would be to cure a disease or to counteract blood poisoning and the like. Merely to drive away the blues is not adequate reason."[/quote]

[Marie-Therese]

Most people don't realize that in every single state there is currently a marijuana product available that is 100 percent legal. It is a prescription medication called Marinol, and it is used as an appetite stimulant and anti-emetic (anti-nausea) medication. It is the exact same thing as the active ingredient in marijuana, which is THC, only it is a synthetic version that is regulated by the government. As an oncology nurse I routinely had patients on this medication. Guess what it does? It relieves pain, decreases the symptoms of nausea, and gives people the munchies.

I find it quite interesting that marijuana is decried as a horrible, evil drug when it is used in its regular form, but as long as the government produces a synthetic version of the exact same drug, then it is fine and dandy. To me this is terribly hypocritical.

My position, from the standpoint of a healthcare professional, is that marijuana should be legal in every state at least for the purposes of medicinal use. From a personal standpoint I think that marijuana should be made legal, then taxed and regulated in the same fashion as alcohol and cigarettes. I don't think that the legalization of marijuana would necessarily increase use...I think that if you are going to smoke pot, then you probably will, legal or otherwise. If you have no interest in it, then I don't think people will suddenly develop a rabid desire for it just because it is legal.

I see that marijuana, while being a wonderful drug with numerous medicinal applications, could be a very beneficial crop for the United States. I see benefits on several levels. One, it increases farming by allowing it to be grown in monitored farms. Second, it produces hemp as a byproduct, which is a durable and sustainable natural product that can be used in rope, clothing, shoes, and other consumer products, none of which would be smokable or in any way intoxicating. Third, as a regulated drug, it would produce sales tax and other related tax revenues for local and federal governments. It increases the opportunity for small business growth and increased employment. It also has the added plus of ending a segment of the illegal drug trade, which reduces federal spending on the drug war, prevents crimes related to the drug trade like smuggling, extortion, kidnapping and murder, and decreases the costs of incarcerating people for offenses related to possession.

Of course, these are only my opinions.

[goldenchild17]

+1 for your opinions I definitely agree. And I forgot about Marinol which is a good example of what can be done with it (although I have heard that Marinol doesn't have quite all the benefits as regular cannabis, I could be wrong). Also making it into a tea is an option for those who prefer not to inhale smoke, though I don't know how good it would taste.

Edited June 16, 2010 by goldenchild17