polskieserce Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Law is not a litmus test of morality, but it is to be respected. God's laws, then secular law, then whatever you want. The question then would be, why would you be brewing your own? http://www.catholic.org/news/hf/faith/story.php?id=45255 I found this to be an interesting article. http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/when-is-it-okay-to-disobey Some related thoughts from the catechism: 1899 The authority required by the moral order derives from God: "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment."17 1900 The duty of obedience requires all to give due honor to authority and to treat those who are charged to exercise it with respect, and, insofar as it is deserved, with gratitude and good-will. Pope St. Clement of Rome provides the Church's most ancient prayer for political authorities:18 "Grant to them, Lord, health, peace, concord, and stability, so that they may exercise without offense the sovereignty that you have given them. Master, heavenly King of the ages, you give glory, honor, and power over the things of earth to the sons of men. Direct, Lord, their counsel, following what is pleasing and acceptable in your sight, so that by exercising with devotion and in peace and gentleness the power that you have given to them, they may find favor with you."19 2242 The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."48 "We must obey God rather than men":49 When citizens are under the oppression of a public authority which oversteps its competence, they should still not refuse to give or to do what is objectively demanded of them by the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority within the limits of the natural law and the Law of the Gospel.50 I don't care what the church says in respect to secular laws. If a law is ridiculous people are not going to follow it. That is common sense/utilitarianism 101 right there. Like I said before, if I was alive during the time of alcohol prohibition in the US, I would be brewing my own hard liquor and drinking that because alcohol consumption is a part of my life. Is it taken to the level of alcoholism? No. But it is a part of my life that I do not intend to forfeit because of some ridiculous law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I don't care what the church says in respect to secular laws. If a law is ridiculous people are not going to follow it. That is common sense/utilitarianism 101 right there. Like I said before, if I was alive during the time of alcohol prohibition in the US, I would be brewing my own hard liquor and drinking that because alcohol consumption is a part of my life. Is it taken to the level of alcoholism? No. But it is a part of my life that I do not intend to forfeit because of some ridiculous law. Since we were discussing morality of individual actions, not pragmatic governance, whether or not most people will follow it is not the question. I am sorry, however, that the Church's position bears so little consequence in your life. I am certainly not perfect myself, but I do think it can at least be a guide on what aim for in how we live. I hope you will at least at some point try to look into what views it has on the issue and why. If you ever do, one of those articles has a couple scriptures on it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 BUT, speaking in terms of physiological effects, is it, or is it not possible to take a bit of marijuana, say we have found and cultivated a variety that is relatively low in THC, and use a reasonable amount to produce only a small effect? This is my question because as I said, I do not know and I have never found a straight answer to this. Yes, it is possible. However, is it likely? No, since no one in the pot business is going to waste their time cultivating a strain of marijuana that is low in THC. IIs reasonable marijuana use physiologically possible? -> If yes, is it necessarily sinful? Yes, it is possible. No, I do not believe it would be sinful. Yet, Is it probable that pot farmers will spend loads of time cultivating marijuana that is low in THC? No. Is it probable that the recreational pot user would smoke said marijuana or any marijuana for that matter for any reason other than to get high? No. In the 11 years I've used marijuana I've never heard anyone say: "let's smoke this less dank (potent, strong, the shiznit) weed to get not high." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Yes, it is possible. However, is it likely? No, since no one in the pot business is going to waste their time cultivating a strain of marijuana that is low in THC. I 100% Wrong. There is a big market in low THC high CBD actually. I have a strain of that very type that I purchased in Colorado. They specifically use high CBD/Low THC for people suffering from epilepsy or seizures. I got it for anxiety relief and it didnt give me a high at all. See Charlotte's Web. There is an incredible story behind why growers produced this strain for a little girl named Charlotte who was almost rendered completely incapable by the number of seizures she was having on a daily basis. The documentary "Weed" (based around Charlotte's story) is also an incredible watch if anyone can get a hold of it. It really had a strong impact on how I feel about marijuana so Id encourage anyone to give it a watch. Charlotte (born 18 October 2006), the daughter of Matt and Paige Figi, was diagnosed with Dravet syndrome (also known as severe myoclonic epilepsy of infancy or SMEI) when she was two years old. It is a condition where 80% of individuals have a mutation of the SCN1A gene. According to her parents, Charlotte was having 300 grand mal seizures a week,[7] seizures so violent that her parents put a do not resuscitate order in her medical records.[7][15] Before trying medical marijuana, they had already tried "every other option before resorting to this type of prescription ..."[16] They got the cooperation of two physicians licensed in Colorado to prescribe medical marijuana, Margaret Gedde and Alan Shackelford.[17] First they tried a type called R4, which was low in THC and high in CBD, and saw immediate and dramatic improvement.[7] As their supply was running out, they sought the help of the Stanley brothers, "one of the state's largest marijuana growers and dispensary owners".[7] The Figis examined the options available and tried the variety which later would carry the name of their daughter. Her parents and physicians said her seizures were reduced to two to three per month,[7] and that she improved after being put on a regular regimen. The Stanley brothers then changed the name of the strain from "Hippie's Disappointment" to "Charlotte's Web".[9] Rather than smoking the product, Charlotte uses an olive oil solution containing the high CBD marijuana extract that she receives under her tongue[18] or in her food.[7] Her parents said in 2013 that she had about four seizures per month, and is able to engage in normal childhood activities.[7][15] When Charlotte was five years old, her story was featured in the 11 August 2013 CNN documentary "Weed", hosted by Sanjay Gupta.[8] On 25 Nov 2013, Paige Figi was a guest on The Doctors TV show, where Charlotte's story was told.[19] She was also featured in Gupta's 11 March 2014 CNN documentary "Weed 2: Cannabis Madness".[10] An article detailing the role of several children as "uniquely powerful advocates for medicinal pot across the country" described Charlotte as the "first poster child for the issue...."[20] Her story has led to her being described as "the girl who is changing medical marijuana laws across America."[2] Edited July 3, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Remember not everyone smokes dank weed to get high; shock, I know. Dont let it ruin your bias though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Aren't we talking about the use of marijuana for recreational purposes? How does low THC marijuana being used for medicinal or therapeutic reasons bear any weight on recreational marijuana use? From what I'm aware of the Church has zero problem with marijuana, even potent marijuana, being used for medical or therapeutic reasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Credo in Deum Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) Remember not everyone smokes dank weed to get high; shock, I know. Dont let it ruin your bias though. Haha I love how you say this when this strain of low THC was originally titled by the growers as "Hippie's Disappointment", before being changed to "Charlotte's Web". Let me ask you CrossCut, why do you think they originally named it "Hippie's Disappointment?" Could it be because a recreational marijuana user would have been disappointed in the lack of high this low THC strain would have provided them? Edited July 3, 2014 by Credo in Deum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The scope of this topic is not limited to recreational marijuana use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 The scope of this topic is not limited to recreational marijuana use. Perhaps, but I like to keep my thoughts coherent and express what I actually think, which means separating uses and considering legality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polskieserce Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 Since we were discussing morality of individual actions, not pragmatic governance, whether or not most people will follow it is not the question. I am sorry, however, that the Church's position bears so little consequence in your life. I am certainly not perfect myself, but I do think it can at least be a guide on what aim for in how we live. I hope you will at least at some point try to look into what views it has on the issue and why. If you ever do, one of those articles has a couple scriptures on it too. I forgot who made the point, but someone stated earlier that if the Church took a firm anti-alcohol stance, a lot of people would just do away with the Church. If the law of the land was that men had to wear pink boxers, do you think I would be doing that just because the Church tells people to follow secular laws? I am looking into the Church's position on this issue right now, but the vibe I am getting is that the Church position is very cloudy on this one. Yes, it is possible. However, is it likely? No, since no one in the pot business is going to waste their time cultivating a strain of marijuana that is low in THC. I Yes, it is possible. No, I do not believe it would be sinful. Yet, Is it probable that pot farmers will spend loads of time cultivating marijuana that is low in THC? No. Is it probable that the recreational pot user would smoke said marijuana or any marijuana for that matter for any reason other than to get high? No. In the 11 years I've used marijuana I've never heard anyone say: "let's smoke this less dank (potent, strong, the shiznit) weed to get not high." I agree with your post. The same can be said about alcohol. A lot of people have drinks at social occasions to get them into a social mood. However, the Church is not crusading for a ban on alcohol (or if you want to make an exception for wine, a ban on beers and hard liquors) which is not used for medicinal purposes (if there even are any for alcohol). 100% Wrong. There is a big market in low THC high CBD actually. I have a strain of that very type that I purchased in Colorado. They specifically use high CBD/Low THC for people suffering from epilepsy or seizures. I got it for anxiety relief and it didnt give me a high at all. See <a data-ipb="nomediaparse" data-cke-saved-href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte" s_web_(cannabis)"=""> Aren't we talking about the use of marijuana for recreational purposes? How does low THC marijuana being used for medicinal or therapeutic reasons bear any weight on recreational marijuana use? From what I'm aware of the Church has zero problem with marijuana, even potent marijuana, being used for medical or therapeutic reasons. Yep, recreation use is what I'm aiming for here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anastasia13 Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 I forgot who made the point, but someone stated earlier that if the Church took a firm anti-alcohol stance, a lot of people would just do away with the Church. If the law of the land was that men had to wear pink boxers, do you think I would be doing that just because the Church tells people to follow secular laws? I am looking into the Church's position on this issue right now, but the vibe I am getting is that the Church position is very cloudy on this one. That's why I took the time to go over several articles and check the catechism. I would be happy to discuss that further if you would like. That being said, the question is not what you would do but what you should do. I agree with your post. The same can be said about alcohol. A lot of people have drinks at social occasions to get them into a social mood. However, the Church is not crusading for a ban on alcohol (or if you want to make an exception for wine, a ban on beers and hard liquors) which is not used for medicinal purposes (if there even are any for alcohol). The Church is leading a crusade against marijuana? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 Perhaps, but I like to keep my thoughts coherent and express what I actually think, which means separating uses and considering legality. Ok so tell me why its illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 3, 2014 Share Posted July 3, 2014 (edited) I'm going to get a medical card so I don't scandalize anyone by me using it. Not that I tell people but here I am saying it on a Catholic site. I use it for therapeutic reasons and I'm thankful to God for it. For people whose conscious convinces them it's a sin for them I don't argue it isn't. Smoking to get wasted is a sin just like drinking to get wasted is. You will experience a slight or moderate "high" off a single inhale. Although it's just like the small moderate "buzz" (but obviously completely different) that comes from one or two drinks. With all this said I would never try to get anyone to use marijauna. And for anyone that wants to play pharisee and judge me you won't have that option once I have my medical card. Or I guess you still can but it will be meaningless. Edited July 3, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polskieserce Posted July 3, 2014 Author Share Posted July 3, 2014 That's why I took the time to go over several articles and check the catechism. I would be happy to discuss that further if you would like. That being said, the question is not what you would do but what you should do. The Church is leading a crusade against marijuana? The Church is not leading a crusade against marijuana because it is already illegal. They don't have to do anything except for opposing talks of reform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
God the Father Posted July 4, 2014 Share Posted July 4, 2014 (edited) Because sales/consumption of alcohol enriches the global elite, through both corporate profit and heavy taxation, and pacifies aimless young men who could otherwise pose a threat to their order. Marijuana merely accomplishes the latter, for the time being. The establishment is coming around to its potential to achieve the former. Edited July 4, 2014 by God the Father Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now