Why Are Alcohol And Cannabis Treated Differently?

[CrossCuT]

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.

 

Ah yes, I finally reread your post and I realize my response was inappropriate. I see what you are saying now!

 

Perhaps, but I like to keep my thoughts coherent and express what I actually think, which means separating uses and considering legality.

 

People who are against marijuana generally cite behaviors associated with it for the basis of their arguments. They comment on how marijuana makes you feel, makes you act, and makes you do which are all very anecdotal reasons since its difficult to weed through so much information that has been convoluted through the years by stereotypes and misinformation. 

 

I am confident that for every marijuana user you find that fulfills your doped, do-nothing stereotypes, I can find twice as many people who youd never even know smoked.  :disguise:

 

 

As of right now, the data is showing us a lot of positive things about marijuana as well as some negatives with schizophrenia. A test that I would like to see would have 4 key aspects to look at. I want to see the morphology of the brain of individuals:

 

• who neither smoke nor been diagnosed with mental illness
• Who have been diagnosed with mental illness but have not smoked
• Who have smoked but have not been diagnosed with mental illness
• and those who have smoked AND been diagnosed with mental illness

 

I think this would help to differentiate if mental illnesses are the cause of the correlation of morphology differences or if weed indeed has something to do with it. Youd probably have to refine it further and indicate specific mental illnesses and what not, but you get the general idea.

 

I think that results of that test would be really interesting. But again, morphology can only find a correlation (which is very helpful for pointing us in a direction) but is mostly useless if it is not offered with a mechanism of action. 

Edited July 8, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Nihil Obstat]

Also, while probably ethically unfeasible, it would be interesting to have one group with and one without mental illnesses, who have been long term users of what they thought was marijuana but was actually just a placebo. :hehe:

[Anastasia13]

Fine, whatever, Crosscut. Smoke your heart out. Talk to me in 10 years. I'm not sure there is any point in posting more here. I'm not sure you really get where I am coming from either.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Light and Truth

[Anastasia13]

Also, while probably ethically unfeasible, it would be interesting to have one group with and one without mental illnesses, who have been long term users of what they thought was marijuana but was actually just a placebo. :hehe:

How is that any different from what pharmaceutical companies do during some part drug testing?

[Nihil Obstat]

How is that any different from what pharmaceutical companies do during some part drug testing?

I think it would be considered unethical to give someone a substance and specifically tell them it is something else. I believe that in clinical trials they are informed ahead of time that they may or may not receive a placebo, rather than being told "you are receiving drug X" while actually giving them a placebo.
The whole thing gets tricky enough ethically already with regards to the therapeutic misconception.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Nihil Obstat

[CrossCuT]

Also, while probably ethically unfeasible, it would be interesting to have one group with and one without mental illnesses, who have been long term users of what they thought was marijuana but was actually just a placebo. :hehe:

 

Hmm that would indeed be interesting however I feel like the long term users would know that they werent being given actual marijuana. 

 

Fine, whatever, Crosscut. Smoke your heart out. Talk to me in 10 years. I'm not sure there is any point in posting more here. I'm not sure you really get where I am coming from either.

 

Hey now, Im not going around telling people marijuana is the bees knees and everyone should smoke it 24/7. Im just saying "Hey, your really ignorant stereotypes are stupid and heres why..." Not only that, but Im offering you some really cool beans studies; the good and the bad!

 

But I do realize that people fear what they dont understand and its totes ok to tell people NOT to smoke it because we dont fully understand that. I support that. I do NOT support that rest of the ish people spew though. The ish where you run around telling people how big of failures they are and buying into the "do-nothing" stereotypes. Did I mention I cant stand it? Like...its super annoying. 

 

And for the record, I rarely, rarely, rarely every smoke marijuana. I can count on one hand how many times I have smoked it in my life so dont puff out your chest thinking youre somehow more informed than I am because you dont smoke it. 

 

Another reason I am passionate about this topic is reference to the miserably failed drug wars. Marijuana should not  be held at the same level as "real" drugs. Its cray.

 

 

So go ahead L&T go ahead and thrust your head under a rock. Talk to me in 10 years.

 

And as far as your coming from, have you explained where that location might be? At this point in the conversation all you seem to be clinging to is "om.g guys go get high and stupid while I sit here and think coherently cause weed is BAAAAAAAD!!!"

Edited July 9, 2014 by CrossCuT

[Guest]

[attachment=3286:IMG_12536260732306.jpeg]

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Hmm that would indeed be interesting however I feel like the long term users would know that they werent being given actual marijuana.


Hey now, Im not going around telling people marijuana is the bees knees and everyone should smoke it 24/7. Im just saying "Hey, your really ignorant stereotypes are stupid and heres why..." Not only that, but Im offering you some really cool beans studies; the good and the bad!

But I do realize that people fear what they dont understand and its totes ok to tell people NOT to smoke it because we dont fully understand that. I support that. I do NOT support that rest of the ish people spew though. The ish where you run around telling people how big of failures they are and buying into the "do-nothing" stereotypes. Did I mention I cant stand it? Like...its super annoying.

And for the record, I rarely, rarely, rarely every smoke marijuana. I can count on one hand how many times I have smoked it in my life so dont puff out your chest thinking youre somehow more informed than I am because you dont smoke it.

Another reason I am passionate about this topic is reference to the miserably failed drug wars. Marijuana should not be held at the same level as "real" drugs. Its cray.


So go ahead L&T go ahead and thrust your head under a rock. Talk to me in 10 years.

And as far as your coming from, have you explained where that location might be? At this point in the conversation all you seem to be clinging to is "om.g guys go get high and stupid while I sit here and think coherently cause weed is BAAAAAAAD!!!"

Plus, the original reason it was outlawed was due to misconceptions about its effects on white women. There are many prescription drugs that are potentially way more dangerous than weed.


Now, let's imagine all drugs are legal. Is it moral to take a drug like weed without a prescription? What makes it moral or immoral to do so? What makes a drug different than caffeine? Edited July 10, 2014 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Credo in Deum]

 

Now, let's imagine all drugs are legal. Is it moral to take a drug like weed without a prescription? What makes it moral or immoral to do so? What makes a drug different than caffeine?

 

What makes it moral or immoral? Things which would cause something to be immoral would be the user’s intent, the amount they used, what is their conduct like when they're using, and has their actions caused scandal?

 

Most priests will tell you to stay away from recreational marijuana use because the potency of marijuana typically presents an occasional of sin. Usually because, more often than not, users will not take the steps needed to moderate their marijuana use as not to lead them into a state of being which is sinful.  Plus such steps are extremely difficult if not impossible due to the potency of the marijuana.  As established already, those who cultivate marijuana for the hordes of recreational users are not in the business of cultivating marijuana that is low in THC.  The farmers cultivating practices indicate that the majority of recreational user’s desire marijuana with higher THC levels rather than lower THC levels; which in turn indicates the majority of recreational users are looking for marijuana that gets them "high" faster and with less marijuana being used.   With medical purposes aside, no marijuana farmer has ever thought to themselves; "I should cultivate a low level THC strain of marijuana for recreational users!"  Such a farmer would be out of business really fast if they did not supply such low level marijuana for medical and therapeutic reasons.

 

Now let’s move on to scandal.  Yes, while it may not be fair to pigeonhole all pot users as walking, talking, and puffing Jeff Spicoli's; we need to keep in mind that it is nevertheless the image that comes into most peoples mind when thinking about recreational marijuana users.  That and hippies.  With that said, Catholics who use marijuana as a recreational drug could give scandal to others who will interpret their use as the Church being okay to the hippie and Spicoli way of life, which they're not.   To continue to use marijuana even despite that fact that it could scandalize others shows a huge lack of charity towards ones neighbor.  Furthermore saying that your use is a stance against such popular stereo-types would still not make your using justified especially since such stereo-types are not only honored but celebrated among the majority of marijuana users.

 

Lastly we as Christians and especially as Catholic Christians are called to a higher - no pun intended- way of life than just avoiding things which are inherently evil.  We are called to love God so much that we are willing to give up legitimate pleasures in order to grow in love while we await the 2nd coming of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.  We are called to be saints and no saint became one without the pillars of mortification and love of the Cross as their foundations.  So....   take heed to yourselves, lest perhaps your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness, and the cares of this life, and that day come upon you suddenly. For as a snare shall it come upon all that sit upon the face of the whole earth. Watch ye, therefore, praying at all times, that you may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that are to come, and to stand before the Son of man." ---Luke 21:34-36  

[Guest]

Although Catholics getting s### faced drunk doesn't cause scandal ? lol I agree with alot of your post but it doesn't quite do it for me. Mainly because how much worse alcohol is and how much more harm,destruction,and death it causes. For non catholics and catholics alike.

[Guest]

And I don't think a hippie lifestyle is bad. Yea it is if it includes not working and having sex with everyone. But if a hippie lifestyle is someone who uses marijauna,loves music, has a long beard,and isn't consumed with making a ton of money that isn't bad.

Edited July 10, 2014 by Guest

[Credo in Deum]

Although Catholics getting s### faced drunk doesn't cause scandal ? lol I agree with alot of your post but it doesn't quite do it for me. Mainly because how much worse alcohol is and how much more harm,destruction,and death it causes. For non catholics and catholics alike.

 

Catholic's getting shatfaced drunk do cause scandal, Josh.  Catholics having a glass of alcohol do not cause a scandal, since the image of drunkards is not the image most people have in their minds when thinking about recreational alcohol users.  Plus drunkards are usually looked at in a negative light by the majority of alcohol users as well.  Something you do not find with marijuana users.   

 

While I do not disagree that alcohol abuse has caused more harm than marijuana abuse, it does not change anything.  Something is not sinful just because its abuse causes less damage or less immediate damage than the abuse of another substance.   

[Credo in Deum]

And I don't think a hippie lifestyle is bad. Yea it is if it includes not working and having sex with everyone. But if a hippie lifestyle is someone who uses marijauna,loves music, has a long beard,and isn't consumed with making a ton of money that isn't bad.

 

The part in bold is the part which is so identified with the hippie lifestyle that to think otherwise would be to kid ones self, especially since the hippie movement is responsible for ushering in the sexual "revolution" which stressed "free love" and "what feels good is good" ideals.  When you think of hippies you think of Woodstock, and when you think of Woodstock you think of a bunch of people higher than kites, fornicating with each-other while they spend their time listening to music which celebrates that very way of living and those ideals. 

 

The people that wear long beards, love music, and make a ton of money through big business are called sell outs by self-proclaimed hippies. In short the hippie movement rejects them and revokes their hippie status. 

Edited July 10, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[Credo in Deum]

Catholic's getting shatfaced drunk do cause scandal, Josh.  Catholics having a glass of alcohol do not cause a scandal, since the image of drunkards is not the image most people have in their minds when thinking about recreational alcohol users.  Plus drunkards are usually looked at in a negative light by the majority of alcohol users as well.  Something you do not find with marijuana users.   

 

While I do not disagree that alcohol abuse has caused more harm than marijuana abuse, it does not change anything.  Something is not sinful just because its abuse causes less damage or less immediate damage than the abuse of another substance.   

 

That should read: Something is not, not sinful just because its abuse causes less damage or less immediate damage than the abuse of another substance. 

[polskieserce]

Credo in deum, so you are saing it's a sin because society has negative stereotypes of cannabis use?  That's a really dumb reason to decide whether to do or not do something.  On several occassions, I let the grass grow higher in the yard (12-16 inches) and I took my time in cutting it.  Do some of my neighbors think I'm a lazy bum?  Probably.  Do I care?  Nope, not at all.

 

Also, your last point about loving god more than earthly pleasures still doesn't answer the question.  Why aren't other pleasures also a sin?  Why isn't it a sin to drink alcohol?  If we are talking about Bacardi 151 or everclear, it is very easy to get hammered with that stuff.

Edited July 10, 2014 by polskieserce