Medical Marijuana Or Weed In General

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace be with you all,

I don't think it's a good argument to propose legalizing cannabis just because we permit smoking and drinking. The latter two are unhealthy pastimes that can be dangerous in excess but are a part of American culture and have been grandfathered past anti-drug legislation. Giving license to more drug abuse wont make our situation better.

Pax et bonum

You make it sound as if tobacco and alcohol are as 'bad' to use as marijuana, but are only legal because of an historical quirk. Is this accurate? Is recreational use of alcohol morally wrong? Edited January 22, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Ark]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,

 

You make it sound as if tobacco and alcohol are as 'bad' to use as marijuana, but are only legal because of an historical quirk. Is this accurate? Is recreational use of alcohol morally wrong?

 

I didn't mean to make a comparison between the three, I just don't agree with the argument that more drugs should be licensed for recreational use simply because society tolerates smoking and alcohol consumption. I think part of the reason why the latter two are permitted is a historical precedence. Fermenting alcohol was Europe's solution for distilling water to make it safe to drink, and that is why early medieval sermons can be found urging peasants to drink beer rather than water from a local source because it was polluted. In many parts of Asia the solution was found in tea making, the act of boiling the water distilled it. In either case an anthropological need was solved, and in Europe it led to an open culture for alcohol consumption. 

 

As for the morality of it, consuming alcohol in moderation is not sinful, but drinking to the point of intoxication is.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Pax et bonum

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,

 

 

I didn't mean to make a comparison between the three, I just don't agree with the argument that more drugs should be licensed for recreational use simply because society tolerates smoking and alcohol consumption. I think part of the reason why the latter two are permitted is a historical precedence. Fermenting alcohol was Europe's solution for distilling water to make it safe to drink, and that is why early medieval sermons can be found urging peasants to drink beer rather than water from a local source because it was polluted. In many parts of Asia the solution was found in tea making, the act of boiling the water distilled it. In either case an anthropological need was solved, and in Europe it led to an open culture for alcohol consumption. 

 

As for the morality of it, consuming alcohol in moderation is not sinful, but drinking to the point of intoxication is.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Pax et bonum

So what actual, meaningful difference between the two substances makes recreational moderate alcohol use not sinful - indeed in general terms often good - but recreational moderate marijuana use is immoral? 

[Amppax]

So what actual, meaningful difference between the two substances makes recreational moderate alcohol use not sinful - indeed in general terms often good - but recreational moderate marijuana use is immoral?

I don't know the answer to this, but I'll take a stab. It's all about the ability to use in moderation. Can you recreationally use marijuana without getting high (assuming getting high is morally equivalent to being drunk)? I don't know the answer to that question, but that would be the relevant question morally.

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't know the answer to this, but I'll take a stab. It's all about the ability to use in moderation. Can you recreationally use marijuana without getting high (assuming getting high is morally equivalent to being drunk)? I don't know the answer to that question, but that would be the relevant question morally.

Agreed. And I have never been given a satisfactory answer. My own understanding of the topic leads me to think that moderate use should be possible with reasonable effort. It has been asserted to me that it is not, but I have not been offered any evidence.

[Ark]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,

 

So what actual, meaningful difference between the two substances makes recreational moderate alcohol use not sinful - indeed in general terms often good - but recreational moderate marijuana use is immoral? 

 

I'm focusing on the legality rather than morality of the issue. There is potential for abuse and sin with marijuana, so I don't think society should license it's use. To do so will lead us down a worse path than we already are, in my opinion.

 

But to address the morality of if it, anything that alters the mind for a recreational purpose is sinful. Can marijuana be smoked without getting into a "stoned" or mind-altered state? I assume it can, but then it virtually defeats the purpose of it's use. One would literally be taking in the negative health benefits of the smoke without affect on the mind. Alcohol  on the other hand is commonly consumed in moderation without ever reaching intoxication, and our culture has found a way to tread the middle-path that is enjoyable and morally indifferent. I don't think there is a moderate way when it comes to cannabis, let alone a purpose for doing so. 

 

But God knows best.

 

Pax et bonum

[Amppax]

http://www.weedsthatplease.com/3levelsofhigh.htm

Not exactly unbiased or scientific, but this seems to hint at the possibility of a gradation in highs. Which, to me, would make it very difficult to treat differently than alcohol.

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,
 
 
I'm focusing on the legality rather than morality of the issue. There is potential for abuse and sin with marijuana, so I don't think society should license it's use. To do so will lead us down a worse path than we already are, in my opinion.
 
But to address the morality of if it, anything that alters the mind for a recreational purpose is sinful. Can marijuana be smoked without getting into a "stoned" or mind-altered state? I assume it can, but then it virtually defeats the purpose of it's use. One would literally be taking in the negative health benefits of the smoke without affect on the mind. Alcohol  on the other hand is commonly consumed in moderation without ever reaching intoxication, and our culture has found a way to tread the middle-path that is enjoyable and morally indifferent. I don't think there is a moderate way when it comes to cannabis, let alone a purpose for doing so. 
 
But God knows best.
 
Pax et bonum

"I'm focusing on the legality rather than morality of the issue."
That is something I am not willing to do. I am not a legal positivist. I am more than willing to argue that if the law forbids something which is good, the law must be struck down. If marijuana can be shown to have similar moral characteristics as alcohol, I think its prohibition would likewise not be just.

"But to address the morality of if it, anything that alters the mind for a recreational purpose is sinful. "
This is not really correct. Catholic morality recognizes that drinking in moderation is moral and can be good. Moderate drinking includes its mind-altering effects. Largely on Phatmass and in moral writing we tend to agree that the point of 'hilarity' is acceptable, whereas to be drunk is not. Therefore if we can find a point at which marijuana can be used which corresponds to a moderate and reasonable use of alcohol, I have trouble seeing that the marijuana use is immoral.

"I don't think there is a moderate way when it comes to cannabis, let alone a purpose for doing so."
The purpose, as with alcohol, is self-evident. Reasonable and moderate use of alcohol does include its mind-altering effects. I see no reason that, if moderate use of marijuana is possible, it should not be in the same category.


As to whether or not moderate use is possible, again, my understanding is that it should be. Marijuana can be cultivated with lower concentration of THC, which I understand to be the primary active ingredient which causes its mind-altering effects. I believe this to mean that a lower concentration of THC would allow in theory for moderate use. 

It is true that there is a trend towards higher-concentration THC, but I believe that to be primarily an effect of prohibition, just like moonshine during alcohol prohibition.

 

As I said above, people have argued in the past that moderate use of marijuana is actually theoretically impossible. I have not seen any arguments or evidence yet that convinces me that this is true.

[Winchester]

I'm focusing on the legality rather than morality of the issue. There is potential for abuse and sin with marijuana, so I don't think society should license it's use.

Heil Ark.

[Ark]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,

 

"I'm focusing on the legality rather than morality of the issue."
That is something I am not willing to do. I am not a legal positivist. I am more than willing to argue that if the law forbids something which is good, the law must be struck down. If marijuana can be shown to have similar moral characteristics as alcohol, I think its prohibition would likewise not be just.

 

"But to address the morality of if it, anything that alters the mind for a recreational purpose is sinful. "
This is not really correct. Catholic morality recognizes that drinking in moderation is moral and can be good. Moderate drinking includes its mind-altering effects. Largely on Phatmass and in moral writing we tend to agree that the point of 'hilarity' is acceptable, whereas to be drunk is not. Therefore if we can find a point at which marijuana can be used which corresponds to a moderate and reasonable use of alcohol, I have trouble seeing that the marijuana use is immoral.

"I don't think there is a moderate way when it comes to cannabis, let alone a purpose for doing so."
The purpose, as with alcohol, is self-evident. Reasonable and moderate use of alcohol does include its mind-altering effects. I see no reason that, if moderate use of marijuana is possible, it should not be in the same category.


As to whether or not moderate use is possible, again, my understanding is that it should be. Marijuana can be cultivated with lower concentration of THC, which I understand to be the primary active ingredient which causes its mind-altering effects. I believe this to mean that a lower concentration of THC would allow in theory for moderate use. 

It is true that there is a trend towards higher-concentration THC, but I believe that to be primarily an effect of prohibition, just like moonshine during alcohol prohibition.

 

As I said above, people have argued in the past that moderate use of marijuana is actually theoretically impossible. I have not seen any arguments or evidence yet that convinces me that this is true.

 

Whether marijuana can be smoked moderately is really an irrelevant issue because in recreational use the purpose is to get stoned. I can't imagine someone smoking it just enough to avoid getting stoned! And so painting an ad hoc scenerio where a low enough dose can be inhaled without the ill effects on the mind is really not a legitimate reason to legalize. The potential abuse is so high that it alone warrants keeping it illegal. We already have enough self destruction through tobacco and alcohol, why make the problem bigger?

 

As for "mind alteration" that really is too imprecise of a phrase as even the moderate consumption of alcohol has some mind alteration. What I mean is mind alteration to the point of intoxication, where the mental faculties are severely inhibited. Alcohol is widely consumed without ever reaching a point of intoxication, there is a whole culture keeping it at this level, so to speak. I don't think the same is true for marijuana, irregardless of whether such a "stoneless" state is even possible.

 

Pax et bonum

 

 

[Not A Real Name]

 

As I said above, people have argued in the past that moderate use of marijuana is actually theoretically impossible. I have not seen any arguments or evidence yet that convinces me that this is true.

If you live in an area where it is legal to smoke marijuana then how about you grab yourself some Mary Jane and find out?

[Amppax]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,


Whether marijuana can be smoked moderately is really an irrelevant issue because in recreational use the purpose is to get stoned. I can't imagine someone smoking it just enough to avoid getting stoned! And so painting an ad hoc scenerio where a low enough dose can be inhaled without the ill effects on the mind is really not a legitimate reason to legalize. The potential abuse is so high that it alone warrants keeping it illegal. We already have enough self destruction through tobacco and alcohol, why make the problem bigger?

As for "mind alteration" that really is too imprecise of a phrase as even the moderate consumption of alcohol has some mind alteration. What I mean is mind alteration to the point of intoxication, where the mental faculties are severely inhibited. Alcohol is widely consumed without ever reaching a point of intoxication, there is a whole culture keeping it at this level, so to speak. I don't think the same is true for marijuana, irregardless of whether such a "stoneless" state is even possible.

Pax et bonum

You do realize you haven't backed up your statements with anything except your own opinion, right?

[CrossCuT]

I don't know the answer to this, but I'll take a stab. It's all about the ability to use in moderation. Can you recreationally use marijuana without getting high (assuming getting high is morally equivalent to being drunk)? I don't know the answer to that question, but that would be the relevant question morally.

Yes, it is possible. Anyone who tells you otherwise is being a poo. 

 

That is the nature of these things people. Thats how it works. You want a little buzz with alcohol but not drunk? Drink a little. If you want a little buzz with marijuana, but not high? smoke a little. 

Of course it depends on person to person on the severity of the "little", just like with all things. 

Edited January 22, 2015 by CrossCuT

[Nihil Obstat]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,
 
 
Whether marijuana can be smoked moderately is really an irrelevant issue because in recreational use the purpose is to get stoned. I can't imagine someone smoking it just enough to avoid getting stoned! And so painting an ad hoc scenerio where a low enough dose can be inhaled without the ill effects on the mind is really not a legitimate reason to legalize. The potential abuse is so high that it alone warrants keeping it illegal. We already have enough self destruction through tobacco and alcohol, why make the problem bigger?
 
As for "mind alteration" that really is too imprecise of a phrase as even the moderate consumption of alcohol has some mind alteration. What I mean is mind alteration to the point of intoxication, where the mental faculties are severely inhibited. Alcohol is widely consumed without ever reaching a point of intoxication, there is a whole culture keeping it at this level, so to speak. I don't think the same is true for marijuana, irregardless of whether such a "stoneless" state is even possible.
 
Pax et bonum

I am sorry, but this post does not make sense.
 
"Whether marijuana can be smoked moderately is really an irrelevant issue because in recreational use the purpose is to get stoned."
Right, just like in recreational use of alcohol the purpose is to get drunk? Blanket statements like that one are silly and just serve to obscure the discussion.

"And so painting an ad hoc scenerio where a low enough dose can be inhaled without the ill effects on the mind is really not a legitimate reason to legalize."
Yes, it actually is a perfectly legitimate reason. If it can be used in moderation, in a safe manner, then it is highly analogous to alcohol use, which is traditionally celebrated in Catholicism.

"The potential abuse is so high that it alone warrants keeping it illegal."
Alcohol is far more dangerous, but not only is it legal to use, according to Catholic morality its use can actually be good.

"Alcohol is widely consumed without ever reaching a point of intoxication, there is a whole culture keeping it at this level, so to speak. I don't think the same is true for marijuana, irregardless of whether such a "stoneless" state is even possible."
As I have said about three times now, if this is the argument I need to see it proven. I have had it asserted too many times to count, and I have yet to see any proof whatsoever.
 

If you live in an area where it is legal to smoke marijuana then how about you grab yourself some Mary Jane and find out?

You did not read my post, then.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Ark]

Peace be with you Nihil Obstat,

 

I am sorry, but this post does not make sense.

 

Pardon my frail mind and writing

"Whether marijuana can be smoked moderately is really an irrelevant issue because in recreational use the purpose is to get stoned."
Right, just like in recreational use of alcohol the purpose is to get drunk? Blanket statements like that one are silly and just serve to obscure the discussion.

 

 

What I'm trying to emphasize is that alcohol is very commonly consumed without getting intoxicated: wine at dinner, a beer at the pub, etc. There are even social circumstances where getting intoxicated is frowned upon. So there is a culture of drinking alcohol without getting intoxicated. Is the same true for marijuana? Is it common to smoke with the intention of avoiding a high? Is the window between sobriety and drunkeness as wide as it is for weed? I may be mistaken but the impression I get is that marijuana is intrinsically a severe mind altering substance. You smoke to get high, there is no other point to it, there is no cultural motive to limit it's effects on the mind the way there is with alcohol, but perhaps I'm mistaken! 

 

"And so painting an ad hoc scenerio where a low enough dose can be inhaled without the ill effects on the mind is really not a legitimate reason to legalize."
Yes, it actually is a perfectly legitimate reason. If it can be used in moderation, in a safe manner, then it is highly analogous to alcohol use, which is traditionally celebrated in Catholicism.

 

And using percocet at a low dose, in a safe manner, that would be analogous to alcohol consumption. Can that also be stamped with Catholicism's approval? 

 

"The potential abuse is so high that it alone warrants keeping it illegal."
Alcohol is far more dangerous, but not only is it legal to use, according to Catholic morality its use can actually be good.

 

 

Again, I'm probably not developing this thought well enough, but uses of alcohol and weed differ. In the former, moderate consumption to avoid intoxication is common, in the latter, and this is my impression, it's smoked recreationally to get high. So even though theoretically a low enough dose can be inhaled to avoid a high, practically speaking, that's not how this drug is used. 

 

"Alcohol is widely consumed without ever reaching a point of intoxication, there is a whole culture keeping it at this level, so to speak. I don't think the same is true for marijuana, irregardless of whether such a "stoneless" state is even possible."
As I have said about three times now, if this is the argument I need to see it proven. I have had it asserted too many times to count, and I have yet to see any proof whatsoever.

 

 

 

Why smoke weed recreationally if you're not getting stoned?

 

 

Pax et bonum