Closure for the marijuana thread.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='cooltuba' date='Dec 15 2004, 01:40 PM'] The CCC teaches that illegal drugs are immoral and scandalous. Marijuana is never specifically addressed.

I am open to Truth. I searched extensively for Church teachings on marijuana specifically, and they're not out there.

Find me an OFFICIAL Church teaching that smoking marijuana in moderate amounts is sinful, and I'll agree. I've looked extensively, and I've not been able to find a teaching other than all illegal drugs are immoral and scandalous because of their illegality.

Thanks,

Tim [/quote]
It doesn't need to address marijuana specifically because pot IS illegal. Does the CCC need to list every type of drug just so we know what we can and can't use? Nope. Find an official Church teaching that says smoking pot in moderation isn't sinful. Its been stated by the Church, officially, that illegal drugs are immoral, that should be proof enough.

[drewmeister2]

Please go to this link on PhatMass: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=24549"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=24549[/url]. God bless!

[cooltuba]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Dec 15 2004, 02:30 PM'] It doesn't need to address marijuana specifically because pot IS illegal. Does the CCC need to list every type of drug just so we know what we can and can't use? Nope. Find an official Church teaching that says smoking pot in moderation isn't sinful. Its been stated by the Church, officially, that illegal drugs are immoral, that should be proof enough. [/quote]
But what about places where it is not illegal? My point was that the CCC states that it is immoral and scandalous because of the illegality of it, not that the specific drugs in question would be immoral if not illegal. There is no Church teaching that marijuana is immoral in modest amounts in legal circumstances.

Just as there is no teaching that marijuana is moral in modest amounts in legal circumstances.

--Tim

Edited December 15, 2004 by cooltuba

[cooltuba]

[quote name='drewmeister2' date='Dec 15 2004, 03:09 PM'] Please go to this link on PhatMass: [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=24549"]http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=24549[/url]. God bless! [/quote]
I've been there, read the argument, and disagreed. It's been addressed already in this thread. Here's a copy/paste from my post about it:

BLAZEr declared that since marijuana causes "cognitive deficits", then it hinders your ability to make moral choices, therefore it is always and forever immoral.

When I was reading the post, I recognized some of the language as coming from a NIDA (National Institute for Drug Awareness) study I've read. While the NIDA is quite biased, and I don't trust their research, for the time being we'll assume all of their research is beyond reproach and factual to the highest degree. Since we're assuming it's true, I can use their research as well. In volume 18, number 5 (dec. 2003) NIDA breaks down each of the "cognitive deficits" it has found that marijuana causes, and published charts showing the performance of heavy marijuana smokers (94 joints per week), light marijuana smokers (10 joints per week), and a control group. The heavy smokers showed cognitive deficits in the areas of verbal memory, visual memory, psychomotor speed, and manual dexterity. The light smokers (which I would still consider heavy, daily is way too much; much less more than one joint a day) showed no impairment compared to the controls.

Now, did BLAZEr address the fact that light marijuana smokers show no impairment? No. Did he even have a decent understanding of what cognitive deficits actually are in the context that the term was being used? No. Cognitive deficits do not affect your ability to make a moral decision any more than forgetting were you left your keys hinders your ability to make a moral decision. He simply read the words, applied the dictionary definition to the word cognitive, and went to town. The error was that what the NIDA refers to as cognitive is not the textbook definition. We would call it short term memory loss and decreased motor skills. The other error was quoting a study that gave 94 joints a week to ONE person. That's 13 joints a day, people!!!! How does that research apply to the person who smokes occasionaly? That's like taking the effects of alcoholism and telling someone if they drink ANY alcohol, they will experience those effects.

One of the substances I can think of that hinders inhibitions, which can hinder your ability to make moral decisions is alcohol. I've known many a pot smoker, and I've never heard "Man, I got so stoned last night that I had sex with some chick I don't even know." I have heard people say that about alcohol, though.

*slaps his own hand* Disreguard that last paragraph. Personal experience doesn't count.

Peace,

Tim
*edit* the "Personal experience" I was referring to was having heard people say that, not having done it myself. I was re-reading the post, and that didn't sound so good.

[IcePrincessKRS]

The CCC paragraph 2291 states MORAL LAW. You will probably continue to disagree (and you're entitled to your opinion) but I don't think your arguments hold water in the face of the traditions and teachings of the Church.

[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 [b]gravely contrary to the moral law.[/b][/quote]

[quote]Marijuana usage
Question from Bob Mandala on 12-14-2000: 
I have a couple of questions regarding the Church's teaching on marijuana usage. Is it considered a sin to use marijuana at all times? Or is it just when people "abuse" it (merely to 'get high'). Is medical use of it a sin as well? Also, I know that it is alright to drink alcohol on a limited basis (not getting drunk, of course). So, if a person were to use marijuana in the same way as many people use alcohol, would that be acceptable? That is, using only a little, as people will have a couple of beers, or a glass of wine with dinner. Please enlighten me on this, I am rather confused on these teachings, as they seem to be contradictory, at least to me.
Thank you, and God bless.

Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 12-15-2000: 
The Catechism clearly states that the use of drugs, other than for strictly therapeutic purposes, is morally unacceptable. (Paragraph 2291). [/quote]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=351092&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=marijuana&pgnu=1&groupnum=0"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...nu=1&groupnum=0[/url]

[quote]smoking marijuana
Question from Lynn Sheer on 05-29-2001: 
At a conference I heard that smoking marijuana was a mortal sin. On talking to my priest about this issue, he said it was ok to smoke 1 or 2 marijuana cigarettes a day and it was not a sin. 
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 05-29-2001: 
I cannot understand how any priest could possibly tell you such a thing. Paragraph 2291 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church states quite clearly that the use of drugs is a serious evil. Add to this the fact that the use marijuana is a violation of the civil law, and the civil law, in this case in harmony with the natural law, is binding on the conscience.  [/quote]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=368658&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=marijuana&pgnu=1&groupnum=0"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...nu=1&groupnum=0[/url]

Edited December 15, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS

[cooltuba]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Dec 15 2004, 04:01 PM'] The CCC paragraph 2291 states MORAL LAW. You will probably continue to disagree (and you're entitled to your opinion) but I don't think your arguments hold water in the face of the traditions and teachings of the Church.





[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=351092&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=marijuana&pgnu=1&groupnum=0"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...nu=1&groupnum=0[/url]



[url="http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=368658&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=3000&Author=&Keyword=marijuana&pgnu=1&groupnum=0"]http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.as...nu=1&groupnum=0[/url] [/quote]
I've read CCC 2291 many times. I knew that would come up, and I honestly don't have [i]much[/i] of a defense. The only thing I have to offer is that using your interpretation, it would be immoral to drink alcohol (it is a drug) for any other purpose than theraputic.

At the very least, I'd like to see more material from the Church (I'm not asking you to supply more, because I know it's not out there). BTW... the contrary to MORAL LAW statement was in reguards to the production/trafficing of illegal drugs, not using them.:
"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."
The "they" in the sentance refers to the clandestine production and trafficking in drugs.

The fact is that it is ultimately up to the concience of an individual as to whether or not to partake if it were legal in their situation, and hopefully, if we make the wrong choice our Merciful Lord and Savior will forgive us.

Peace,

Tim

*edit* Fr. Stephen is one priest, not an official doctrine for the Church. You can find opposing views from many other priests. */edit*

Edited December 15, 2004 by cooltuba

[IcePrincessKRS]

Fr. Stephen was only one example. None of the EWTN experts had anything positive to say about marijuana use.

"They (production and distribution) of drugs constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law."

Note the phrase "practices gravely contrary to moral law"--this phrase points toward the [i]use[/i] of drugs being gravely contrary to moral law.

[Oik]

Okay, I think cool, i understand that you want more material about the churches teachings on specific drugs.

I don't think you'll find it. The Church speaks and uses language that is unfamiliar in order to convey the most detailed amount in the smallest words (or so it seems!).

All in all 2291 condemns the use of "drugs" other than for thereputic use.

The Church has spoken (and scripture and the saints confirm) that alcohol in moderation is okay. Intentionally drinking alcohol to get a buzz or get drunk is sinful.

Smoking tobacco is a different matter. If you are addicted (which, personally, I think most and/or all that use are), it could easily lead to sinful behavior (ie, only thinking about smoking while you are at Mass or stealing to get the money or stealing the tobacco products themselves).

Marijuana however, is condemned unless for theuputic (sp) means. And then, I suppose the Church would reject the smoking form always.

Having 'coffee houses' (places where people can go to buy/smoke pot) like the ones in the netherlands are most certainly condemned.

[Winchester]

Alcohol is a drug. There needs to be a dissection of the CCC wording, which is poor.

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Dec 15 2004, 05:13 PM'] Alcohol is a drug. There needs to be a dissection of the CCC wording, which is poor. [/quote]
Thanks Winchester. I mentioned that, too, but no-one seemed to care. I don't have time to write much now, because I'm at work. (I'm a bartender, BTW...ironic, huh?) More to come when I get home.

Peace,

Tim

[cooltuba]

[quote name='Oik' date='Dec 15 2004, 04:38 PM'] All in all 2291 condemns the use of "drugs" other than for thereputic use. The Church has spoken (and scripture and the saints confirm) that alcohol in moderation is okay. Intentionally drinking alcohol to get a buzz or get drunk is sinful.

Smoking tobacco is a different matter. If you are addicted (which, personally, I think most and/or all that use are), it could easily lead to sinful behavior (ie, only thinking about smoking while you are at Mass or stealing to get the money or stealing the tobacco products themselves).

Marijuana however, is condemned unless for theuputic (sp) means. And then, I suppose the Church would reject the smoking form always.

Having 'coffee houses' (places where people can go to buy/smoke pot) like the ones in the netherlands are most certainly condemned. [/quote]
Paragraph 1: The drfinition of the term "contradiction".

Paragraph 2: What I was told by my spiritual director while I was in seminary about tobacco (I smoke cigarettes): If you knew that smoking was bad for you when you started, it was a sin to start. Once the addiction is established, you are not completely culpable for every single cigarette you smoke; it's the fact that you started when you knew it was bad for you that's the sin.

Paragraph 3: A contradiction when compared to paragraph #1.

Paragraph 4: How are coffee houses most certainly condemned? Because the sale/clandestine production of drugs is against the moral law? I really think that the intent of that is that it's against the moral law because it's assumed to be illegal. Now, the language isn't that specific either way; that's just my opinion.

I think what we can see here is the beauty of the Catholic Church. I truly believe that CCC 2291 can be interpreted either way. Who know's what's right? Let your conciensce be your guide.

Peace,

Tim

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Oik' date='Dec 15 2004, 12:31 PM'] The realit is that the advocates of pot don't like the answers they are given, it's not that there is a lack of proof.
[/quote]
Actually, that's exactly the opposite of correct.

[quote]
The Church has spoken on marijuana and drugs, if you want the facts, there are a lot of resources available.[/quote]

If you'll note, we are the ones citing sources and you are simply spouting opinions.

[cooltuba]

*bizzump*

Jas Jis, you there? Still waiting on that response...

[cooltuba]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' date='Dec 15 2004, 04:28 PM']"[b]They[/b] (production and distribution) of drugs constitute direct co-operation in evil, since [b]they[/b] encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law."

Note the phrase "practices gravely contrary to moral law"--this phrase points toward the [i]use[/i] of drugs being gravely contrary to moral law.[/quote]
Umm...no, it doesn't point to the [i]use[/i] of drugs as contrary to the moral law. When a pronoun is used twice in a sentance, the antecedent (the noun a pronoun refers to) does not change. Sorry.

Tim

[jasJis]

Rebuttal to cooltuba.
As I understand your posts, these are your points to support your viewpoint that marijuana should be legalized.
[quote]1. “Legalization will seperate marijuana users from the harder, more dangerous drugs.”   
    1.1“since people obviously are going to do it anyway, we might as well put some regulation on it and maybe keep a few people away from the stuff that is REALLY harmful”
2. “Marijuana is not physically addictive.”
3.  “Marijuana does no permanent damage to the brain.”[/quote]
You then added a few other comments/posts while waiting for my response. Overall, your points fall into two general categories”
[u]
#1: Legalization of pot will decrease the likelihood that people will also take worst drugs.
#2: Marijuana does not cause significant physical harm or public danger (non-addictive, no-physical brain damage, does not cause accidents) to justify a Governments restricting it’s use by the public.[/u]

My rebuttal is based on the exact opposite of these two points.
[b]1: ‘Legalization of marijuana will increase it’s use and will not due anything to reduce the use of other illegal drugs’[/b]

This first point is easy to establish. Your own reference to the Netherlands fully supports my position. The experience with Alaska’s decriminalization supports it as well. As you noted, legalization in Alaska and the Netherlands resulted in an increase in the use of marijuana. Period. Legalization of marijuana did nothing to decrease the use of harder drugs. Period. Legal pot does not decrease the use of pot, nor cause a decrease in other illegal drug use.

[b]2: ‘Marijuana use is sufficiently potentially harmful to the individual person (and as a result, harmful to society) and is sufficiently potentially dangerous to the public’[/b]
This has to be addressed with reason and logic to identify the dangers and judge the degree of danger. Firstly, your point about physical ‘damage’ to the brain is only a partial truth. The reader perceives that since there is not physical ‘damage’, there is no harm. THC does have an effect on the brain’s chemical activity. We wouldn’t ingest pot if we didn’t get high. Whether or not this effect if physically ‘destructive’ of cells so we can observe tumors or lesions is besides the point. Let’s ask the more complete question: ‘Are THC’s effects on the brain potentially or actually harmful?’ It is well established that THC acts on receptors in the brain, just as other powerful drugs. THC has been found to produce many deficits in both human and animal subjects. [b]THC impairs the brain's functioning with by producing reduced short-term memory, locomotion disorders, altered time sense, paranoia, fragmentation of thought, and lethargy. [/b] These effects are accomplished by pharmacological action on the hippocampus, and the dentate gyrus and layers I and Vl of the cortex. This recent pharmacological knowledge supports the earlier findings of other studies that concluded that the primary effects of marijuana were on the cognitive faculties. [I.B. Adams and B. Martin, 1996. ”Cannabis: Pharmacology and Toxicology in Animals and Humans,” Addiction, Vol. 91, No. 11, pp. 1585-1614. ; Academie des Sciences, Institut de France, Report No. 39, April 1997, ”Aspects Moleculaires, Cellulaires et Physiologiques des Effects du Cannabis; 8 W A. Devane, F.A. Dysarz, M.R. Johnson, L.S. Melvin, and A. Hoiwett, 1988. ”Determination and Characterization of a Cannabinoid Receptor in Rat Brain,” Molecular Pharmacology, Vol. 34, pp. 605-613; M Herkenham, 1992. ”Cannabinoid Receptor Localization in Brain: Relationship to Motor and Reward Systems,” Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. P.W. Kalivas and H.H. Samson, Eds. The Neurobiology of Drug and Alcohol Addiction, pp. 19-32.; T. Mavromoustakos, E. Theodoropoulou, and A. Makriyannis, et al., 1996. ”Studies on the Thermotropic Effects of Cannabinoids on Phos- phatidylcholine Bilayers Using Differential Scanning Calorimetry and Small Angle X-ray Diffraction,” Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, Vol. 1281, pp. 235-244.
26NIDA, 1996.]

Let me re-emphasis the conclusions of NUMEROUS studies that have established the effects of TCHC on cognitive faculties. Scientists today consistently voice concern over the effects of marijuana smoking on cognitive functions. [b]Physically, it is the hippocampus in the brain where researchers locate the series of actions that converts information into short-term memory, and perhaps, also, long-memory episodic memory and ”gates” information for memory as well as coding spatial and temporal relations among stimuli. These conclusions have been established across the WORLD in NUMEROUS Countries. [/b] It isn’t just a ‘US’ vs the ‘enlightened Europeans’ thing. The following are but a few of these studies that have documented the behavior of THC users whose cause is now understood with recent knowledge of the specific biochemical system for cannabis's psychoactive effects on the hippocampus, receptors in nerve cell membranes, and neuro transmitters. [L.L. Miller and R.J. Branconnier, 1983. ”Cannabis Effects in Memory and the Cholinergic Limbic System.” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93, No. 39, pp. 441-456.; NIDA, 1996. ”National Conference on Marijuana Use: Prevention, Treatrnent, and Research,” (Washingtori, D.C.: National Institutes of Health, Publication No. 96-4106), pp. 62-63.; K.A. Campbell, T.C. Foster, R.E. Hampson, and S.A. Deadwyler, 1986. ”Effects of 9-tetrahydrocannabinol on Sensory-evoked Discharges of Granule Cells in the Dentate Gyrus of Behaving Rats,” Journal of Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. Vol. 239, pp. 941-945.; A . Lichtman and B.R. Martin, 1996. ”9-Tetrahydrocannabinol Impairs Spatial Memory through a Cannabinoid Receptor Mechanism,” Psychopharmacology, Vol. 126, pp. 125-131.; T. Cotterill, 1995. ”On the Unity of Conscious Experience,” Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 2. No. 4, pp. 307-308.; P. Schmidt, et al., 1995. ”Cannabiskonsum und Fahrtuechtigkeit,” Kriminalistik, Vol. 41, p. 246]

Please let me summarize the two paragraphs above. The work of many independent scientists have used multiple independent studies in multiple Countries (not just Europe and US), have observed and documented the changes in human behaviors that logic indicated is caused by THC and identified it as a powerful psychoactive agent. [u]Subsequently, more recent advances in pharmacology and biology have established the actual ‘HOW’ THC works in the brain and has supported the previous assumptions of the psychoactive effects of THC with physical evidence and understanding of where and how THC and the human body interact.[/u]

Now that the [i]some[/i] psycohological effects of THC are established and proven with physical and psycological observations, let’s consider the harm or danger of these effects which are “reduced short-term memory, locomotion disorders, altered time sense, paranoia, fragmentation of thought, and lethargy.” Clearly these are dysfunctional behaviors. Studies have shown that these are the core causes of observed dysfunctional behaviors such as slower learning, lack of motivation, difficulty with effectively engaging in social settings and societal structures such as schools and the work place. Again, here are sources: [T. Cotterill, 1995. ”On the Unity of Conscious Experience,” Journal of Consciousness Studies, Vol. 2. No. 4, pp. 307-308; L.D. Chaitt and J. Pierri, 1992. ”Effects of Smoked Marijuana on Human Performance: A Critical Review.” In L. Murphy and A. Bartke, Eds. Marijuana/Cannabinoids: Neurobiology and Neurophysiology, pp. 387-423 (Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press); W. Hall, N. Solowij, and J. Lemon, 1994. The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use (Sydney, Australia: The Australian Task Force on Cannabis); L.L. Miller and R.J. Branconnier, 1983. ”Cannabis Effects in Memory and the Cholinergic Limbic System.” Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 93, No. 39, pp. 441-456.; . Jim van Os, from Maastricht University in the Netherlands, British Medical Journal, December 1st online issue, 2004;]

Let’s consider some concrete evidence by analizing statistics gathered by the National Institute of Health and cooberated by DAWN: [b]In 2001, youth age 12 to 19 made an estimated 26,706 emergency Doctor)visits related to the abuse of marijuana or marijuana with other substances. [/b]More than 60 percent (16,516) of these visits involved youth 12 to 17, so it’s obvious that even with intoxicating drugs being illegal for everyone, 16,000+ minors have had to seek emergency care while using marijuana. To be totally fair, let’s consider the 43% (12,271) that are there when marijuana is the only reason for the visit. Among youth age 12 to 17 in 2001, where marijuana was the only drug reported, psychic effects (60%) was the most frequently citedmotive for the marijuana use. Dependence was cited in 15 percent of cases. Unexpected reaction (40%) was the most frequently reported reason for these visits. Overdose (10%), chronic effects (6%), accident/injury (4%), seeking detoxification (3%), and withdrawal (2%) were less frequent reasons.

[b]Consider this is kids [u]willingly[/u] telling their parents or doctors that it’s because of pot they are there.[/b] Isn’t it most likely that kids would lie and just say they were drinking? It isn’t easy as a ‘breath test’ to test for pot, as cooltuba pointed out and the scientific community knows. A blood or urine test has to be done. [b]Can we even begin to think the majority of pot caused injuries are being identified?[/b] How often do you think that’s done in the hospital unless you just ask? Especially if you are in there for a physcial accident because of THC caused “locomotion disorders, altered time sense, …fragmentation of thought, and lethargy.” Don’t you remember the train accident in Ohio a few years ago that was caused because the train Engineer was smoking pot and did not realize that he had passed switching stations minutes ago instead of a few seconds like he thought? Even the Canadian Centre on Drug Use (which is pro-legalization of pot) concluded that stoned drivers have extreme difficulty negoting curves and maintaining their vehicle in their lane. It claims that the time perception warp causes many of these people to drive much slower which helps prevent accidents. Consider these people driving in the more populated roads in the US.

We know there are many negative physical effects caused by pot. Legalizing it does nothing to reduce use of harder drugs, only increases the use of pot. Legalized pot will cause a greater percentage of our population to be driving poorly on our roads, having more visits to the emergency room for pot related issues, suffering from more psychological effects, etc. That is fact. Marijuana also INCREASES the debilitating effects of alcohol and other drugs as the many of the above referenced studies show, including DAWN, the site you referenced with out-dated statistics. [b]If the harmful effects of smoking Pot in society now is small, what will happen when a greater percentage of the population are smoking pot? [/b]


[quote]Quasi reason5: Economic tax benefits, Economic harm to illegal drug sellers.
(tobacco is much more tempermental and requires more care; marijuana grows like, well...a weed). Also, people can grow their own tobacco at home, and not buy cigarettes. How many people do you know that do that? I know of none. I'm sure there are people who do that, but it's not like it's hurting the sale of cigarettes.[/quote]
Comparing the processing of tobacco with marijuana is apples to oranges. It is not legal to sell tobacco on your own. Tobacco must be processed, cured, to a high quality to be easily used and a homeowner could come close to the commercial quality of cigarettes or cigars that are made now. People won’t mind smoking out of a bong, pipe, or home rolled doobie or blunt. Pot dealers and importers are under tremendous pressure from civil authorities and competition. What’s going to slow down selling a legal weed?

You’ve admitted in your posts that pot is harmful. You claim that some dangers are over blown. Both statements are true. But you cannot deny the real and actual harm that pot causes either alone, or in conjuction with other drugs. [u][b]Continued prohibition of pot is the safest and best thing for the whole of society.[/b][/u]

Edited December 18, 2004 by jasJis