smoking marijuana

[MichaelFilo]

I would agree that abuse of any drug is very much bad, and the young are the last to understand moderation.. sadly.

However, what is moderation? Well, in the same way that I can see myself buying a pipe and smoking tobacco at the end of the month, I too could instead of tobacco a little marijuana (of course, if it ever were legal, as we all know the legal code of the land is binding in as much as it doesn't violate any higher moral law). I mean to say that once a month used as a sedative in light amounts (about the same amount that can be used for medicinal value) hardly leads to any of the sideffects mentioned. It is clear it is not a depency, nor a habit in the sense of addiction, so I have to ask, if it can be used like that (and I am under the impression that if you can do it with alcohol, you can do it with marijuana), what makes it so much more morally outrageous than a cigarette?

And as far as seeing St. Paul doing a joint, let us put it in a more cultural appropriate context. Can you see St. Paul smoking a hookah (which sometimes are used to smoke marijuana) in the company of fellow Christians? If it not be used excessivly, it would be reasonable. I'd like to ask if you could imagine St. Paul smoking a cigarette or using a sherlocks holmes type pipe, I'm sure you couldn't, but that doesn't make it what is morally correct or incorrect.

I realize that one can do without tobacco or marijuana, but then again, I cannot see what leaves one to avoid condemnation and the other that recieves severe condemnation. Both can be used responsibly in moderation (again, not daily) to avoid the unfortunate (and spiritually stifiling) condition of addiction, while tobacco, which contains an addictive element, nicotine, is much more risky in this aspect. The only depence on Marijuana is psychological, and to be fair, once a month is hardly enough to form that kind of dependence.

(Excuse the choppy nature of the post)

God bless,
Mikey

[CatholicAndFanatical]

I didnt get to read all pages because im at work, but this is very very interesting to me.

Has a Priest came in here and said what the Church's stance is and how it is defined? Unless the CC come out right and says MJ is wrong, it is open to speculation.

Moderation: can be defined as a once a month, three times a month thing.

My opinion, until someone can show me clearly what the Church teachs, MJ is alot better than Alcohol anyday. I havent done it since I was a teenager, but in moderation it doesnt mess you up and as long as you don't do 'sinful' acts while on it, I dont see a problem with it.

I voted No. At least until a Priest was to come in here and give a direct Church teaching that says MJ is evil and a mortal sin.

btw, I did read the quotes where MJ was supposidly mixed in with 'soft drugs', I can describe my pain killer or cough medicine as a 'soft drug' too, doesnt make it evil. ONLY when abused. Same for MJ.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Your honesty openness and candor is very refreshing as well CF.

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

I am totally unprepared for this, and have little time to prepare. But i wish to bring up Sacred Scripture, for a spiritual understanding on the matter.

The Greek New Testament speaks frequently about the sin of sorcery. We have a concept of sorcery nowadays as something akin to witchcraft, with spells, and curses, and other seemingly evil stuff. What was more common among sorcerers was herbs, potions, and medicines. The actual greek term that Sacred Scripture uses that is translated to sorcerer is [i]pharmakeia[/i]. That, etymologically has been transferred to what we think of as pharmacy. A biblical times sorcerer in the fullest and truest sense of the terms was a drug user. Basically, medicines, drugs, herbs, potions, whatever have you, were used for their strange paranormal, hallucigenetic effects.

And it became pretty clear through the experience of the Apostles of what a great evil this is.

And i cannot go on to say how many people the evil one keeps trapped in paranoia, despair, and mistrust through constant drug use.

With so much sadness, and hopelessness in the world, making marijuana largely available would have disastrous effects. It is part of our pop culture now, and it would definitally be widely accepted.

But who would have the courage, as the Holy Apostles did to stand against such villainy?

SHALOM

[MichaelFilo]

A drug user was a sorcerer? I'd like to question your understanding of the word, which I found to be quite interesting in my own study. A sorcerer is not someone who abuses drugs, which at the time were generally limited to alcohol on a wide basis (drunkness is constantly admonished). I would say that a sorcer is someone who practices magic and such, and if anything an alchemist or an apothacary would be closer to what you were shooting for (and only in the more archiac or sinister use of the word). I do not think what you concluded followed.

At any rate, why is it impossible to smoke Marijuana without getting to the point of intoxication? IT maybe a small amount but I can see it not causing the state that has been described here.

God bless,
Mikey

[zealousrap]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='963506' date='Apr 27 2006, 07:39 PM']
At any rate, why is it impossible to smoke Marijuana without getting to the point of intoxication? IT maybe a small amount but I can see it not causing the state that has been described here.
[/quote]

so how does one do that? take one puff of a joint then put it out?

[dairygirl4u2c]

the same way one does the drink in moderation

you just take a little. so yes if that mean only one hit, that's that. you can gradually increase if it's not enough, the same way you would with alcohol.

[Lil Red]

i still fail to see how smoking marijuana or drinking helps you in holiness

[Norseman82]

[quote name='sidemunch88' post='880574' date='Feb 8 2006, 01:59 PM']
where does the Church forbid marijuana???
[/quote]

[quote name='sidemunch88' post='880586' date='Feb 8 2006, 02:11 PM']
Is this the debate table? Or is this the "accept whatever ironmonk says at his word even if he won't prove it" room? It is interesting that having a discussion in the "debate room" is a "waste of your time."
I know a lot of Catholics that have become non-thinking dolts, but that doesn't make me want to outlaw the true Faith. Does it have that effect for you Ironmonk?
so why don't you prove that Ironmonk? why don't you "debate" as is the nature of this board? Or should we take your word as the gospel of truth without you proving it?
[/quote]

Is it just me, or does anyone else see the irony of the fact that the anti-mj rules are being challenged by someone with the word 'munch' in his screenname???

[MC IMaGiNaZUN]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' post='963506' date='Apr 27 2006, 08:39 PM']
A drug user was a sorcerer? I'd like to question your understanding of the word, which I found to be quite interesting in my own study. A sorcerer is not someone who abuses drugs, which at the time were generally limited to alcohol on a wide basis (drunkness is constantly admonished). I would say that a sorcer is someone who practices magic and such, and if anything an alchemist or an apothacary would be closer to what you were shooting for (and only in the more archiac or sinister use of the word). I do not think what you concluded followed.

At any rate, why is it impossible to smoke Marijuana without getting to the point of intoxication? IT maybe a small amount but I can see it not causing the state that has been described here.

God bless,
Mikey
[/quote]

It is understood first as literal translation. The etymology of Pharmacy IS sorcery. Sorcerers conjured up hallucinations, spirits, and divined when they used their drugs. Their drugs where to link them to invisible spiritual realms.

You totally misunderstand what i say. An alchemist experiments with natural elements. I am unaware of apothacary.

Have you ever smoked marijuana?

SHALOM

[jasJis]

As an expert in toking up on the wacky weed, you are fooling yourselves in thinking it's all okay.

Point number one. Alchohol and THC do not have the some cultural signifigance or presence throughout history.

Point number two. Alchohol and TCH do not have the exact same effects.

Point number three. Alchohol is used and also is abused. What is the point of adding another drug to use and abuse.

Point number four. Pot is illegal, abuse of alchohol is illegal.

Point number five. The catechism, based on moral order, calls us to obey civil laws unless in obeying the law you violate a greater moral law.

Point number six. There is no greater moral motivation that tells us that we SHOULD start smoking pot. Hence, there is not a moral justification to break the law.

[zealousrap]

[quote name='jasJis' post='968728' date='May 2 2006, 03:02 PM']
As an expert in toking up on the wacky weed, you are fooling yourselves in thinking it's all okay.

Point number two. Alchohol and TCH do not have the exact same effects.

[/quote]

EXACTLY what I was saying earlier. You can't treat then the same!!

and honestly, even if it were legal, who can tell me the point, physiologically and culturally, of taking one puff of a joint and putting it out???
having one beer with a meal functions as a drink. What does inhaling marijuana smoke function as?

[dairygirl4u2c]

It functions the same way that cigarettes do at the least.

Point number one. Alchohol and THC do not have the some cultural signifigance or presence throughout history.
So are we bound to cultural tradition? What about cigarettes if I grant alcohol?

Point number two. Alchohol and TCH do not have the exact same effects.
Of course. But can you show how they are different? From experience, I know that many people use it without abusing it. There are of course stoners just like there are drunks. Plus, people who are stoners are often dumb to begin with.

Point number three. Alchohol is used and also is abused. What is the point of adding another drug to use and abuse.
It's not to add to be abused. Why not add it? Remember alc and cigs are allowed by the CC explicitly.

Point number four. Pot is illegal, abuse of alchohol is illegal.
The point of this poll is not whether one should toke here or not. It's whether the CC should allow it. Especially considering its own standards is the point being made by the pro-pot folk.

Point number five. The catechism, based on moral order, calls us to obey civil laws unless in obeying the law you violate a greater moral law.
See last point.

Point number six. There is no greater moral motivation that tells us that we SHOULD start smoking pot. Hence, there is not a moral justification to break the law.
See last point.


The point is the same as someone who smokes and drinks in moderation.

[jasJis]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='968878' date='May 2 2006, 05:13 PM']
It functions the same way that cigarettes do at the least.

Point number one. Alchohol and THC do not have the some cultural signifigance or presence throughout history.
So are we bound to cultural tradition? What about cigarettes if I grant alcohol?

Point number two. Alchohol and TCH do not have the exact same effects.
Of course. But can you show how they are different? From experience, I know that many people use it without abusing it. There are of course stoners just like there are drunks. Plus, people who are stoners are often dumb to begin with.

Point number three. Alchohol is used and also is abused. What is the point of adding another drug to use and abuse.
It's not to add to be abused. Why not add it? Remember alc and cigs are allowed by the CC explicitly.

Point number four. Pot is illegal, abuse of alchohol is illegal.
The point of this poll is not whether one should toke here or not. It's whether the CC should allow it. Especially considering its own standards is the point being made by the pro-pot folk.

Point number five. The catechism, based on moral order, calls us to obey civil laws unless in obeying the law you violate a greater moral law.
See last point.

Point number six. There is no greater moral motivation that tells us that we SHOULD start smoking pot. Hence, there is not a moral justification to break the law.
See last point.
The point is the same as someone who smokes and drinks in moderation.
[/quote]Dairy, you didn't follow logic. It's presently illegal, there is not a moral reason to Break the exisiting law, so it's a no go. If the laws were changed, that's a different story and a different set of arguments.

[dairygirl4u2c]

Jas, none of your points have any bearing whatsoever to the proving much of anything regarding the point of this thread. If you could show medical evidence that pot is inherently worse than cigs and alc combined, then you'd have a point. You say you used to smoke, but so did I and a lot of people, and we all can make statements like that with experiences varying. You have not said anything similar to the idea that you know of anyone who smoked twice and now they're idiots, so I'm not sure what you're getting at as you have not made it clear what your experience tells you. My expereince is what I said above with potheads are like alcoholics. Also, what's the point of saying that alcohol and pot are obviously different, inferring it might seem that pot is worse? No one's saying they are the same.. they might be saying they're similar enough that pot should be allowed. Unless you can show medical proof or at least experience that pot in moderation is worse than alc and cigs in moderation you have nothing, especially when compared to everyone else's expereinces of there being no substantial difference.


As for illegality.

[quote]
The point of this poll is not whether one should toke here or not. It's whether the CC should allow it. Especially considering its own standards is the point being made by the pro-pot folk.[/quote]

To clarify this from me, this should read something more to this effect. I agree that the poll question could be inferred as to whether the CC should allow it in the US. But that is not what my question was meant to ask and I apologize for not making that clear. My question asks whether or not the CC should teach in its catechism that pot is immoral or not generally in places where pot is not illegal. Please read the question of this poll and think about what I just said in this last paragraph.

By responding to your illegal points, I am simply saying that your points do not have any merit to the general question of whether or not pot is immoral. I do acknowledge you have the points in countries such as these, and your points are warranted only if incidental to the main point of this thread.

If you did not infer wrong from my question and you think your points are right on topic, then it is you who are illogical.

Edited May 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c