Legal Cannabis and Morality

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident]

But the problem is in the use of the word "inherently." If something can be sinful, then it cannot be inherently sinful.

I disagree. All things that are inherently sinful can be sinful, in the same way that an elephant can be an animal.

It's a statement that's technically true but conveys zero information, and it may cause the hearer to develop a false understanding.

"The temperature outside my house is greater than -273C."

[Marmot]

It's a statement that's technically true but conveys zero information, and it may cause the hearer to develop a false understanding.

"The temperature outside my house is greater than -273C."

That last statement does actually convey some information, because it is possible for the temperature outside a house to be lower than -273 degrees Celsius. However it seems that this has never been observed outside of laboratories.

[AlanK82]

So, an illegal drug is now being legalized. Why? It's less bad than it was in the past? No, of course not. This is not just about morality but science. If science can be bent in a court of law or legislature, what good is it? But this is clearly a "there's money to be made" issue and that's why it's so important to legalize it. I've read published/posted statements from company owners. They are getting a big kick out of getting the next generation to use it.

[AlanK82]

Not all drugs are the same.

Moderate use of tobacco does not affect our ability to make decisions.  Immoderate use of tobacco over the long-term might negatively affect health, so it could be sinful.

Moderate use of alcohol does not affect our ability to make decisions.  Immoderate use of alcohol reduces or removes our ability to make decisions, so it is gravely sinful.

Moderate use of marijuana affects our ability to make decisions (as well as our ability to remember things or form complicated thoughts.)

This gets a little tricky in modern legal markets where cannabis can be microdosed. An edible/beverage dose of 2mg thc isnt going to do much of anything beyond mildly relax you. Ill be honest, I dont see how something like that differs in any substantive way from having a glass of wine or two.

But, we dont rely on private judgement, the Church says no unless its used for medical purposes. So we need to submit to that judgement. But the issue of dosages and the morality of microdosing should be studied and addressed.

Sent from my SM-A015T1 using Tapatalk

Seriously? Then why wasn't marijuana legalized decades ago? During the "Off the Pigs" time period? And eating marijuana is different from smoking it. There is a time lag during digestion.

[IudicaMe]

No. Things which are inherently sinful are sinful since there is no way in which they cannot be sinful. The difference between ChairmanJoe's example and my statement is that it is possible for it to be less than -237C outside, or greater. For a thing which is inherently sinful, it is not possible that this thing could not be sinful. The same is true of elephants: an elephant is an animal. It cannot be said that an elephant may or may not be animal; it must be said that an elephant is an animal. So too, a thing which is inherently sinful must be said to be sinful; not that it may or may not, under certain circumstances, be sinful.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPresident]

No. Things which are inherently sinful are sinful since there is no way in which they cannot be sinful. The difference between ChairmanJoe's example and my statement is that it is possible for it to be less than -237C outside, or greater. For a thing which is inherently sinful, it is not possible that this thing could not be sinful. The same is true of elephants: an elephant is an animal. It cannot be said that an elephant may or may not be animal; it must be said that an elephant is an animal. So too, a thing which is inherently sinful must be said to be sinful; not that it may or may not, under certain circumstances, be sinful.

I wasn't precise enough, my bad.

"It is at least 0K outside."

The statement cannot be false.

[AlanK82]

From today's New York Times regarding a deal being reached: "The move paves the way for a potential $4.2 billion industry, with millions of dollars in sales tax revenue reinvested in minority communities each year."

What is not said is that some unemployed teenager selling marijuana right now is going to undercut the 'legal' price because his boss told him to, or will push other, illegal drugs in order to keep making money. Also, your local dope dealer will not have surveillance cameras to record your entry, and exit, into a 'legal' establishment that sells it. The people who invested in this need to see sales growth. If that does not happen, they walk. But, of course, this will not happen.

[IudicaMe]

From today's New York Times regarding a deal being reached: "The move paves the way for a potential $4.2 billion industry, with millions of dollars in sales tax revenue reinvested in minority communities each year."

What is not said is that some unemployed teenager selling marijuana right now is going to undercut the 'legal' price because his boss told him to, or will push other, illegal drugs in order to keep making money. Also, your local dope dealer will not have surveillance cameras to record your entry, and exit, into a 'legal' establishment that sells it. The people who invested in this need to see sales growth. If that does not happen, they walk. But, of course, this will not happen.

I don't think this analysis has borne out in any place where marijuana is a legal product. In my home province, the vast majority of marijuana purchases are made through the government dispensaries. People pay the extra money because they want the higher quality, and the assurance that nothing is added. Marijuana is not really a street drug anymore-- and hasn't been for some time. The stigma is almost completely gone from it, even where it is illegal.

[AlanK82]

Why do you want to promote fiction? Higher quality? A dope dealer had better be selling the good stuff or he might go out of business. Nothing is added? Again, there can be serious consequences if someone on the street sells something that has unwanted additives.

Stigma? Seriously? What does that even mean? Just because it's 2021 it does not mean marijuana has been judged safe by anyone competent to do so. In the US, the rates of accidents involving marijuana is a concern to the insurance industry. They don't want to pay out any money. "not really a street drug" according to who? Investors and growers who needed certain laws passed to make a buck? I don't buy it.

[1Faith]

By every objective metric cannabis is much physically safer than most pharmaceuticals out there. And if you consume it orally rather than smoke it, there is basically zero physical harm at all.

Psychological risks is a more debatable point ill give you that. Plus it can be addictive if abused, and a lot of people do abuse it. But given everything we do know about it, it seems like stupid public policy to outlaw the stuff. A legal, regulated market that also discourages abuse seems much more reasonable. Plus the stuff is a potent therapeutic agent for many people with certain medical issues.

Sent from my SM-A015T1 using Tapatalk