MARIJUANA
#11
(01-19-2012, 07:23 PM)tmw89 Wrote: Were there any pre-V2 church docs that specifically mention the stuff?

I'm sure not aware of anything mentioned regarding pot specifically, but common sensically you treat it the same as alcohol, I would assume.  Used in moderation.  The exception in the US, where it's illegal (except when it's not) and thus we are obliged to follow the law.  Although it's been a long time since I had my first drink, I would imagine there is a pretty stark contrast between smoking pot and drinking as far as the effect, duration and how quickly it comes on.  Unless you're already abusing pot, it shouldn't take you more than a hit or two of some fair chronic to feel it to the point (that at least I would say) where you're "impaired." 

Which, truthfully, kind of defeats the point of smoking pot licitly.  If you're smoking good pot, you'll be high real quick- and that would surely be sinful.  And who wants to smoke crappy reefer just for the sake of legally burning some grass?

This thread should now officially about listing colloquials for pot and pot smoking.  I'll start: Spark some owl.
More Catholic Discussion: http://thetradforum.com/

Go thy ways, old Jack;
die when thou wilt, if manhood, good manhood, be
not forgot upon the face of the earth, then am I a
shotten herring. There live not three good men
unhanged in England; and one of them is fat and
grows old: God help the while! a bad world, I say.
I would I were a weaver; I could sing psalms or any
thing. A plague of all cowards, I say still.
Reply
#12
(01-19-2012, 07:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The only thing that can be said, I think, to be inherently sinful is when pot is illegal and is then smoked, as we're obliged to follow the laws of a country, as long as they're just.  Having pot be illegal may be inconvenient or a real bummer, but it is not "unjust."  Not by a long shot.

We are obliged to follow the laws, even unjust ones, unless doing so would violate a higher authority.
Reply
#13
(01-19-2012, 07:36 PM)su Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The only thing that can be said, I think, to be inherently sinful is when pot is illegal and is then smoked, as we're obliged to follow the laws of a country, as long as they're just.  Having pot be illegal may be inconvenient or a real bummer, but it is not "unjust."  Not by a long shot.

We are obliged to follow the laws, even unjust ones, unless doing so would violate a higher authority.

What if there is a possibilty that the authority isn't legitimate? On some issues, it may be morally wrong to break the law. On others, we may not face moral penalties, but rather penal punishment.
Reply
#14
(01-19-2012, 07:43 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:36 PM)su Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The only thing that can be said, I think, to be inherently sinful is when pot is illegal and is then smoked, as we're obliged to follow the laws of a country, as long as they're just.  Having pot be illegal may be inconvenient or a real bummer, but it is not "unjust."  Not by a long shot.

We are obliged to follow the laws, even unjust ones, unless doing so would violate a higher authority.

What if there is a possibilty that the authority isn't legitimate? On some issues, it may be morally wrong to break the law. On others, we may not face moral penalties, but rather penal punishment.

Better idea:  "Presivacantism."  Let's face it - ever since the corrupt bargain of 1876, the US has not had a valid president.  No valid president, no valid authority.
Reply
#15
(01-19-2012, 07:46 PM)tmw89 Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:43 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:36 PM)su Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The only thing that can be said, I think, to be inherently sinful is when pot is illegal and is then smoked, as we're obliged to follow the laws of a country, as long as they're just.  Having pot be illegal may be inconvenient or a real bummer, but it is not "unjust."  Not by a long shot.

We are obliged to follow the laws, even unjust ones, unless doing so would violate a higher authority.

What if there is a possibilty that the authority isn't legitimate? On some issues, it may be morally wrong to break the law. On others, we may not face moral penalties, but rather penal punishment.

Better idea:  "Presivacantism."  Let's face it - ever since the corrupt bargain of 1876, the US has not had a valid president.  No valid president, no valid authority.

I am a presideprivationist. Once Obama abandons the Democrats and is conditionally given US citizenship, there shall again be a president.
Reply
#16
About marijuana, I think it is a minor issue. The big issue is what is a "non" issue. It is that smoking things which are legal and socially common are somehow magically not a moral issue or a much lesser one.

For the laws, I do not care about it, but I think the laws should be based on consistent stated principles. If the government were honest, it would state that the reasons why things are legal or illegal is solely based on revenue. They get a lot of money from tobacco addicts, so it is legal. I would argue that marijuana, even without the addiction, could be quite profitable too, but at the moment, it isn't profitable so it is not legal. Perhaps having it illegal is financially beneficial to the enforcement of the laws. I do not know.

All I do know is that no matter the penalty for smoking marijuana, if marijuana is harmless and non-addictive (which I think as a whole it is), then people who smoke it and get themselves in legal trouble are being punished for their own stupidity. I know the legal system is clogged up with people with small drug infractions. While the law may be inconsistent, disproportionate, or unjust in some sense, there are two sides. There is the silly law, and then there are those people who break that law and get caught.

If it were up to me, I'd make all substances legal as long as the substance is properly marked (that is, if one is selling marijuana and crack brownies, then that must be clearly disclosed). For people of legal age, defined by the age they take on legal responsibility, they can do as they please, but they must accept all consequences of their choice. If one gets drunk and kills someone with an automobile, the intent of the act is defined by the intent of the substance intake. Did they intend to drink that substance and know what it could do? Then all acts resulting from that choice have the intent of the initial intoxicating act. If people smoke something and get health problems, the costs are all on the individual. Insurance companies and doctors can charge as much as they please, but it would be illegal to put those costs on other people.

With that, I think there would be a clear pattern of people using substances like heroin and meth being eventually removed from civil society in some fashion, while people who can use marijuana, alcohol, and other such things living normal social lives, and the people who can't handle it either removing themselves from civil society or refraining from the use of those substances.
Reply
#17
No, I don't want to see that stuff legalized. It's very bad.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#18
(01-19-2012, 07:43 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:36 PM)su Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The only thing that can be said, I think, to be inherently sinful is when pot is illegal and is then smoked, as we're obliged to follow the laws of a country, as long as they're just.  Having pot be illegal may be inconvenient or a real bummer, but it is not "unjust."  Not by a long shot.

We are obliged to follow the laws, even unjust ones, unless doing so would violate a higher authority.

What if there is a possibilty that the authority isn't legitimate? On some issues, it may be morally wrong to break the law. On others, we may not face moral penalties, but rather penal punishment.

The authority is legitimate if they have authority. http://blog.fisheaters.com/uncategorized...catholics/

Now, they have authority under God, so they have responsibility too, but it is not an excuse to deny the authority.

Reply
#19
(01-19-2012, 07:51 PM)su Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:43 PM)Crusader_Philly Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:36 PM)su Wrote:
(01-19-2012, 07:18 PM)Mithrandylan Wrote: The only thing that can be said, I think, to be inherently sinful is when pot is illegal and is then smoked, as we're obliged to follow the laws of a country, as long as they're just.  Having pot be illegal may be inconvenient or a real bummer, but it is not "unjust."  Not by a long shot.

We are obliged to follow the laws, even unjust ones, unless doing so would violate a higher authority.

What if there is a possibilty that the authority isn't legitimate? On some issues, it may be morally wrong to break the law. On others, we may not face moral penalties, but rather penal punishment.

The authority is legitimate if they have authority. http://blog.fisheaters.com/uncategorized...catholics/

Now, they have authority under God, so they have responsibility too, but it is not an excuse to deny the authority.

Okay. But what about penalties. I strong argument can be made that we are not morally bound to pay Federal income tax, but that it would foolish to not do so, as we would face harsh penal punishment (time in a Federal penitentiary.) What say su?
Reply
#20
(01-19-2012, 07:50 PM)su Wrote: If it were up to me, I'd make all substances legal as long as the substance is properly marked (that is, if one is selling marijuana and crack brownies, then that must be clearly disclosed). For people of legal age, defined by the age they take on legal responsibility, they can do as they please, but they must accept all consequences of their choice. If one gets drunk and kills someone with an automobile, the intent of the act is defined by the intent of the substance intake. Did they intend to drink that substance and know what it could do? Then all acts resulting from that choice have the intent of the initial intoxicating act. If people smoke something and get health problems, the costs are all on the individual. Insurance companies and doctors can charge as much as they please, but it would be illegal to put those costs on other people.

It would be really hard to prove which health problems were caused by the drug and which were not. Most diseases people get from taking drugs can also be found in people who have never taken any drugs.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)