Smoking pot a mortal sin
#21
(10-30-2012, 09:01 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 08:52 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I would think that the moderate use of narcotics for a sufficient or grave reason would be morally licit.  The only reason/condition for it to become would be a prohibition by positive law, which is what we have now.

Narcotics are allowed for pain control, under strict guidance of a doctor.  The assumption is that the doctor is virtuous, though, which isn't always the case, but that's a different matter.

Tens of thousands of people die every year from legal prescription drugs. I'm not aware of anybody dying from marijuana ever.
Reply
#22
Here in Michigan, marijuana is legal with a doctor's prescription. In general, I don't trust doctors. I prefer to self-diagnose and self-medicate.

I see nothing immoral about self-medicating with marijuana. I don't see anything immoral in moderate marijuana use for any reason.
Reply
#23
(10-30-2012, 09:04 PM)knittycat Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 08:51 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 08:42 PM)knittycat Wrote: Tobacco is food oriented? Since when?

Tobacco was made for common consumption. Tobacco can used regularly, it be moderated, and used as part of sobriety. Tobacco is not a drug. Tobacco does not alter your consciousness and impairs reason like the illegitimate use of some drugs.

From what I've seen, tobacco is far far *far* more addictive than pot.  My mom stopped smoking pot when she was in her early twenties no problems, she stopped smoking cigarettes a few years later, and she told me it was the hardest thing she'd ever done.  In my, albeit limited, experience tobacco is a very difficult drug to use in moderation.

The sin isn't in the addiction, it's in the voluntary impairing of reason.  If some people don't seem to have their reason impaired when they're smoking marijuana 'in moderation', it doesn't mean their reason isn't impaired.  The fact that they use it at all shows a lack of good judgement. 

It's very easy to get over-confident and imagine that that little bit won't hurt, especially past the age of, say, 40, but sometimes life is long, and if a person has established the habit, at any age, what will they do when suddenly they're faced with some heavy trial?  One can't be too careful with this.  If you want to argue against the catechism, go ahead, but know what you're doing. 
Reply
#24
(10-30-2012, 09:09 PM)anamchara Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 09:01 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 08:52 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote: I would think that the moderate use of narcotics for a sufficient or grave reason would be morally licit.  The only reason/condition for it to become would be a prohibition by positive law, which is what we have now.

Narcotics are allowed for pain control, under strict guidance of a doctor.  The assumption is that the doctor is virtuous, though, which isn't always the case, but that's a different matter.

Tens of thousands of people die every year from legal prescription drugs. I'm not aware of anybody dying from marijuana ever.

The issue is impairment of reason, not fatalities.
Reply
#25
(10-30-2012, 08:32 PM)Petertherock Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 07:15 PM)anamchara Wrote: Hard to swallow. If smoking marijuana in moderation is sinful, so is smoking tobacco and drinking beer in moderation.

Not true. Pot is a drug that is worse than tobacco and alcohol. Of course alcohol can also be a mortal sin if you get drunk all the time.

This is patently absurd. Tobacco and alcohol kill hundreds of thousands of people every year. Nobody dies from smoking an occasional joint in the privacy of his own home.
Reply
#26
(10-30-2012, 09:15 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 09:04 PM)knittycat Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 08:51 PM)SaintRafael Wrote:
(10-30-2012, 08:42 PM)knittycat Wrote: Tobacco is food oriented? Since when?

Tobacco was made for common consumption. Tobacco can used regularly, it be moderated, and used as part of sobriety. Tobacco is not a drug. Tobacco does not alter your consciousness and impairs reason like the illegitimate use of some drugs.

From what I've seen, tobacco is far far *far* more addictive than pot.  My mom stopped smoking pot when she was in her early twenties no problems, she stopped smoking cigarettes a few years later, and she told me it was the hardest thing she'd ever done.  In my, albeit limited, experience tobacco is a very difficult drug to use in moderation.

The sin isn't in the addiction, it's in the voluntary impairing of reason.  If some people don't seem to have their reason impaired when they're smoking marijuana 'in moderation', it doesn't mean their reason isn't impaired.  The fact that they use it at all shows a lack of good judgement. 

It's very easy to get over-confident and imagine that that little bit won't hurt, especially past the age of, say, 40, but sometimes life is long, and if a person has established the habit, at any age, what will they do when suddenly they're faced with some heavy trial?  One can't be too careful with this.  If you want to argue against the catechism, go ahead, but know what you're doing. 
Er...uh...okay...was I arguing against the catechism? I thought I was just offering what experience I had and contributing to what appeared to be a debate...
Reply
#27
(10-30-2012, 09:13 PM)anamchara Wrote: Here in Michigan, marijuana is legal with a doctor's prescription. In general, I don't trust doctors. I prefer to self-diagnose and self-medicate.

I see nothing immoral about self-medicating with marijuana. I don't see anything immoral in moderate marijuana use for any reason.

I would talk to a priest.
Reply
#28
(10-30-2012, 09:13 PM)anamchara Wrote: Here in Michigan, marijuana is legal with a doctor's prescription. In general, I don't trust doctors. I prefer to self-diagnose and self-medicate.

I see nothing immoral about self-medicating with marijuana. I don't see anything immoral in moderate marijuana use for any reason.

I can understand your distrust of the medical profession, but if we applied this line of thinking to other things, it would not work. For example, with cars, apart from basic operations, you would not be able to self-diagnose and self-repair your car. I'm not talking about an oil change, flat tire, or even tune up and brakes, but serious work.
Reply
#29
(10-30-2012, 09:17 PM)knittycat Wrote: Er...uh...okay...was I arguing against the catechism? I thought I was just offering what experience I had and contributing to what appeared to be a debate...

I apologize.  I was thinking about what others had said.  I'm really sorry, knittycat.
Reply
#30
It's ok.  I actually read my previous posts there really quickly.  I didn't *think* I'd said anything about me knowing better...but then again...I've had a few beers (KIDDING!)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)