Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Author Topic: What's the purpose of smoking marijuana for Recreation?  (Read 28209 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Meg

Re: What's the purpose of smoking marijuana for Recreation?
« Reply #125 on: March 16, 2022, 12:11:49 PM »
It's often remarked by Catholics that our country has a puritanical heritage. Usually, the heritage of American puritanism is seen simply as a rigid and principled rejection of certain pleasures, especially intoxicants.

I don't think that's actually the heritage of American puritanism, though. I think the real heritage of American puritanism is the idea that intoxicants are for "getting messed up."  This attitude is something that almost all Americans share, they just differ in judging "getting messed up" to be a good or bad thing. In general, irreligious people think that getting messed up is good, whilst religious people think it's bad.

In Europe, I am told, there is a much healthier attitude toward intoxicants (alcohol especially). Taking alcohol as an example, it is a cultural staple and even children are given it. Alcohol is to Europe what guns are to America: early exposure and normalization helps provide for a much more moderate and responsible use. This isn't to suggest or imply that we should give children cannabis just for the sake of getting them used to it. Cannabis is psychoactive, so I would favor age restrictions on it since regular use can be detrimental to cognitive development. No, the reason I bring it up is to show how very cultural the evaluation LT offers (and others who argue like him) actually is. And as is the case with many things that are cultural, it's just about impossible to imagine it being any other way.


Well said. When I took an enology course at a community college, the instructor's parents were from France. She said that they were all given wine as children during supper, diluted with water. She said that she and none of her 5 siblings were alcoholics. 

Yes, cannabis is psychoactive. Hence, caution should be used. And one needs to be realistic about the side effects, which are very much downplayed. 

Re: What's the purpose of smoking marijuana for Recreation?
« Reply #126 on: March 16, 2022, 12:52:48 PM »

Well said. When I took an enology course at a community college, the instructor's parents were from France. She said that they were all given wine as children during supper, diluted with water. She said that she and none of her 5 siblings were alcoholics.

Yes, cannabis is psychoactive. Hence, caution should be used. And one needs to be realistic about the side effects, which are very much downplayed.
There are fewer side effects to MJ than alcohol.  Educate yourself.  Google Rick Simpson Oil story.


Offline Meg

Re: What's the purpose of smoking marijuana for Recreation?
« Reply #127 on: March 16, 2022, 12:57:25 PM »
There are fewer side effects to MJ than alcohol.  Educate yourself.  Google Rick Simpson Oil story.

If someone is suffering from cancer, and pot helps, that's fine. But that's a completely different thing from saying that there's nothing wrong with smoking pot recreationally. And I still don't believe that it's an actual cure for cancer. 

And I'm willing to bet that I've seen more people suffer and die from cancer (and chemotherapy) than you have, since I worked for several years in an in-patient hospital oncology unit. I'm not a fan of allopathic medicine. I favor alternatives. But those who push pot as being medicinal tend to completely whitewash the negative aspects of it, especially when taken recreationally. 

You're another know-it-all. Aren't traditional Catholics wonderful? :laugh1:

Offline Mark 79

  • Supporter
Re: What's the purpose of smoking marijuana for Recreation?
« Reply #128 on: March 16, 2022, 02:14:13 PM »
As if emptying bedpans is a qualification to pontificate on oncology protocols or to correct "know-it-alls"?


It is an amusing irony that marijuana's strongest opponents continue to claim that marijuana causes cancer. The National Institute of Drug Abuse funded UCLA pulmonologist Prof. Donald Tashkin. For decades Tashkin struggled to demonstrate that smoking marijuana causes cancer, but he finally gave up. Tashkin's 2006 publication of his case-controlled study compared 1,200 patients with lung and head and neck cancers to a control group without cancers. To his credit, Tashkin reported reported the results that flew against his prejudice. He reported that, while tobacco smokers had a twenty-fold risk of cancer compared to non-smokers, marijuana smokers had lower cancer risk than non-smokers.

Got that? Marijuana smokers had lower cancer risk than non-smokers!

Marijuana Use and the Risk of Lung and Upper Aerodigestive Tract Cancers: Results of a Population-Based Case-Control Study

Mia Hashibe; Hal Morgenstern; Yan Cui; Donald P. Tashkin; Zuo-Feng Zhang; Wendy Cozen; Thomas M. Mack; Sander Greenland. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev (2006) 15 (10): 1829–1834.
https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0330

Tashkin's findings merely echoed an earlier 1997 National Institute of Drug Abuse funded study of 65,000 Kaiser HMO patients. In turn, those findings in humans were presaged by federally funded animal studies from the 1970s.

Get the memo—the most committed opponents of marijuana (researchers and feds) have been forced to begrudgingly admit that there is no evidence that marijuana causes cancer.

That marijuana smokers have lower cancer risk than non-smokers certainly lends credence to the reports of cancer cures using marijuana.

Sure, marijuana's rabid enemies can point to this or that putatively carcinogenic chemical in marijuana smoke (e.g., aromatic hydrocarbons such as benzopyrene), but whatever those chemicals, it is clear that marijuana's beneficial chemicals have the predominant effect.

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: What's the purpose of smoking marijuana for Recreation?
« Reply #129 on: March 16, 2022, 06:08:54 PM »
If Lizzo wear shorts to the grocery store and nobody feels lust is it still a sin?

Objectively, it's sinful.  But Lizzo may not know and her ignorance may be inculpable, so, to repeat, maybe yes, maybe no.  Your average person today has NO clue that it's wrong.