I guess you didn't actually read it (or comprehend).  Cocaine has an extremely high risk of addicition and would therefore fall under that prohibition.

Secondly, here you go again with the "just" a venial sin garbage.  Nobody's advocating venial sin.  Jone says that it's venial if there's no proportionate justification, but no sin at all if there's proportioniate justification.  So, if you could take cocaine without the risk of addiction (not possible, from what I understand), and it didn't compromise your reason, and you needed it to get your work done, yes, it would be justifiable ... and NO sin at all (not "just" venial sin).

Given the examples Jone gives where there would be no sin to take narcotics occasionally, I have to wonder what else could be considered "proportionate justification".  It seems a bit too easy to claim "proportionate justification".

I wouldn't want to make that judgment without consulting a good and holy Catholic priest.

ETA:  It looks like you are copying and pasting Jone.  Do you have an online version?  I have the book, but it sure would be nice to access it online.

What exactly are you asking?

I am referring to this:

To use narcotics in small quantities and only occasionally, is a venial sin if done without a sufficient reason. Any proportionately good reason justifies their use, e.g., to calm the nerves, dispel insomnia, etc.

It doesn't seem to take much to come up with a "proportionately good reason" for occasional use of narcotics without imputing sin.

This isn't speaking of MJ, but I think that this might be what LT is concerned with...

Any young man that reads Jone and what you write will conclude that it is no big deal to smoke dope "recreationally". There is more to life than what that book says, which is not much. A normal person that reads Jone will  know less than they did before they sought it out. But you do not see that because you think that Jone is the end all be all. I am sorry, but Jone clarifies nothing for the average Joe on the street, 99.99 percent of the world.

Cocaine has the same risk of addiction as MJ, it can be easily used in moderation, one line and a tired husband is off to the clubs to dance with his wife. If todays MJ is legal, so can Cocaine be made legal and so can Hashish which also can also be used "in moderation". Once you open that pandoras box that it can be used recreationally in "moderation", the list of approved equivalents will never end.

If God made it, it should be legal.

Regarding recreational use, it can be argued that alcohol does more damage to the body than MJ does yet God has no problem with MODERATE alcohol consumption.…
 

I state it more strongly: It is inarguable. Absolutely for certain alcohol is toxic; people die regularly from overdose of alcohol as a direct effect of the drug. It is impossible to die of a marijuana overdose (unless you simultaneously cut off a person's oxygen supply).

Sorry, meant to upvote...

Your statement is true. 

No worries.  I care nothing about downthumbs EXCEPT for the enormous fun of irritating hysterics and effeminates.

To amplify on "can't overdose on MJ," I met 8 patients, each of whom cured aggressive or advanced cancer using 50 times the psychoactive dose for 60 days. No overdose, but CURED OF CANCER.

So are the grapes for your wine, the hops for your beer, the corn or potatoes for your vodka, the hormones in your chicken and pork, and probably 95% of every food item in your kitchen. 

The only way to get away from it is to raise your own everything.  Even then you have to be careful about the feed you give your animals, what is in the fertilizer you use in your garden, and what was used on the land before you got there.

Actually there is a rumor that Last Tradhican's "North 40" is contaminated with "natural" heavy metals and radionuclides.

To amplify on "can't overdose on MJ," I met 8 patients, each of whom cured aggressive or advanced cancer using 50 times the psychoactive dose for 60 days. No overdose, but CURED OF CANCER.

Yep.

You [Last RabiesTrad] made this very revealing statement.

You claimed that your "experience" (your exact word) allowed you to know the advice of multiple priests (you used the plural) and were in a position to know the results of that advice regarding five concerns. So, unless 1 penitent had sins related to all five topics, you are claiming you have knowledge of the sins of multiple penitents before and after the advice of multiple priests.

You cannot know the advice of multiple priests unless you were told by the priests and penitents or listened at the confessional. Which is it? Did multiple priests break the seal of the confessional? Or did you listen to the confessions of others? Or did multiple people decide that they also needed to confess their sins to you? Which is it?

You cannot know the outcome of that advice unless you can compare the sins before and after the advice. To make that comparison you must have knowledge of the sɛҳuąƖ activities of multiple people. How did you get that knowledge?  Did all those penitents give you a tally of their porn use, masturbation, and fornication?  Were you doing occult paranormal "remote viewing"? Or were you a serial Peeping Tom?

Of course, there is another possibility… You lied that you have "experience," simply did the Meg thing, presumed you know the interior forum and project acts about which you could only perversely know or imagine, and are just what we know you to be—a rabid blowhard perverted bullsh*tter.

Your own statement reveals that you are a seriously disordered person—sɛҳuąƖly and spiritually—who foams and perversely ruminates about and projects the sɛҳuąƖ sins of others. It seems that your stated sɛҳuąƖ past is reflected in your present disorder.

Totally disgusting.

I wouldn't want the interrogator to miss his own interrogation.