CathInfo.com

Here would be an appropriate response from LastTrad et al., having put aside their ego and pride, and thoughtfully considered some of the points being made here.

1) I acknowledge that the guiding principle (taught unanimously by the pre-Vatican II Catholic theologians) in evaluating the morality of marijuana use pertains to the impairment of the higher faculties.

2) So I retract posting this article from the Novus Ordo pseudo-theologian with a cracker-jack-box degree who invented this nonsense about "food stuff" without so much as making mention of the Traditional moral principle above.

3) I acknowledge that the use of THC is not instrinsically evil, and there would be nothing wrong or sinful about using THC in the so-called micro-dosing scenarios where many of the benefits can be had without any impairment of the faculties (putting aside for now extrinsic considerations such as legality and risk of job loss).

4) I acknowledge that even losing control of one's faculties might be done without sin if done for proportionately-grave (e.g. medical) reasons.

5) I acknowledge that slight impairment of the faculties (aka a "buzz") might be justifiable for less grave reasons, such as the relief of depression and anxiety, which can be debilitating conditions for some people.  Without such justification, it would constitute venial sin.

6) I acknowledge that there's no moral difference between getting tipsy on alcohol for "recreation" (relaxation) and obtaining a similar degree of impairment of the faculties from marijuana.

7) I acknowledge that there's no moral difference between alcohol and marijuana (just the practical difference that a lot less marijuana would be required to commit sin ... but then a lot less Jack Daniels would also be required compared to, say, a 5% ABV  beer).

8) I deeply regret and retract all the personal attacks on those who simply adhere to these eminently Catholic principles, accusations of being "dopers", the slander the claiming that anyone here promoted the notion that it's permissible to "get high for recreation" (when in fact they cited pre-V2 moral theologians to the effect that this would constitute grave sin), and the calumny of implying that they were not Catholics.

9) I acknowledge that the notion of legalization is largely a prudential consideration.  I see how St. Thomas said that states needn't make prostitution illegal since it would happen anyway.  Similarly, one could reasonably argue that even if pot were illegal, those who want to get high can easily get marijuana and get high, and that inordinate amounts of tax dollars are spent on arresting and jailing marijuana users (I've seen stats that said 50% of the people in jail are there for drug use).  So arguing, as St. Thomas did, that it is not prudent to make marijuana use a criminal offense is not to be a promoter of the immoral use of marijuana.

“It was a scandal to see that during Lent, the zealous defense of marijuana use and advocacy dominated Cathinfo.”

I only wonder that it took this long for another resident Pharisee to join in the slander and calumny.

Nobody is defending the IMMORAL use of marijuna, and to say that is complete slander.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Instead of emoting Pharisaically, please explain what part of the explanations by pre-Vatican II moral theologians Jone and Prummer you disagree with and why.