CathInfo.com

As for the real or alleged health benefits of marijuana, I find that completely irrelevant to the question of its morality (and besides, it is available in non-euphoric form anyway).

Crack, speed, and meth are probably good for weight loss, since they speed the metabolism and suppresses the appetite, but that doesn't make them moral.

Again, you're applying emotional considerations.  Crack, speed, meth, etc. are similar to, say, legal prescription opiates or morphine.  With grave eough reason, you can take morphine (and could conceivably take the others, say, if you were in extreme pain and it was all you had), etc.  But you're tring to blend less grave reasons that are not proportional.  That's the major principle, that the justifying reason has to be proportional.  Losing weight or suppressing appetite, which can be accomplished in many other non-narcotic ways, are not proportionally grave to be able to justify losing control of one's faculties.  But, if someone was in extreme pain, if it would be moral to take morphine, it would be moral to take these others.

And there's another problem with these (the opiate family), namely that they are incredibly addictive and end up ruining and destroying people's lives.  Even the tiniest amount can form a habit or an addiction.  That has to be considered in the equation.  There's no such effect from MJ.

See, that's a practical consideration, not a moral one.  Whatever amount it takes for you to lose control of your faculties would be grave sin without proportionate justification.  But I read about the phenomenon of micro-dosing where you can in fact take amounts that you can barely even feel to alleviate certain conditions.  If you could take enough micro-doses to make youself feel a bit tipsy but not "high," I can see no morally-relevant difference between that and having a couple glasses of wine to make you a bit tipsy.  I did include that caveat and distinction in my previous post, that, assuming you can take an amount that would get you tipsy but not high.  So the rational principle has to do with whether or not you lose control of your faculties.

Hmm...That's an interesting argument.  I've never heard of "micro dosing."

On the one hand, your argument has the merit of logical consistency: If it is the degree to which retention or surrender of the reasoning faculty is involved which determines the liceity or sinfulness of alcohol use, then that same standard would seem to equally applicable to marijuana use (in which case, at least in theory, a dose of marijuana which does not result in complete surrender of the rational faculty would not be gravely sinful).

On the other hand, I'm wondering whether there are additional considerations at play regarding marijuana use which could impact its morality -even without surrendering the use of the rational faculty- which are not applicable to alcohol use?

Again, you're applying emotional considerations.  Crack, speed, meth, etc. are similar to, say, legal prescription opiates or morphine.  With grave eough reason, you can take morphine (and could conceivably take the others, say, if you were in extreme pain and it was all you had), etc.  But you're tring to blend less grave reasons that are not proportional.  That's the major principle, that the justifying reason has to be proportional.  Losing weight or suppressing appetite, which can be accomplished in many other non-narcotic ways, are not proportionally grave to be able to justify losing control of one's faculties.  But, if someone was in extreme pain, if it would be moral to take morphine, it would be moral to take these others.

And there's another problem with these (the opiate family), namely that they are incredibly addictive and end up ruining and destroying people's lives.  Even the tiniest amount can form a habit or an addiction.  That has to be considered in the equation.  There's no such effect from MJ.

What's emotional about noting the health benefit of crack, speed, and meth?

Its pure science: If you smoke/take these drugs, they will help you lose weight.

Its no honest answer to say there are other ways to accomplish weight loss than taking these drugs unless you also say the same for the alleged benefits of marijuana use (i.e., there are other medicines/treatments to cure nausea, glaucoma, etc.).

The questoin becomes: Are there other/additional undesirable and immoral considerations which preclude their use?

With crack, meth, and speed, there are a whole array of serious medical consequences, up to and including death, schizophrenia, etc.

What about with marijuana?

If not, I think I would have to reluctantly concede the argument, but if so, then fortuer inquiry is necessary.

This leaves us in the same place as in my previous post just above.