Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Health and Nutrition => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on April 21, 2022, 07:20:06 AM
-
Excerpt from a 2019 SSPX article (Note this article discusses recreational use, not medical use):
Is Using Marijuana a Sin?
The primary effect of the THC is to induce the “high,” and it is practically very rare that one could effectively avoid the stultifying effects of the drug.
For all of the above reasons – that is, impairing of the ability to think and judge properly, damage to the brain, fleeing from reality, unknown physical or psychosomatic effects, difficulty in dosing - moralists conclude that, even though the use of marijuana does not entirely totally suppress the use of reason, it is certainly gravely imprudent to use it.
Thus, the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“
https://florida.sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-pot-just-say-no-47742
-
the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“
Recreational usage has not been the pro-MJ argument here.
And thanks for starting yet another thread on the topic after the last one was locked. :facepalm:
-
Response to Ladislaus in response to my post in the locked thread:
Some here are advocating recreational use or at least implying it via meme. But what I am getting is deeper. Why do Trads lock themselves into a certain conceptual language clown box? Why not just call someone a jerk instead of theologizing it? Are those who oppose marijuana really motivated by Jansenism, c'mon.
The reason I say this is unless more nuanced, I don't trust such claims as pharisee, jansenist, rigourist, etc by instinct because the same people who use them are almost always looking to undermine Catholic morality, while pushing their own morality via racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc. You may not believe me, but before 2015 there was growing acceptance of the homo stuff within Traditional Catholicism. I knew Trad women who spoke of having "gαy friends," a turn off, and it was one the things that prompted me to leave the states. I can tell you that no Trads in Europe or Latin America would advocate for marijuana, probably not even in its medical form.
-
The reason I say this is unless more nuanced, I don't trust such claims as pharisee, jansenist, rigourist, etc by instinct because the same people who use them are almost always looking to undermine Catholic morality, while pushing their own morality via racism, sexism, homophobia, antisemitism, etc.
Because there are three individuals here attempting to read the interior forum of others and outwardly lying about what some of us do in our personal lives without any actual knowledge of it, while themselves offering up only subjective and emotional counterpoints to the argument. Dismissing traditional moral theology on the matter and offering post-Conciliar lay-opinions on the subject. Had you taken the time to actually read through the mire posted, you would have seen that. (Though, I don't blame you for not doing so)
Sean here has actually posted something objective that I don't entirely disagree with. He is also not among those being derided for their Pharisaism.
-
Excerpt from a 2019 SSPX article (Note this article discusses recreational use, not medical use):
Is Using Marijuana a Sin?
The primary effect of the THC is to induce the “high,” and it is practically very rare that one could effectively avoid the stultifying effects of the drug.
For all of the above reasons – that is, impairing of the ability to think and judge properly, damage to the brain, fleeing from reality, unknown physical or psychosomatic effects, difficulty in dosing - moralists conclude that, even though the use of marijuana does not entirely totally suppress the use of reason, it is certainly gravely imprudent to use it.
Thus, the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“
https://florida.sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-pot-just-say-no-47742
1. No one on CathInfo.com has posted anything promoting Marijuana for recreational use (aside from "roscoe", who interestingly hasn't been posting in these threads! Has he?) But at any rate, talking about recreational use being a mortal sin is a non-issue. No one disputes that here. It is a red herring.
2. This article seems to be highly influenced by Fr. Scott's article from the 90's. Using phrases like "practically very rare" is a red flag -- it's the kind of vague language used by someone who hasn't studied the issue very deeply and frankly has few facts to offer. I know that is the language *I* would use if I were short on scientific data and hard facts.
I didn't hear about CBD oil back in the 90's. Nor were there so many varieties of pot, with varying levels of THC. Growers have almost total control over the final product now, it seems.
I would also be willing to entertain the notion that Mark79, who has done quite a bit of research, actually knows MORE about the issue than many ordained SSPX priests with 6 years of Trad seminary formation under their belts. Sometimes a priest has to humble himself (at least in one limited area), giving place to a layman in certain matters of science, business, etc. At the very least, an individual priest is NOT infallible, nor is he the final word on the matter!
6 years in the seminary, and the priestly character received at Ordination, elevates a man above other laymen in certain areas and in certain ways -- but not in all areas. A professional engineer knows WAY more about design than most priests. Which makes sense: he studied engineering for 6 years, instead of the Faith, theology, and philosophy.
-
I have a better perspective on just how *limited* many SSPX priests are. I got to know a huge group of Seminarians from 2000 - 2003, many of whom are priests today.
One, for example (I refuse to give or confirm his name, as this is not about personalities) went right into the seminary after Homeschooling. Talk about naive and inexperienced in worldly matters! He might be pious, he might get good grades at the seminary, but he could be quite idealistic and naive about life out in the big bad world.
And some might shoot me for saying this: but getting 100% of one's information from the SSPX and Trad Cat sources is NOT the same thing as learning it for yourself, from different sources, on your own, through life experience, out in the world.
When you rely on parents or other busy authority figures for most of your knowledge of the world, you can usually forget about things like nuance and distinction. You will be getting the 10-second soundbite, simplified version. Personally I go out of my way NOT to do this -- I'm a stickler for truth, accuracy, which makes me long-winded. But I don't want to be ham-fisted when teaching my children. But I also realize I'm the exception. I am a good teacher (not everyone is) and I seem to have a gift from God for objectivity (For humility sake I'd love to assume everyone has this gift, but life experience has sadly taught me how rare it is).
Fellow laymen over 25: You know how countless experiences have broadened your horizons, and made the world seem different somehow? It boggles my mind how many experiences I've had, which gave me a broader (and therefore, higher elevation) perspective and more accurate perception of the "whole world".
How could a young man of 18, who never left his hometown (let's say a majority white town in a conservative/rural area), POSSIBLY have an objectively accurate (i.e., realistic) perception of the world? He's been almost completely sheltered his whole life. How many experiences, how many kinds of people, are but cardboard cutouts or "placeholders" for the real thing?
I remember being shocked to meet someone so naive and sheltered, who was only 4 years younger than me at the time. He wasn't 18 any more, because he had been in Seminary for a couple years already when I got there. I don't remember what the issue was, but my 6 years "in the world" made me seem closer to being his father than a peer of his!
You don't want to throw kids to the wolves at 5 years old (as the world advocates) and you certainly don't want to throw your kids into a grave occasion of sin (like public school, or hanging around children who WILL introduce them to grave sins and vicious behavior). I think the solution is to form them well, in the Truth, but at some point you have to let them live and experience the world themselves. It's called growing up.
But let's just say I wouldn't want any 18 year old writing moral theology manuals...
-
1. No one on CathInfo.com has posted anything promoting Marijuana for recreational use (aside from "roscoe", who interestingly hasn't been posting in these threads! Has he?) But at any rate, talking about recreational use being a mortal sin is a non-issue. No one disputes that here. It is a red herring.
2. This article seems to be highly influenced by Fr. Scott's article from the 90's. Using phrases like "practically very rare" is a red flag -- it's the kind of vague language used by someone who hasn't studied the issue very deeply and frankly has few facts to offer. I know that is the language *I* would use if I were short on scientific data and hard facts.
I didn't hear about CBD oil back in the 90's. Nor were there so many varieties of pot, with varying levels of THC. Growers have almost total control over the final product now, it seems.
I would also be willing to entertain the notion that Mark79, who has done quite a bit of research, actually knows MORE about the issue than many ordained SSPX priests with 6 years of Trad seminary formation under their belts. Sometimes a priest has to humble himself (at least in one limited area), giving place to a layman in certain matters of science, business, etc. At the very least, an individual priest is NOT infallible, nor is he the final word on the matter!
6 years in the seminary, and the priestly character received at Ordination, elevates a man above other laymen in certain areas and in certain ways -- but not in all areas. A professional engineer knows WAY more about design than most priests. Which makes sense: he studied engineering for 6 years, instead of the Faith, theology, and philosophy.
1) As Rochefoucald has observed, several posts have heavily implied support for recreational use. Perhaps they were disingenuous, and/or taunting their adversaries, but to clear up any confusion, I posted the article.
If nobody here is advocating recreational use, it’s difficult to understand Ladislaus’s repeated example of microdosing not being sinful (which seems to have no other purpose than to “prove” small amounts can be taken -even recreationally- without sin).
Even if that is conceded, see #2 below...
2) “practically very rare” (ie., that a pot user avoids the stultifying effects of MJ) is exactly accurate, not a “red flag” as you seem to think. It clearly means that, unlike alcohol use, 1-2 puffs of weed are taken precisely to produce -and not avoid- this effect (and in fact, that effect is almost always produced). Again, Ladislaus had to go all the way to “microdosing” to avoid recognizing that fact.
3) Mark79 is looking at the issue from the vantage of medicinal benefit, and in that regard he seems to have some knowledge. But from the moral perspective, I’m sure he would not presume to know more about morals that traditional priests. But in any case, the article is not discussing medicinal use.
-
1) As Rochefoucald has observed, several posts have heavily implied support for recreational use. Perhaps they were disingenuous, and/or taunting their adversaries, but to clear up any confusion, I posted the article.
If nobody here is advocating recreational use, it’s difficult to understand Ladislaus’s repeated example of microdosing not being sinful (which seems to have no other purpose than to “prove” small amounts can be taken -even recreationally- without sin).
Even if that is conceded, see #2 below...
2) “practically very rare” (ie., that a pot user avoids the stultifying effects of MJ) is exactly accurate, not a “red flag” as you seem to think. It clearly means that, unlike alcohol use, 1-2 puffs of weed are taken precisely to produce -and not avoid- this effect (and in fact, that effect is almost always produced). Again, Ladislaus had to go all the way to “microdosing” to avoid recognizing that fact.
3) Mark79 is looking at the issue from the vantage of medicinal benefit, and in that regard he seems to have some knowledge. But from the moral perspective, I’m sure he would not presume to know more about morals that traditional priests. But in any case, the article is not discussing medicinal use.
Just wanted to add to #1 that, besides Ladislaus’s microdosing justification, there were several others in the various MJ threads which attempted to draw a false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.
-
Some here are advocating recreational use or at least implying it via meme.
Memes were obviously a joke ... a bit of chain-yanking if you will. Matthew even joined in (sans meme).
-
Just wanted to add to #1 that, besides Ladislaus’s microdosing justification, ...
There was no "microdosing justification". It was an attempt to draw out the principles from people's thick skulls. Microdosing involves the use of just enough THC to provide benefits of relaxation, relief of anxiety and depression, etc. WITHOUT there being a high or even a buzz ... the principle being that the morality hinges entirely on the impairment of the faculties, as the pre-V2 moral theologians very clearly explained. This is not particularly difficult stuff.
-
Sean, please define "recreational". This is key to a rational debate.
-
false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.
How much is required to produce the same effect is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the principle ... that's merely a practical consideration. It only "heavily implies" anything due to the thick skulls and lack of intellectual capacity of some involved in the debate.
[Whatever the amount is ...] to produce a similar level of impairment as [whatever amount of alcohol] doesn't really matter. What matter is the level of impairment of the higher faculties and a justification is required proportional to the level of impairment.
-
Sean, please define "recreational". This is key to a rational debate.
Yeah, I tried to elicit a definition (in Catholic terms) of "recreation" on the other thread ... and it was all in vain. These people aren't interested in a rational discussion or debate. They simply emote, huff and puff, use personal attacks, even to the point of slandering those who disagree with them by propping up a strawman position.
-
there were several others in the various MJ threads which attempted to draw a false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.
Alcohol is highly regulated and manufactured, so when you look at a bottle, you know how much alcohol % is contained and you drink according to your tolerance (which is still subjective...because it drinking on an empty/full stomach can DRASTICALLY alter its effects).
MJ is not uniformly grown nor produced. It is impossible to say that 1-2 puffs will get you high, or won't, without knowing the plant, producer, etc. Again, it also depends on the person and how they react to such substances.
Some people can use asprin for pain relief; some people who take asprin will die from allergic shock. The point is...people have to know what they are drinking/smoking and if they aren't responsible, they will sin. God will hold them accountable according to their conscience, lukewarmness or carelessness.
But...for people who do research...they can safely and morally use MJ, in theory (I wouldn't know nor will I ever care to find out).
-
Just wanted to add to #1 that, besides Ladislaus’s microdosing justification, there were several others in the various MJ threads which attempted to draw a false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.
Additionally, I would observe that the article which I posted in the OP, which clearly states it is only condemning recreational use of MJ, has already garnered 3 quick down thumbs (a number soon to grow)?
The conclusion most normal people would arrive at is that they don’t want recreational use of MJ to be considered sinful.
cuмulatively, therefore, it’s difficult to concur that nobody here is advocating for the recreational use of MJ.
Drawing false equivalency between beer/wine and pot; microdosing; down-thumbing articles condemning recreational use of MJ...these certainly would create the impression in many folks, barring further explanation, that some here want recreational use of MJ to be “ok.”
-
3) Mark79 is looking at the issue from the vantage of medicinal benefit, and in that regard he seems to have some knowledge. But from the moral perspective, I’m sure he would not presume to know more about morals that traditional priests. But in any case, the article is not discussing medicinal use.
With all due respect to priests everywhere, isn't there a limit of "full understanding" that can be reached by laymen and priests alike?
Let me put it another way: it doesn't take 6 years in the seminary and the Priestly character to understand "losing the faculty of reason on purpose is a mortal sin".
Just like it doesn't take a PhD to understand that seeing buildings or ships dozens "too far away" (farther away than should be possible) based on curvature-of-earth calculations poses problems for the Globe Earth model. Some things are common sense. Those without certifications (seminary training, PhD, college degrees) are not therefore STUPID and unable to grasp basic concepts!
Put that together with a deeper knowledge of state-of-the-art in marijuana production, latest scientific research, and medicinal properties of the various chemicals in this herb, and some (like me) are led to conclude that an article by Mark79 is worth much more, holds more weight, commands more respect, etc. than a similar-length article by the likes of Fr. Scott.
In other words, the moral component is basic and therefore EASILY grasped by the untrained layman: "purposely taking away faculty of reason in human being = grave sin". Mark79 could easily "catch up to" Fr. Scott's grasp of that. Now what? Mark79 has then proceeded to fly loops around Fr. Scott with his up-to-date, educated, and nuanced knowledge on the issue of medicinal pot use.
-
There was no "microdosing justification". It was an attempt to draw out the principles from people's thick skulls. Microdosing involves the use of just enough THC to provide benefits of relaxation, relief of anxiety and depression, etc. WITHOUT there being a high or even a buzz ... the principle being that the morality hinges entirely on the impairment of the faculties, as the pre-V2 moral theologians very clearly explained. This is not particularly difficult stuff.
It is false to contend that “morality hinges entirely upon the impairment of the faculties...”
Am I morally permitted to drink poison (or otherwise harm myself) if there is no impairment of reason?
For example, if it were shown that sustained use of MJ in small doses (microdosing) causes schizophrenia, would it still be a morally licit practice?
-
Sean, please define "recreational". This is key to a rational debate.
Any non-medicinal use.
PS: Even some medicinal uses are prohibited (eg., when there is no necessity, and/or cases in which the benefit does not outweigh the risk to health, etc).
-
It is false to contend that “morality hinges entirely upon the impairment of the faculties...”
Am I morally permitted to drink poison (or otherwise harm myself) if there is no impairment of reason?
For example, if it were shown that sustained use of MJ in small doses (microdosing) causes schizophrenia, would it still be a morally licit practice?
Sean, according to your whole argument then Catholics everywhere need to boycott Big Pharma.
I hold that man-made drugs have much *worse* side effects, and offer less benefits, than certain substances found in pot (talk to Mark79 about the details; I'm not an expert at all)
I trust natural remedies quite a bit, and at any rate I don't trust Big Pharma *at all*.
If it's moral to fill prescriptions at your pharmacy -- ingesting OBJECTIVELY POISONOUS substances made by Big Pharma, despite the possibility of serious side effects -- then it's hard to argue you can't take medicinal pot for similarly good reasons.
-
It is false to contend that “morality hinges entirely upon the impairment of the faculties...”
Am I morally permitted to drink poison (or otherwise harm myself) if there is no impairment of reason?
For example, if it were shown that sustained use of MJ in small doses (microdosing) causes schizophrenia, would it still be a morally licit practice?
Alcohol is technically a form of poison, as are, broadly-speaking, most modern medicines (chemo being an obvious one); so yes, you could take certain poisons if the end of the action is still good. You could even take microdoses of cyanide (under strict medical observation) to increase your resistance to it.
Now, if your aim in drinking poison is to cause significant harm or impairment to yourself (again, the same principles surrounding alcohol consumption), then no, it is not morally licit. Which is literally what Lad, and others, have been arguing about MJ. Which in itself has been outright condemned by some as inherently evil.
-
I hold that pot has a worse reputation, more avoidance/mistrust, etc. than it deserves.
Meanwhile, man-made chemical drugs developed and produced by Big Pharma have *way* more respect and trust than they deserve.
If your mother or Grandma had a few bottles of Big Pharma wares on her counter, you wouldn't bat an eye. But if she had medicinal pot, it would be completely different.
Why is that? Totally irrational.
All the evidence points to the dangers of Big Pharma and great benefits from natural remedies, including medicinal pot.
-
How much is required to produce the same effect is entirely irrelevant to the discussion of the principle ... that's merely a practical consideration. It only "heavily implies" anything due to the thick skulls and lack of intellectual capacity of some involved in the debate.
[Whatever the amount is ...] to produce a similar level of impairment as [whatever amount of alcohol] doesn't really matter. What matter is the level of impairment of the higher faculties and a justification is required proportional to the level of impairment.
That’s part of my argument:
The impairment of the faculties is significantly higher in 1-2 puffs of MJ, than in 1-2 beers (and therefore the argument they amount to the same level of impairment is false. But that is precisely the argument some have made.
Note, however, the level of impairment is not the only cause of sinfulness (contrary to what you said above).
-
By law, commercial beer does not have to list all the chemicals contained/used to produce said beer. Some in the industry have anonymously stated that up to 100 different chemicals are used (and still remain) in most commercial beers. Commercially produced spirits also have high amounts of sulfur and commercial wine uses high amounts of sulfites, both of which have been scientifically studied to cause heart and liver issues.
Most all commercially produced products (even soap) contain harsh chemicals, many of which cause cancer. How about pesticides and food? Or the dangers of plastics? Let's not introduce chemicals/poisons into the argument or else we couldn't walk into a walmart...
-
Yeah, I tried to elicit a definition (in Catholic terms) of "recreation" on the other thread ... and it was all in vain. These people aren't interested in a rational discussion or debate. They simply emote, huff and puff, use personal attacks, even to the point of slandering those who disagree with them by propping up a strawman position.
As usual, your own comments condemn you. Nobody else in this thread is exhibiting the behavior you are describing.
-
The use of marijuana or other narcotics has been discussed by every single moral theologian, and they all gave the same answer, namely that the sinfulness of its use is the same as for that of alcohol.
There is not one single moral theologian that anyone has produced here who said that all recreational use of non-alcohol drugs is always mortally sinful. People have quoted Jone and Prummer, but they are only giving the consensus opinion. NO ONE on the other side has produced a single pre-Vatican II theology book that says all usage of marijuana is sinful. I would really like to see such a quote if it exists, though I'm fairly certain it doesn't.
As Catholics we are supposed to learn what is right and wrong from theologians, not our own opinions.
Every action is presumed to be licit unless the contrary is proved. People asking for a Catholic source saying that using marijuana is okay are making the wrong argument.
No simple priest, SSPX or otherwise, has any right to say that the unanimous opinion of theologians is wrong in allowing the recreational use of drugs if it does not impair the use of reason.
-
But...for people who do research...they can safely and morally use MJ, in theory (I wouldn't know nor will I ever care to find out).
So much for Matthew’s contention that nobody here is justifying the recreational use of MJ.
I have nothing more to add.
-
One aspect that I don't believe has been discussed are the cultural implications of recreational pot use.
There is a distinct pot smoking "culture" which is widely seen as antithetical to Traditional Catholicism. Cheech and Chong etc.
Didn't Paul discuss this with regards to eating food that is sacrificed to idols? (1 Cor 8) Even if a Christian understood that it wasn't sinful to eat such food, if doing so could cause scandal to others he advised to avoid it altogether.
I think this is the crux of the divide at CathInfo on this issue. Some can rightly make rigorous distinctions for certain criteria which would morally allow the use of mj.
While others are rightly concerned about the unseemly culture that tends to go with the practice and the scandal that causes especially to young people who could be misled.
This is especially distressing and upsetting to some because we are losing our Catholic culture in every way and are trying very hard to retain a semblance of the Catholic culture cherished by generations past and pass that down to our children.
Not everything that is licit as advisable.
7But there is not knowledge in every one. For some until this present, with conscience of the idol, eat as a thing sacrificed to an idol: and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. 8But meat doth not commend us to God. For neither, if we eat, shall we have the more: nor, if we eat not, shall we have the less. 9But take heed lest perhaps this your liberty become a stumblingblock to the weak. 10For if a man see him that hath knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not his conscience, being weak, be emboldened to eat those things which are sacrificed to idols? 11And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ hath died? 12Now when you sin thus against the brethren and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. 13Wherefore, if meat scandalize my brother, I will never eat flesh, lest I should scandalize my brother.
-
Yes, alcohol and MJ can be used non-medically/recreationally because low doses produce similar effects - promotion of relaxation, healthy moods and well being.
-
And most people go to bars to get drunk and have one-night stands. The "alcohol culture" is the most immorally "socially acceptable" anti-catholic culture that exists. Doesn't mean it's a sin to go to a bar...
-
I need to clarify what I said earlier:
When I said no one promotes recreational use, I wasn't talking about small doses (short of getting high) or non-medical contexts.
What I meant was: we don't have anyone promoting the full pothead behavior and lifestyle. Smoke all you want, frequently, carelessly, etc. For most people, "Recreation" involves a certain lack of worrying over every step, a certain carefree-ness, a certain desire for fun.
Just like in MOST contexts in The World, "going out drinking" involves getting DRUNK. For a Catholic that is a mortal sin. But many Catholics drink alcohol, always being careful to not over-do it.
I don't think I'm being unreasonable, as if I'm erecting some kind of strawman. Because certain persons are IN FACT using terms like "doper" and "pothead" which *certainly* implies not only excessive, free, unrestricted use of pot, but also the entire corresponding (libertine, licentious) lifestyle as well. THAT is what I was denying: we don't have any actual "potheads" on CathInfo. Nor anyone truly promoting the stuff for "fun" or "recreational" use aside from "roscoe".
And no, intellectual discussions about theoretical justified use for non-medicinal purposes is NOT the same thing.
-
So much for Matthew’s contention that nobody here is justifying the recreational use of MJ.
I have nothing more to add.
Good. You should extend your Cathinfo fast through Pentecost. And while you’re waiting, buy this one (it’s very cheap) and read the section on intemperance:
https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/edward-farrell-and-charles-callan-and-john-mchugh/moral-theology/paperback/product-5j9rnz.html?page=1&pageSize=4
Jone, Prummer, and McHugh’s Moral Theology all say the same thing. You’re beaten.
-
More to ponder with regards to the sin of scandal:
Would it be okay for a priest to roll a low dose joint at a social event? Not to get high but just to relax and help with his anxiety and back pain?
How about nuns?
I was going to bring this up in the vulgar language thread as well. If there is nothing wrong with vulgar language and it's a necessary evil to wake people up, shouldn't priests start to employ its use regularly?
And the nuns as well...
-
A social stigma (i.e. most people don't consider it "normal") doesn't mean it's a moral scandal. Most people consider buying whiskey/vodka at the liquor store to be "normal"...but they would not ever consider drinking safely-produced moonshine (because it's "weird" and "not safe"). There is a social stigma attached to moonshine (same as MJ) due to potential illegality but this is not the same as a true, moral scandal.
-
More to ponder with regards to the sin of scandal:
I was going to bring this up in the vulgar language thread as well. If there is nothing wrong with vulgar language and it's a necessary evil to wake people up, shouldn't priests start to employ its use regularly?
In and of itself, the use of vulgar language is not an evil at all, necessary or otherwise. Your intention to distort that fact for the sake of your argument/s does not change reality.
An excellent piece by Fr. Faber on taking scandal. Enjoy:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/father-frederick-faber-spiritual-conferences-'on-taking-scandal'/msg369595/#msg369595
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/father-frederick-faber-spiritual-conferences-'on-taking-scandal'/msg369595/#msg369595)
-
You could also argue that seeing a priest/nun wearing a sports team hat or wearing Nike tennis shoes would be a "scandal" (there are many degrees of scandal and also some people misuse the word instead of "shock") but it wouldn't necessarily be a sin. Much like post-V2 priests starting wanting to be called "Fr Jim" instead of using their last names...is that a sin? I can't say for sure, but it surely is a social norm they are deteriorating. Priests/nuns are a special class of person so using them in an argument is dumb.
-
More to ponder with regards to the sin of scandal:
Would it be okay for a priest to roll a low dose joint at a social event? Not to get high but just to relax and help with his anxiety and back pain?
How about nuns?
I was going to bring this up in the vulgar language thread as well. If there is nothing wrong with vulgar language and it's a necessary evil to wake people up, shouldn't priests start to employ its use regularly?
And the nuns as well...
Passing gas isn't a venial sin, but it would be ill advised for any priest to eat choice foods in advance, and then let a loud one rip on purpose.
It's more about social mores, politeness, decent behavior, dignity, etc. than a question of sin.
I would submit that 100% of these people would be scandalized *just as much* or 99% as much by those same priests/nuns lighting up a regular cigarette. And so...
-
Good. You should extend your Cathinfo fast through Pentecost. And while you’re waiting, buy this one (it’s very cheap) and read the section on intemperance:
https://www.lulu.com/en/us/shop/edward-farrell-and-charles-callan-and-john-mchugh/moral-theology/paperback/product-5j9rnz.html?page=1&pageSize=4
Jone, Prummer, and McHugh’s Moral Theology all say the same thing. You’re beaten.
Can you quote the parts where they specifically address the morality of recreational use of Marijuana?
”No Sean, they just lay out the principles which pertain to intoxication.”
OK, then (leaving aside the insufficiency and error of those who have limited their moral conclusions by only addressing the issue of intoxication), here’s an article for you addressing the morality of recreational MJ use according to the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas (discussing both the matter of intoxication, as well as additional morally aggravating circuмstances):
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/
Introductory excerpt:
Abstract
Several empirical studies suggest that recreational marijuana is popularly perceived as an essentially harmless rite of passage that ends as young people settle into their careers and their adult intimate relationships. Is this perception accurate? To answer this question, we evaluate the morality of recreational marijuana use from a virtue perspective guided by the theological synthesis of St. Thomas Aquinas. Since the medical data reveals that recreational marijuana use is detrimental to the well-being of the user, we conclude that it is a vicious activity, an instance of the vice of intoxication, and as such would be morally illicit.
Lay summary
In contrast to its medical use, the recreational use of marijuana cannot be justified for at least three reasons. First, as scientists have amply docuмented, it harms the organic functioning of the human body. Second, it impedes our ability to reason and in so doing does harm to us. Finally, it has lasting detrimental effects on the user and his neighbor, even when it occurs in a casual setting. Intoxication is always contrary to the integral good of the person. Thus, the use of marijuana is never warranted even for good, non-medical reasons.
-
I don't think I'm being unreasonable, as if I'm erecting some kind of strawman. Because certain persons are IN FACT using terms like "doper" and "pothead" which *certainly* implies not only excessive, free, unrestricted use of pot, but also the entire corresponding (libertine, licentious) lifestyle as well. THAT is what I was denying: we don't have any actual "potheads" on CathInfo. Nor anyone truly promoting the stuff for "fun" or "recreational" use aside from "roscoe".
And no, intellectual discussions about theoretical justified use for non-medicinal purposes is NOT the same thing.
What you have in bold here just isn't sinking in for some reason.
-
Excerpt from a 2019 SSPX article (Note this article discusses recreational use, not medical use):
Is Using Marijuana a Sin?
The primary effect of the THC is to induce the “high,” and it is practically very rare that one could effectively avoid the stultifying effects of the drug.
For all of the above reasons – that is, impairing of the ability to think and judge properly, damage to the brain, fleeing from reality, unknown physical or psychosomatic effects, difficulty in dosing - moralists conclude that, even though the use of marijuana does not entirely totally suppress the use of reason, it is certainly gravely imprudent to use it.
Thus, the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“
https://florida.sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-pot-just-say-no-47742
So, a single "primary" false premise is spun hysterically into a plural, "all the above reasons."
And from that false premise—a gratuitous denial of dose titration—the entire pseudo-syllogism falls.
Please add the rejection of pre-Vatican II moral theology to "As We Are (http://judaism.is/sspx.html)."
-
Since the medical data reveals that recreational marijuana use is detrimental to the well-being of the user, we conclude that it is a vicious activity,
Sean, here is where I'd attack this article. I don't trust the premise.
"Medical data" also showed that wearing masks was a good idea, the Jab decreased COVID transmission, vaccines are safe...
Need I go on?
Whose medical data? Maybe studies funded by Big Tobacco, defending their turf against the competition?
Let's just say I'm suspicious. Because more recent "medical data" seems to suppose the opposite conclusion. Or else you wouldn't *have* medical dispensaries of marijuana. Medicinal pot wouldn't be a thing -- it would be an oxymoron.
Mark79?
-
Lay summary
In contrast to its medical use, the recreational use of marijuana cannot be justified for at least three reasons. First, as scientists have amply docuмented, it harms the organic functioning of the human body. Second, it impedes our ability to reason and in so doing does harm to us. Finally, it has lasting detrimental effects on the user and his neighbor, even when it occurs in a casual setting. Intoxication is always contrary to the integral good of the person. Thus, the use of marijuana is never warranted even for good, non-medical reasons.
Sean, your Summary used the word "intoxication". That's not what we're discussing...
-
Thus, the use of marijuana is never warranted even for good, non-medical reasons.
False.
-
I would submit that 100% of these people would be scandalized *just as much* or 99% as much by those same priests/nuns lighting up a regular cigarette. And so...
No doubt. For 20+ years I have been told by ignorant, ill-formed, busybodies throughout Traddieland that I shouldn't smoke -- many times in the parking lot after Mass at this or that chapel. Usually, they say something like, "You shouldn't smoke; it isn't good for your health." My response has always been, "You shouldn't tell people (you don't know very well and who are 6'3", 200+) what they should or should not do; it isn't good for your health." Not surprisingly, that ends the conversation, at least on that one, silly point.
-
In and of itself, the use of vulgar language is not an evil at all, necessary or otherwise. Your intention to distort that fact for the sake of your argument/s does not change reality.
An excellent piece by Fr. Faber on taking scandal. Enjoy:
https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/father-frederick-faber-spiritual-conferences-'on-taking-scandal'/msg369595/#msg369595
(https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/father-frederick-faber-spiritual-conferences-'on-taking-scandal'/msg369595/#msg369595)
So you see nothing wrong with nuns going around saying "sh**" or "what a b***" or "f***" or lighting up a doobie? (and no, a joint is not the same as a cigarette)
The only wrong would be the person who sees it as a scandal? (I'm not saying that taking scandal needlessly and rash judgement isn't wrong btw.)
Could these actions have a negative effect on someone's faith similar to what St Paul described as being seen eating meat in a temple?
-
Can you quote the parts where they specifically address the morality of recreational use of Marijuana?
Sure! In my 1961 edition of Jone, section 110, he lays out the principles for intoxication, rules we are probably all familiar with. Subsection c) says the following:
Since morphine, opium, chloroform and similar drugs can also deprive one of the use of his reason temporarily, that which was said of intoxicating drinks holds also for narcotics.
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. Such use becomes gravely sinful if it creates an habitual craving for "dope", which is more difficult to overcome than dipsomania and more injurious to health.
-
Some here are advocating recreational use or at least implying it via meme. …
Only because you called for plain speech… bullshit!
Tolerance of judicious non-medical use of MJ explicitly within the repeatedly stated limits of perennial Catholic moral theology is not "advocating recreational use."
Only someone with shit for brains (plain speech as you wanted) would infer otherwise "via meme."
-
Sean, your Summary used the word "intoxication". That's not what we're discussing...
As I stated (in the same post you quoted from, but chose not to include), it discusses the matter from the standpoint of intoxication, but also other aspects (harm to self; harm to neighbor and society; etc).
I posted it because not only does it apply the principles of St. Thomas Aquinas specifically to the use of recreational marijuana, but it gives a fuller treatment by expanding the moral analysis beyond the issue intoxication.
-
Usually, they say something like, "You shouldn't smoke; it isn't good for your health." My response has always been, "You shouldn't tell people (you don't know very well and who are 6'3", 200+) what they should or should not do; it isn't good for your health."
LOL!
And yes, I DID laugh out loud at this, so I am using that worn-out expression here for good reason.
And it's an even worse idea to do this when the person is Irish/choleric as well (but I repeat myself?)
The Irish practically invented the pub brawl. And for those new to CI, I can talk about the Irish because my last name begins with Mc and my Dad's family is from there, several generations back.
Stereotypes are true, more often than not. Or the stereotypes wouldn't "have legs" -- they wouldn't last and persist like cockroaches.
Blacks DO like fried chicken and basketball. Irish DO like to drink and fight. Germans ARE very detail oriented and make good engineers. Italians DO tend towards art.
And they say Trad Catholics are a feisty bunch, always arguing and having a hard time getting along -- that a Trad firing squad would be in the shape of a circle! Imagine that stereotype!
-
Sure! In my 1961 edition of Jone, section 110, he lays out the principles for intoxication, rules we are probably all familiar with. Subsection c) says the following:
He never mentions marijuana (he mentions narcotics, which MJ is not), and even if he would have, he’s only discussing the issue of intoxication (which is not the only circuмstance pertaining to the morality of recreational marijuana).
-
So you see nothing wrong with nuns going around saying "sh**" or "what a b***" or "f***" or lighting up a doobie?
Where did I say that? You do realize that saying something is not, in and of itself, an evil is not the same as saying it is, in and of itself, a good or virtuous thing?
You have a notable tendency to (intentionally?) frame your questions in a way that distorts the actual discussion. This helps no one, although it might make you feel clever.
Considering religious have taken vows that tend toward perfection, it seems reasonable to think such behaviors are inconsistent with the singular goal they, by solemn profession, are pursuing.
-
Stereotypes are true, more often than not. Or the stereotypes wouldn't "have legs" -- they wouldn't last and persist like cockroaches.
Blacks DO like fried chicken and basketball. Irish DO like to drink and fight. Germans ARE very detail oriented and make good engineers. Italians DO tend towards art.
Are stereotypes about pot smokers true?
-
Sean, the issue of "health" is WAY too subjective for this topic. Some people can use asprin; some will die. Some people can eat nuts; some will die. Etc, etc.
Commercially, chemically infused tobacco cigarettes are FAR MORE dangerous than natural tobacco cigs. You can get organic weed...haha.
-
Where did I say that? You do realize that saying something is not, in and of itself, an evil is not the same as saying it is, in and of itself, a good or virtuous thing?
You have a notable tendency to (intentionally?) frame your questions in a way that distorts the actual discussion. This helps no one, although it might make you feel clever.
Considering religious have taken vows that tend toward perfection, it seems reasonable to think such behaviors are inconsistent with the singular goal they, by solemn profession, are pursuing.
Yes, I ask probing questions to further discussion and dig for deeper truth. I think asking questions is a good thing.
Yes, what you are saying is correct. If something in itself is not evil it may not be good or virtuous and it may be ill advised in different circuмstances especially if it can be a stumbling block to others. This is what St Paul was advising.
So religious are called to higher standards. Are parents also called to higher standards? Are teachers? Are Catholics in the world?
Just some things to consider.
-
1) As Rochefoucald has observed, several posts have heavily implied support for recreational use. Perhaps they were disingenuous, and/or taunting their adversaries, but to clear up any confusion, I posted the article.
If nobody here is advocating recreational use, it’s difficult to understand Ladislaus’s repeated example of microdosing not being sinful (which seems to have no other purpose than to “prove” small amounts can be taken -even recreationally- without sin).
Even if that is conceded, see #2 below...
The obvious (?) parodies in the "pot roast" thread are exactly that, parodies. Those who have posted such parodies have explicitly, meticulously, and annotatedly spoken against MJ use beyond what is allowed according the Catholic moral theology.
Yet, even today, the straw man carciatures are still painted by the usual suspects.
2) “practically very rare” (ie., that a pot user avoids the stultifying effects of MJ) is exactly accurate, not a “red flag” as you seem to think. It clearly means that, unlike alcohol use, 1-2 puffs of weed are taken precisely to produce -and not avoid- this effect (and in fact, that effect is almost always produced). Again, Ladislaus had to go all the way to “microdosing” to avoid recognizing that fact.
Common, not "particularly rare." Because of my 12 year advocacy of appropriate medical usage, I have met and spoken in detail with several hundred (?thousand?) patients who have explicitly stated their careful titration of MJ dosing.
The most typical statement is, "I used to use 90-120mg morphine equivalents*** of OxyIR and OxyContin every day until I switched to one puff of 'indica' in the morning and at night. I was incapacitated from most work and home life while on Oxy, but now am able to function well at home and work. No impairment at all."
***A patient's life is at risk and a doctors' medical license is at risk when prescribing exceeds 40-60 M.E. per day.
I recall similar statements from numerous asthma and mutiple sclerosis patients.
These medical observations inform my tolerance, not advocacy, of social MJ use. It is not merely a hypothetical fiction, but an absolute reality that many people can and do titrate dosing, "micro-dosing" as Lad docuмents.
3) Mark79 is looking at the issue from the vantage of medicinal benefit, and in that regard he seems to have some knowledge. But from the moral perspective, I’m sure he would not presume to know more about morals that traditional priests. But in any case, the article is not discussing medicinal use.
I repeat, my medical observations inform my tolerance, not advocacy, of social MJ use.
I have been referred several suffering parishioners by traditional priests who do understand and apply the relevant Catholic moral theology.
Of course I keep this low profile. I choose to avoid and choose to help those priests avoid the rabid lunacy of the ignorati such as we have seen here.
-
The obvious (?) parodies in the "pot roast" thread are exactly that, parodies. Those who have posted such parodies have explicitly, meticulously, and annotatedly spoken against MJ use beyond what is allowed according the Catholic moral theology.
Yet, even today, the straw man carciatures are still painted by the usual suspects.
Common, not "particularly rare." Because of my 12 year advocacy of appropriate medical usage, I have met and spoken in detail with several hundred (?thousand?) patients who have explicitly stated their careful titration of MJ dosing.
The most typical statement is, "I used to use 90-120mg morphine equivalents*** of OxyIR and OxyContin every day until I switched to one puff of 'indica' in the morning and at night. I was incapacitated from most work and home life while on Oxy, but now am able to function well at home and work. No impairment at all."
***A patient's life is at risk and a doctors' medical license is at risk when prescribing exceeds 40-60 M.E. per day.
I recall similar statements from numerous asthma and mutiple sclerosis patients.
These medical observations inform my tolerance, not advocacy, of social MJ use. It is not merely a hypothetical fiction, but an absolute reality that many people can and do titrate dosing, "micro-dosing" as Lad docuмents.
I repeat, my medical observations inform my tolerance, not advocacy, of social MJ use.
I have been referred several suffering parishioners by traditional priests who do understand and apply the relevant Catholic moral theology.
Of course I keep this low profile. I choose to avoid and choose to help those priests avoid the rabid lunacy of the ignorati such as we have seen here.
Just wanted to reiterate, that we are not discussing medicinal use of MJ.
-
Just wanted to add to #1 that, besides Ladislaus’s microdosing justification, there were several others in the various MJ threads which attempted to draw a false equivalence between 1-2 glasses of wine/beer, and 1-2 puffs of MJ (for which there is no proportion in the effect produced), which again heavily implies its alleged moral recreational use.
Sorry to be blunt, Sean, but you are wrong. Depending upon the strain, the proportion of various phytocannabinoids, and the route of ingestion, it is easy to stay well within the equivalence of 1-2 glasses of wine (preferrably a Sangiovese or Mourvedre).
Can MJ be overdone? Yes, just as with any alcoholic beverage.
Can MJ be done within the limits of Catholic moral theology? Yes, just as with any alcoholic beverage.
-
Just wanted to reiterate, that we are not discussing medicinal use of MJ.
Just reiterating, medical research and medical usage inform my/our position on social use.
-
[Whatever the amount is ...] to produce a similar level of impairment as [whatever amount of alcohol] doesn't really matter.
This is quite insightful. It is a basic principle of human pharmacology.
If Drug A gives a certain benefit at a low dose, but Drug B gives more benefit at a higher dose without side effects, Drug B is preferred.
The "potency" issue only matters if it takes wheelbarrow-sized dosing to get the benefit.
Hence, discussion of potency is usually a red herring issue.
-
Sorry to be blunt, Sean, but you are wrong. Depending upon the strain, the proportion of various phytocannabinoids, and the route of ingestion, it is easy to stay well within the equivalence of 1-2 glasses of wine (preferrably a Sangiovese or Mourvedre).
Can MJ be overdone? Yes, just as with any alcoholic beverage.
Can MJ be done within the limits of Catholic moral theology? Yes, just as with any alcoholic beverage.
Hi Mark-
In my experience, that is not the case for most people.
The only people I knew that might apply to are longtime habitual users/addicts.
If I drink 1-2 glasses of wine, I’m lucky if I feel any effect at all.
But I recall many of my college rugby teammates (in the 225lb category) being nearly incapacitated from a couple puffs, and that was back in the 1990s when the pot was weaker.
That said, I do concede the effect is likely different among different users, but a couple puffs was plenty for those users I knew in college.
Pax tecuм.
-
It is false to contend that “morality hinges entirely upon the impairment of the faculties...”
Am I morally permitted to drink poison (or otherwise harm myself) if there is no impairment of reason?
For example, if it were shown that sustained use of MJ in small doses (microdosing) causes schizophrenia, would it still be a morally licit practice?
Alcohol is a poison. The ICD-10 diagnostic code for alcohol poisoning is T51.
There is no MJ poisoning code because nobody ever died from MJ alone.
From the very earliest of posts in this MJ tsunami, we stipulated that some people should not under any circuмstance use MJ. I specifically mentioned that pre-psychotics and schizophrenics should not use MJ.
The Reefer Madness crowd, even in the 2022 peer-reviewed literature :facepalm: , makes much of the few people who are diagnosed with schizophrenia after MJ use.
Correlation is not causation. Plain and simply, some people's schizophrenia was not diagnosed until after their schizohrenia was noticed and hence diagnosed after some medical or legal incident. Others were pre-psychotic and were pushed over the edge by MJ. People with schizophrenia and mania and other mental disorders should NOT use MJ.
There is no evidence that MJ causes schizophrenia.
-
Sean, according to your whole argument then Catholics everywhere need to boycott Big Pharma.
I hold that man-made drugs have much *worse* side effects, and offer less benefits, than certain substances found in pot (talk to Mark79 about the details; I'm not an expert at all)
I trust natural remedies quite a bit, and at any rate I don't trust Big Pharma *at all*.
If it's moral to fill prescriptions at your pharmacy -- ingesting OBJECTIVELY POISONOUS substances made by Big Pharma, despite the possibility of serious side effects -- then it's hard to argue you can't take medicinal pot for similarly good reasons.
Marijuana is safer than any chemical in the pharmacy, even aspirin and Tylenol.
-
Because of my 12 year advocacy of appropriate medical usage, I have met and spoken in detail with several hundred (?thousand?) patients who have explicitly stated their careful titration of MJ dosing.
Of course I keep this low profile. I choose to avoid and choose to help those priests avoid the rabid lunacy of the ignorati such as we have seen here.
This is wise and prudent.
St Mary MacKillop founded an order of nuns in Australia in the 1800s. She suffered regularly from female issues that left her incapacited for many days. The doctor gave her a flask of brandy which she carried and she would need to take a swig from time to time in order to help with the pain, cramping and suffering while continuing her duties running the order.
Unfortunately some of the sisters found out and spread rumors that she was an alcoholic.
-
That’s part of my argument:
The impairment of the faculties is significantly higher in 1-2 puffs of MJ, than in 1-2 beers (and therefore the argument they amount to the same level of impairment is false. But that is precisely the argument some have made.
Note, however, the level of impairment is not the only cause of sinfulness (contrary to what you said above).
That's not true. Repeating yourself does not make it true.
You say you can have 1-2 glasses of wine without impairment. I am a lightweight. ½ glass and I am giggly. A full glass and I am asleep.
Our bodies metabolize chemicals through many different systems. People have different proportions and efficacy of those various metabolic systems, hence the morally acceptable dose of alcohol or MJ varies from person to person. It is that individual response that matters theologically, not whether or not that dose of alcohol or MJ affects you personally.
-
Marijuana is safer than any chemical in the pharmacy, even aspirin and Tylenol.
Medical studies and statistics from the Thomistic article I posted on p.3 of this thread suggest otherwise:
The Short-term and Long-term Effects of Recreational Marijuana Use
Human flourishing includes both physical and mental health, and a complete analysis of the morality of recreational marijuana use should take both of these dimensions of a person's well-being into consideration. As we will see, in contradiction to the commonplace belief that marijuana used recreationally is essentially harmless, medical science has now shown that it in fact damages the user's physical and mental health in both the short and the long-term. Thus, recreational marijuana is not harmless. It is not safe.
The short-term effects of recreational marijuana use can be directly linked to its most psychoactive ingredient, delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (D9-THC). When marijuana is smoked, D9-THC makes its way from the lungs to the bloodstream and thence throughout the body to all of the user's organs including his brain. As it circulates, D9-THC binds to cannabinoid receptors (CBRs), which are ordinarily activated by molecules such as 2-AG (2-archidonoyl glycerol) and AEA (arachidonoyl ethanolamide or anandamide) (Hall and Degenhardt 2009 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C26)). Part of the body's endocannabinoid system, these endogenous molecules are involved in regulating a variety of emotional and cognitive behaviors in the human organism. D9-THC can over-stimulate a person's cannabinoid receptors, thereby causing the “high” or “stoned” feeling and the other effects associated with the use of cannabis (Hall and Degenhardt 2009 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C26); National Institute on Drug Abuse 2012 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C46)). Importantly, there is data that suggests that the marijuana “high” itself is harmful: Within moments of its ingestion, cannabis decreases cortical dopamine levels, which are critical for high cognitive functions (Stokes et al. 2010 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C69)). Often this “high” can be accompanied by other effects, including, among others, sensory distortion and hallucinations, panic and anxiety, poor coordination and lowered reaction time, inhibited learning and memory, and increased heart rate (Stokes et al. 2010 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C69)).
In addition to the short-term effects, there are long-term effects on the recreational user of marijuana, most if not all of which are adverse to the well-being of the user. These detrimental effects are both physiological and cognitive in nature.
Physiologically, marijuana use has numerous adverse effects throughout the body. For example, cannabinoids have been linked to immunosuppression, i.e., the lowering of the activity of the user's immune system, which not surprisingly makes him more vulnerable to infection and to disease (Klein et al. 2003 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C40); Tanasescu and Constantinescu 2010 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C76)). Chronic marijuana use can also lead to extensive airway injury and impairment, and alterations in the structure and the function of the pulmonary macrophages (Tashkin 2001 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C77); Aldington et al. 2007 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C1)). Thus, it is not surprising that chronic users of marijuana have a higher risk for long-term pulmonary diseases including bronchitis and emphysema (Beshay et al. 2007 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C8)). Finally, among the negative physical effects associated with or caused by smoking marijuana, cardiovascular harms are among the most concerning (Thomas et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C78)). These include increased risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack), angina (chest pain), and fatal stroke (Jones 2002 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C35)). However, because of the small number of studies there is still insufficient evidence to assess whether the all-cause mortality rate is elevated among cannabis users in the general population (Calabria et al. 2010 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C10)). Thus, there is a need for long-term cohort studies that follow cannabis-using individuals into old age when detrimental effects of cannabis use are more likely to emerge among those who persist in using cannabis into middle age and older.
Next, cognitively, researchers have cataloged a growing number of adverse effects in frequent and/or long-term users of marijuana. Compared to demographically matched controls, marijuana users demonstrated relative cognitive impairments in verbal memory, spatial working memory, spatial planning, and decision-making (Schweinsburg et al. 2008 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C63); Tait et al. 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C75); Crane et al. 2013 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C17); Becker et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C6)). Even users who do not appear or feel intoxicated continue to manifest impairments over the course of the workweek (Wadsworth et al. 2006b (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C81)). A meta-analysis suggests that, after chronic and long-term cannabis use, brain size will decrease in affected areas (Rocchetti et al. 2013 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C59)). In addition, a study has revealed that even casual pot use causes major alterations in the human brain, though it is not clear if these changes are associated with apparent adverse effects in cognition or behavior (Gilman et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C23)). This is one of several studies showing that regular use of cannabis is associated with altered brain morphology (Lorenzetti et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C42)).
Significantly, marijuana use promotes addictive behaviors. Human and animal studies show that the THC in cannabis supports “the acquisition and maintenance of robust drug-taking behavior in subjects with no history of exposure to other drugs” (Justinova et al. 2005 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C36), 295). Furthermore, marijuana use affects a user's way of perceiving pleasure. The phenomenology is similar to that of other addictive drugs, especially in the way it reinforces pleasurable feelings of reward: As a person continues to use addictive drugs, he resets his threshold for stimulation of reward to a higher level (Wenger et al. 2003 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C84); Hyman et al. 2006 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C30); Panagis et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C49)). This hijacking of the brain's reward pathways reduces the ability of natural rewards like food, relationships, and sex to trigger delight (Covey et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C16)). Thus, the marijuana user distorts his ability to enjoy life and all that reality offers.
Among the most significant cognitive and psychiatric dangers posed by marijuana usage is its association with psychosis. Here we understand psychosis as a state of mind characterized by the inability to distinguish between what is real and what is not (Russo et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C61)). The risk of developing psychosis roughly doubles for regular cannabis users (Van Winkel and Kuepper 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C79)). It is not clear why this is so. Some suggest that cannabis use is a causal factor for schizophrenia while others suggest that schizophrenics are more likely to use cannabis (Degenhardt et al. 2003 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C18)). However, there is data that suggests that, unlike alcohol, marijuana use actually precipitates schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders in a significant number of users (Large et al. 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C41)). Swedish investigators uncovered a dose–response relationship between frequency of cannabis use and risk for schizophrenia in a cohort of just over fifty thousand conscripts (Zammit et al. 2002 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C85)). These findings have been corroborated by studies undertaken in other parts of the globe (Henquet et al. 2005 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C27); Moore et al. 2007 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C45); Chadwick et al. 2013 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C13)).
Finally, the effects of marijuana use extend beyond the user. For example, a recent study published in the Annals of Emergency Medicinehas suggested that decriminalizing pot will likely lead to an increase in cases of children being unintentionally exposed to the drug, as measured by increased call volume to poison centers in the United States (Wang et al. 2014 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C82)). Not surprisingly, some data suggests that cannabis amplifies risk factors associated with accidents and injuries, especially within the first sixty minutes after use (Wadsworth et al. 2006a (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C80); Pulido et al. 2011 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5102207/#C56)). Recreational marijuana use impacts not only the personal good of the user but also the common good of his family and his community.
-
He never mentions marijuana (he mentions narcotics, which MJ is not), and even if he would have, he’s only discussing the issue of intoxication (which is not the only circuмstance pertaining to the morality of recreational marijuana).
He was using the term narcotics as a category of substances apart from alcohol which can bring about the loss of reason. Nowhere in Jone is there any mention of marijuna per se, but it's considered to be part of the narcotics category as Jone defined it.
Intoxication (losing the use of reason) is in fact the only intrinsic issue pertaining to the morality of marijuana (aside from legality, risk of job loss, etc.). Period.
-
As usual, your own comments condemn you. Nobody else in this thread is exhibiting the behavior you are describing.
In this thread. Yes, so far you are the first opponent of MJ to discuss this rationally.
It's rather refreshing.
Lad has accurately described the ravings of the usual suspects in the numerous other threads.
-
Medical studies and statistics from the Thomistic article I posted on p.3 of this thread suggest otherwise:
The Short-term and Long-term Effects of Recreational Marijuana Use
These "studies and statistics" are based on amounts that are not moral for Catholics to use without grave reason. Mark79 has cited myriad studies showing the safety and benefits of marijuana. One can say that same things about smoking and drinking, etc.
-
He was using the term narcotics as a category of substances apart from alcohol which can bring about the loss of reason. Nowhere in Jone is there any mention of marijuna per se, but it's considered to be part of the narcotics category as Jone defined it.
Intoxication (losing the use of reason) is in fact the only intrinsic issue pertaining to the morality of marijuana (aside from legality, risk of job loss, etc.). Period.
Thomists say otherwise.
-
Can you quote the parts where they specifically address the morality of recreational use of Marijuana?
Can you docuмent the use of the word "transubstantiation" in the times of the Apostles?
No? Does that de-legitimize transubstantiation?
Issues get addressed in their own times.
-
Can you docuмent the use of the word "transubstantiation" in the times of the Apostles?
No? Does that de-legitimize transubstantiation?
Issues get addressed in their own times.
This was precisely my point:
An earlier study posted by someone else in another thread was brusquely dismissed, simply because it was authored by a postconciliar moralist.
So my comment was designed to show that so far as I am aware, no traditional moralists have addressed the issue of the morality of MJ. Consequently, all we’re left with is the principles to be applied...by postconciliarists (which include all of us).
I liked the Thomistic article, not only because it is Thomistic, but because it tackles the issue with a more complete treatment than just the issue of intoxication (which is never the only circuмstance in evaluating the liceity of MJ: If it were, medical marijuana would often be deemed illicit in circuмstances in which it is clearly licit).
-
Can you docuмent the use of the word "transubstantiation" in the times of the Apostles?
No? Does that de-legitimize transubstantiation?
Issues get addressed in their own times.
Ah, you see, that’s one of the (innumerable) nice things about our religion - God came and spoke to us 2,000 years ago and the Gospel was COMPLETE. There isn’t really anything new under the sun that He didn’t address. He even left us this wonderful institution (the Catholic Church) that authoritatively tied everything up in a nice bow with their “books that fill the entire world” and they are exceeding useful when heretics, busybodies, and the rest of the devil’s minions attack Catholic morality.
I was under the impression that Trads knew these basic things?
-
He never mentions marijuana (he mentions narcotics, which MJ is not), and even if he would have, he’s only discussing the issue of intoxication (which is not the only circuмstance pertaining to the morality of recreational marijuana).
MJ is not a narcotic??! :jester:
Oh, okay, Sean, now I get it. You're just messing around here, you're not having a serious conversation. My mistake.
-
Medical studies and statistics from the Thomistic article I posted on p.3 of this thread suggest otherwise:
The Short-term and Long-term Effects of Recreational Marijuana Use
…medical science has now shown that it in fact damages the user's physical and mental health in both the short and the long-term. Thus, recreational marijuana is not harmless. It is not safe.…
…can over-stimulate …suggests that…can be accompanied by …have been linked to… can also lead to …because of the small number of studies there is still insufficient evidence to assess…cataloged…though it is not clear if these changes are associated with apparent adverse effects in cognition or behavior…It is not clear why this is so. Some suggest that …there is data that suggests that… suggested that …some data suggests that …
Serious logical and methodological problems with these cherry-picked citations.
All are attempts to use correlation ("suggests," "catalogued," "accompanied by") as causality ("shown").
In any journal article, the use of "suggests," "can," "not clear," "accompanied by" avoids the embarrassing truth: "I can't prove causality, so I'll just use correlations as innuendo."
Note also that NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) is an advocacy organization. It is funded to perpetuate the drug war. NIDA is a bunch of bureaucrats working to maintain their featherbed sinecure.
-
MJ is not a narcotic??! :jester:
Oh, okay, Sean, now I get it. You're just messing around here, you're not having a serious conversation. My mistake.
To be fair, MJ is not a narcotic by medical definition. That hasn't stopped .gov/.zog from defining MJ legally as a narcotic.
They play the same games with other substances. For example, Human Growth Hormone is a polypeptide, not a steroid, a fortiori not an anabolic steroid, but it is legally defined as such under the Anabolic Steroid Act.
-
I liked the Thomistic article, not only because it is Thomistic, but because it tackles the issue with a more complete treatment than just the issue of intoxication (which is never the only circuмstance in evaluating the liceity of MJ: If it were, medical marijuana would often be deemed illicit in circuмstances in which it is clearly licit).
Your use of "clearly" dramatically misrepresents the facts. There seem to be correlations that, when analyzed are not causality. The salient example is one already mentioned: the correlation of schizophrenics and MJ use is not causal. Another common methodological flaw is either (1) having no control group at all or (2) using an unrepresentative and inappropriate control group (sort of like the Jєωs who compare the IQ of Jєωιѕн physicians to the IQ of welfare non-Jєωs to "prove" Jєωs are geniuses).
I'd like to underscore a point that I made early in the MJ tsunami.
You are correct, Sean, that loss of reason is not the only determinant of the moral liceity of medical and/or social use of MJ.
An honest assessment of the risk/benefit ratio is pivotal. We are bound to avoid undue risk of self harm (extreme sports anyone?). That is why the medical research is relevant to discussion of social use of MJ.
Today's best evidence is that compared to alcohol, MJ has a much more favorable risk/benefit ratio, so, as best we can say today, MJ use medically and socially is morally licit within the confines of pernennial, unchangeable, and infallible Catholic moral theology.
Q.E.D.
-
MJ is not a narcotic??! :jester:
Oh, okay, Sean, now I get it. You're just messing around here, you're not having a serious conversation. My mistake.
Didn’t you know? MJ is an otherworldly substance that exceeds the boundaries of existence. You literally smoke a puff, and not only does it transport you to Satan’s throne in hell, where you immeadiately bow down and worship him, but it is also a neurotoxin (like alcohol, but like 5000 times worse man!) and rots your entire brain to the point that you are a drooling, moronic, doofus for the rest of your life - Except when you are defending this fabled plant (which God made for a good reason) because then Satan takes over your mind and your mouth and you suddenly make arguments like intelligent people.
————-
Catholic Puritanism needs to die if you are going to properly educate your children about drug abuse. The devil’s nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is 5 steps ahead of you otherwise, and ready to unleash it all upon a godless world that has lost all sense of true morality.
-
Thomists say otherwise.
Pot supporters here are not going to allow a logical conversation about pot. They may pretend to for a short time, but then they will soon move in for the kill.
-
Pot supporters here are not going to allow a logical conversation about pot.
Is it possible for you to say this with a straight face? Those who have been advocating the licitness of marijuana under certain circuмstances (whom you smear as "pot supporters") have been nothing but logical, laying out the syllogisms based on the principles of moral theology. It's your crowd who have done nothing but emote, bluster, huff and puff, make ad hominems, slanders, and calumnies.
-
Pot supporters here are not going to allow a logical conversation about pot. They may pretend to for a short time, but then they will soon move in for the kill.
Well, you kind of invite it with a comment like that (a drive-by jab, without any substantial/material contribution to the topic).
I like you, and we're on the same side, but comments like that become a self-fulfilling prophecy (I've regretably made enough of them in my time here to know).
-
Well, you kind of invite it with a comment like that (a drive-by jab, without any substantial/material contribution to the topic).
I like you, and we're on the same side, but comments like that become a self-fulfilling prophecy (I've regretably made enough of them in my time here to know).
You've not been involved in the pot debates for very long. Good luck with debating with the pot supporters. You'll soon see what happens when you go against them.
-
To be fair, MJ is not a narcotic by medical definition. That hasn't stopped .gov/.zog from defining MJ legally as a narcotic.
Yes, and my point was that Jone wasn't using the term in its "medical" sense, but as a category of those substances (other than alcohol) which can impair the higher faculties. He didn't have separate treatments of marijuana, LSD, magic mushrooms, etc. ... nor release a new edition of his book every time a new substance was introduced. And that's what Yeti was getting at as well. From a moral-theological perspective, marijuana is considered to be in the category of narcotics.
-
You've not been involved in the pot debates for very long. Good luck with debating with the pot supporters. You'll soon see what happens when you go against them.
I hope you’re done sniffing people at church. Jesus would prefer meditation I think.
-
Your use of "clearly" dramatically misrepresents the facts. There seem to be correlations that, when analyzed are not causality. The salient example is one already mentioned: the correlation of schizophrenics and MJ use is not causal. Another common methodological flaw is either (1) having no control group at all or (2) using an unrepresentative and inappropriate control group (sort of like the Jєωs who compare the IQ of Jєωιѕн physicians to the IQ of welfare non-Jєωs to "prove" Jєωs are geniuses).
I'd like to underscore a point that I made early in the MJ tsunami.
You are correct, Sean, that loss of reason is not the only determinant of the moral liceity of medical and/or social use of MJ.
An honest assessment of the risk/benefit ratio is pivotal. We are bound to avoid undue risk of self harm (extreme sports anyone?). That is why the medical research is relevant to discussion of social use of MJ.
Today's best evidence is that compared to alcohol, MJ has a much more favorable risk/benefit ratio, so, as best we can say today, MJ use medically and socially is morally licit within the confines of pernennial, unchangeable, and infallible Catholic moral theology.
Q.E.D.
Let's not allow her to derail the discussion into more mind-reading, soul-reading, Pharisaical name-calling.
-
As I said previously, I'm all ears awaiting the introduction of a rational principle that would make different considerations apply to marijuana than to alcohol (apart from extrinsic considerations such as legality, etc.). I have never used pot, and therefore have no horse in this race. I did not find the "food stuff" argument by the Novus Ordo "theologian" at all convincing (not to mention that marijuana can be and has been consumed as a food). I don't find that relevant to its morality. Even the question of benefit vs. potential harm is somewhat peripheral (and is medically debated) and is more a practical concern (such as what one might have with cigarette smoking, etc.).
I'm pretty sure that if big pharma isolated THC, put it in tiny doses in some kind of pill, combined it with one or two other ingredients, called it something else, and marketed it for its therapeutic effects, it would therefore somehow get "sanitized" and made acceptable in many people's minds. I feel that this is all about perception, with people having visions of college students sitting around a bong getting high. No one here has ever said that was permissible and not a grave sin. I see no difference in taking small amounts of THC and, say, taking a Xanax for anxiety, simply because the latter was developed by big pharma in a lab.
-
Sean, your article uses "recreational use" in it's title, but then later on, it discusses an additional category of "casual use".
1) I'll bet that their "recreational use" is not the same as your definition. That is, their "recreational use" means getting high, which further means that, yes, the health risks for getting high 1-2x a week are VERY serious, just like having 4-5 drinks a few times a week will damage your liver over time.
2) "casual use" is probably more in line with catholic teaching...or...it means someone who only uses pot once every few months. ?? Who knows.
3) Point being, how do they define "recreational" vs "casual"? If you asked 100 people, you'd get 100 different answers. You can't cite an article and assume they mean what you mean, especially a "science loving" org who isn't catholic.
-
Sean, your article uses "recreational use" in it's title, but then later on, it discusses an additional category of "casual use".
1) I'll bet that their "recreational use" is not the same as your definition. That is, their "recreational use" means getting high, which further means that, yes, the health risks for getting high 1-2x a week are VERY serious, just like having 4-5 drinks a few times a week will damage your liver over time.
2) "casual use" is probably more in line with catholic teaching...or...it means someone who only uses pot once every few months. ?? Who knows.
3) Point being, how do they define "recreational" vs "casual"? If you asked 100 people, you'd get 100 different answers. You can't cite an article and assume they mean what you mean, especially a "science loving" org who isn't catholic.
Hi Pax-
I think they're using the terms "recreational" and "casual" interchangeably.
But I'm not sure the frequency standard you are considering would be a reliable moral gauge, because even if you only got drunk one time in your life (or high), it would still be a sin.
If that is conceded, then the definitional poblem you are raising vanishes.
-
I think they're using the terms "recreational" and "casual" interchangeably.
That's a guess because the article doesn't say. Scientific articles don't change words "just because".
But I'm not sure the frequency standard you are considering would be a reliable moral gauge, because even if you only got drunk one time in your life (or high), it would still be a sin.
The frequency standard is related to the HEALTH RISKS, which is the point of the article you posted. Your whole argument is health related, so frequency absolutely matters. That's why the terms "recreational" vs "casual" matters, in regards to frequency.
-
As I said previously, I'm all ears awaiting the introduction of a rational principle that would make different considerations apply to marijuana than to alcohol (apart from extrinsic considerations such as legality, etc.). I have never used pot, and therefore have no horse in this race. I did not find the "food stuff" argument by the Novus Ordo "theologian" at all convincing (not to mention that marijuana can be and has been consumed as a food). I don't find that relevant to its morality. Even the question of benefit vs. potential harm is somewhat peripheral (and is medically debated) and is more a practical concern (such as what one might have with cigarette smoking, etc.).
I'm pretty sure that if big pharma isolated THC, put it in tiny doses in some kind of pill, combined it with one or two other ingredients, called it something else, and marketed it for its therapeutic effects, it would therefore somehow get "sanitized" and made acceptable in many people's minds. I feel that this is all about perception, with people having visions of college students sitting around a bong getting high. No one here has ever said that was permissible and not a grave sin. I see no difference in taking small amounts of THC and, say, taking a Xanax for anxiety, simply because the latter was developed by big pharma in a lab.
B.S. - I've posted articles by the SSPX and can just Google "Catholic marijuana" and post Catholic articles by the 100's, meanwhile in all of Lent and now this week all you post in the same personal interpretation of Jone. YOU have NOTHING from any Catholic source, just your own convenient interpretation. All one has to do is ask any trad priest if they could smoke marijuana and they'll be told the same as Fr. Scott wrote, "no you can't smoke marijuana, what planet are you from?".
Marijuana smoking is a scandal and harmful to the family, any Catholic knows that. Why don't you tell your parents and your children that you have decided to smoke marijuana and see what happens. You are a total idiot when it comes to dealing with the real world, you can only play in the speculative relm where there are no consequence and no correct complete answer (like your ad-nauseum lecturing on the 57 flavors of whether the pope is the pope or not. ).
-
Jone and the other 2 moral theologians require no interpretation. What they say is pretty clear, you just don't like it (or can't understand it). Life is not "black or white"; that's childish...
-
The article is a poor attempt to make an unpleasant issue go away. Who are the “moralists” it cites? We’ve dug up pre-v2 imprimatured theologians. Some of them have outstanding reputations. The application of Catholic moral principles seems to unanimously suggest getting high = getting drunk. What is the problem here? Do we not hate the same thing as the other side on this argument?
What authority does the SSPX even have? Only what you give it. I’d expect mental deficiencies such as this from Fisheaters, but it is surprising to find it from those who understand the authority crisis that Catholics have been dealing with for at least 5 decades.
I think there are quite a few Trads getting lost in woods. I recommend exercising some Charity, slowing down, and researching what the Church always taught (duh?) before throwing around calumnies, suspecting people of being Jews, and literally sniffing out potheads at Church. Not only are the rigorists (a condemned moral theory by the way) apparently wrong on this, but the manner in which they’ve guided this “debate” is also wrong. Time to take a break, sheath your ridiculous pride and go pray for some humility and magnanimity.
-
Jone and the other 2 moral theologians require no interpretation. What they say is pretty clear, you just don't like it (or can't understand it). Life is not "black or white"; that's childish...
B.S. - If that was so, then all you dopers could post 100's of articles by Catholic authors that agree with you, but you can't even post one.
SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, FSSP, ICK, Independent, Novus Ordo and everything in between and not a one article have you people posted. Meanwhile I could post articles from all of them. Go and tell your priest and your parents that you are smoking grass and teaching your children that it is OK and see what will come of it. It will be the most shocking and disappointing day of their lives.
You Dopers are a perfect example of
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 (https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-4.htm)And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2Tim4)
-
Ladislaus and Pax Vobis types - Dad, is it Ok to smoke marijuana and snort cocaine? We'll son that depends.................and on and on and on, never coming to any conclusion
Last Tradhican types - Dad, is it Ok to smoke marijuana and snort cocaine?
Keep away from the stuff son, like you would a rattlesnake or the devil. Do not keep company with anyone that uses them. In my long experience, all the people I knew that smoked MJ, lost all their drive, and turned out to be total losers or at best under achievers. But even worse, it is really harmful to girls, for it opens them up bigtime to licentious behavior and they will take the men with them. Sins of the flesh are THE Sin that takes almost all mankind to hell. MJ is a piece of dung. Keep studying, working, and improving yourself your whole life, and surround yourself with others seeking the same. Avoid pot smokers like the plague, all they are, are people that can't handle life's problems without running away to medicate themselves. Remember your great grandparents and grandparents who lost everything they had quite a few times and brushed it off as nothing and went back to do it again. THAT is what our family is all about!
-
blah… blah… blah…
Given the outdated knowledge and dubious understanding of the two moral authorities you have cited (1. the anti-MJ med school dropout and 2. the anti-MJ priest who failed his legal and moral duty to report a pederast) you might as well cite "100's" of Tweets on Twitter.
-
…cocaine…
Truly such a dumb shit that even your hysterical bitch effort at a cocaine straw man fails...
Both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X enthusiastically used Vin Mariani, a proprietary cocaine beverage.
(https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/shape/cover/sport/644226-publicdomain-wikimediacommons-cc02868dae0b833f4463fdb91df295a2.jpg)
-
SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, FSSP, ICK, Independent, Novus Ordo and everything in between and not a one article have you people posted.
Uhhh...because moral principles don't change? So when Jone (and the 2 other theologians) explained that mental impairment is the litmus test for sin, there's really nothing else to add. If some Trad priest writes an article and doesn't quote these theologians, he's drifting off course.
-
Truly a dumb shit.
Both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X used Vin Mariani a proprietary cocaine beverage.
(https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/shape/cover/sport/644226-publicdomain-wikimediacommons-cc02868dae0b833f4463fdb91df295a2.jpg)
He slams the same hot-headed nonsense on the table again and again and again.
It hasn't worked with us, it won't, and I'm willing to bet it won't work with his 20 year old children either.
-
He slams the same hot-headed nonsense on the table again and again and again.
It hasn't worked with us, it won't, and I'm willing to bet it won't work with his 20 year old children either.
It does not work for you because you are the types that can only learn from your mistakes, well, hopefully you have no parents or children to affect.
-
Uhhh...because moral principles don't change? So when Jone (and the 2 other theologians) explained that mental impairment is the litmus test for sin, there's really nothing else to add. If some Trad priest writes an article and doesn't quote these theologians, he's drifting off course.
B.S. - Are you autistic or something? Post an article from Catholic authorities that say what you interpret. You and Ladislaus are like parrots, repeating your same personal opinions. I have news for you, to the world, you are an anonymous nobody. Post authorities and quit wasting our time.
-
...because moral principles don't change…
Precisely. Catholic morals and dogma are perennial, infallible, and unchangeable.
The imprimatured authorities already cited explicitly addressed alcohol and narcotics.
-
Well this got ugly quick; what happened??
(https://i.imgur.com/n9OIPUs.gif)
-
Well this got ugly quick; what happened??
(https://i.imgur.com/n9OIPUs.gif)
Oh, just residual drama from the thread during Lent
(https://i.giphy.com/media/10RgsuetO4uDkY/giphy.webp)
-
The use of marijuana or other narcotics has been discussed by every single moral theologian, and they all gave the same answer, namely that the sinfulness of its use is the same as for that of alcohol.
Then post all those articles by those "every single moral theologian" instead of just saying it. Not a one of you dopers has posted anything but your convenient interpretations.
-
Then post all those articles by those "every single moral theologian" instead of just saying it. Not a one of you dopers has posted anything but your convenient interpretations.
Like this Catholic article which is specific to your comment:
From: Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana - OnePeterFive
Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana
Peter Kwasniewski, PhD June 12, 2019
Author’s note: OnePeterFive, through Dr. Peter Kwasniewski (listed as the author of this post –ed.), was given permission by R. Jared Staudt, writer of The Beer Option, and the book’s publisher to share with readers the full text (without supporting footnotes) of the chapter entitled “Beer vs. Marijuana.”
When I first gave a talk on beer and Catholic culture, I was surprised by the number of questions and comments related to drugs. I guess I should not have been, because I was in Colorado. In 2012, when I voted against Amendment 64, which sought to legalize marijuana in Colorado, I laughed off the ballot measure, thinking it would not have a chance of passing. Since then, I have been disturbed by what’s been happening in Colorado, as well as throughout the country. In fact, the legalization of marijuana stands as one link in a chain of cultural changes, all reflecting a withdrawal from reality, a breaking down of boundaries and natural limits, and a retreat from personal and social responsibility.
Dr. Vince Fortanasce, an internationally renowned Alzheimer’s researcher, has bemoaned the fact that Catholics have pretty much accepted the rise of marijuana in our country without a fight. Although he acknowledges that we need more research, he points out that there has been enough to conclusively point to marijuana’s dangerous impact on the brain, especially for adolescents and young adults. The moderate consumption of alcohol has a strong place in the Catholic tradition, and Catholics need to be able to distinguish this practice from the use of a drug. We should not equate it with the recreational use of marijuana.
Is Beer a Drug?
G.K. Chesterton makes an important point regarding the extremes of excess and defect when it comes to drinking: “The dipsomaniac and the abstainer are not only both mistaken, but they both make the same mistake. They both regard wine as a drug and not as a drink.” Those who push back against a Catholic critique of drugs claim that drugs are made from natural substances and thus, like alcohol, can be seen as the fruit of God’s creation. What is the difference in the enjoyment derived from them?, they ask. The need to answer this question now presses urgently upon us as the acceptance of drugs grows in our country.
The first distinction we need to make to reply to this objection comes from recognizing that beer and wine are foodstuffs. They come not just from natural substances (uranium is a natural substance), but from substances used for normal human consumption. Like the components from which they are made, beer and wine are naturally healthy and should be consumed as part of an overall healthy diet. As a foodstuff, Aquinas defends the consumption of alcohol as permitted within the Gospel’s lifting of the prohibition against normal food and drink: “No meat or drink, considered in itself, is unlawful, according to Matthew 15:11, ‘not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.’” Though already considered “clean” in the Old Covenant, beer and wine would pass the muster set forth in Matthew’s Gospel. Other natural substances, including plants used to produce drugs, would not pass this test; they are not foodstuffs and intrinsically harm the body. Many people claim that both caffeine and alcohol are drugs because they alter the body and the functioning of the brain. If we followed this logic, we would have to admit that just about everything we consume is a drug, because all food and drink impact the body and brain in some way. If we look at the differences among caffeine, alcohol, and drugs, we can draw some distinctions:
o Caffeine does not impair normal brain functioning.
o Alcohol in moderate use does not impair normal brain functioning, but immoderate use does.
o Drugs in ordinary use impair normal brain functioning.
By “ordinary use of drugs,” I mean that people use drugs, including marijuana, specifically to get high. I admit that it is possible to use drugs in a moderate way if small amounts are consumed, but this falls outside ordinary usage and would apply only to a small number of cases, compared to the large number of people who ordinarily use alcohol in moderation. Some components of drugs are used in pharmaceuticals, but we have discovered serious problems when these drugs are overused or abused. If we consider the moderate consumption of alcohol to be a usage of drugs, then we are equivocating. Drugs, as the word usually connotes, are substances that engender a feeling of being high, in a withdrawal from ordinary experience and consciousness. Anything we ingest alters us, but normally our food and drink do so in accord with our good, in harmony with the good of our rationality.
Barley and grapes, along with water, are the main ingredients of beer and wine, respectively. These are foods, which are part of a normal diet, and the fermentation process does not fundamentally alter their nutrition. There is nothing intrinsically harmful in the chemical composition of beer and wine, including alcohol, except at higher dosages. In fact, the moderate use of alcohol has many health benefits, which have been confirmed by many scientific studies. Rod Phillips summarizes these findings: “All other variables being constant, moderate alcohol consumption is a healthier option than abstaining from alcohol.” Some of the particular benefits from the regular and moderate consumption of beer include better bone health, improved cholesterol, decreased stress, reduced risk of type-2 diabetes, and a healthy dose of fiber and vitamins. Even St. Paul confirmed the healthfulness of alcohol: “Stop drinking only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23).
The Catholic tradition affirms the moderate use of alcohol, with the support of divine revelation itself! Now that drugs are becoming more and more widespread, it is time for Catholics to mark the clear difference between alcohol and drugs. Drugs demand a negative response, as they do not promote the human good, neither individually nor culturally. They offer anesthesia, a way to escape from a sick culture. But this sick culture desperately needs us to face it and transform it, to fill the black hole of God’s absence.
Gisela Kreglinger, in her book The Spirituality of Wine, notes that the rise of drugs has accompanied the decline of religious belief and practices. She points out that a decline in faith precludes the socialization and rituals surrounding alcohol that Christianity offers. She claims that it is less likely for alcohol to be abused and for people to resort to drugs when children are taught “the proper benedictions for food and drink,” “drinking as an act of communion,” and “drunkenness as profanity.” These religious practices show the communal and religious context for drinking and link alcohol to the family and sacred meal. Alcohol becomes a normal and at times sacred element of life, not an individual revolt against family, society, and God.
Rod Phillips has speculated that a decline in drinking among young people, which at first may seem positive, may indicate a shift toward drug use. The chemical differences alone between barley and grapes and the makeup of the cannabis plant reveal a problem with this shift. Tetrahydrocannabinol, abbreviated as THC, is the main psychoactive chemical found in the cannabis plant. Cannabis has eighty unique chemicals, which can be contrasted with the much simpler chemical makeup of alcoholic drinks, particularly when we contrast THC with ethanol. The plant’s flower buds, when dried, are used to smoke as marijuana; the resin of the plant is used to make hashish, which can be smoked or made into an extract oil. Significantly, THC levels in marijuana have risen from about 1 percent to between 20 and 30 percent in the last fifty years.
THC primarily affects the brain: euphoria, calmness, anxiety, paranoia, distorted sense of time, magical or random thinking, short-term memory loss, depression, distorted perceptions, difficulty with thinking and problem solving, and disrupted learning and memory. It also has many physical effects, such as greater carcinogenic harm than smoking cigarettes. Unlike consuming a foodstuff in moderation, the consumption of cannabis immediately affects the functioning of the brain, an effect compounded over time, especially for adolescents. In fact, marijuana usage can permanently alter the brain, leading to a great risk of psychosis, psychological problems, and lower I.Q. scores. Further, one of the most frightening discoveries shows that consuming marijuana alters DNA, creating harmful mutations that will be passed down to children and future generations. One doctor studying this phenomenon, Dr. Stuart Reece, concluded “that cancers and illnesses were likely caused by cell mutations resulting from cannabis properties having a chemical interaction with a person’s DNA.” Smoking pot can have permanent health effects — and not just for the individual user.
For these and similar reasons, the Vatican’s pastoral handbook on drugs claims that to speak of marijuana as a soft drug “is a pure illusion” and cautions against marijuana’s trivialization. It also affirms that “cannabis is not an ordinary substance.” Beer is an ordinary substance, even if it can be abused. Writing on the differences between marijuana and alcohol, Roger Scruton notes that “obviously there are significant medical and physiological differences. Alcohol is rapidly expelled from the system and is addictive only in large doses — at least to those … whose genetic make-up has been influenced by the millennia of winemaking.” Furthermore, “the effects of cannabis remain for days, and it is both more addictive and more radical, leading not just to temporary alterations of the mind but to permanent or semi-permanent transformations of personality, and in particular to a widely observed loss of moral sense.” The moderate use of alcohol, however, promotes health and friendship and, as we have seen, finds divine sanction for its role in Christian worship.
The Intrinsic Problem of Marijuana and Other Drugs: Escape from Reality and Reason
Drugs represent one, and possibly the most pronounced, attempt to escape from reality, acting as an anesthetic against one’s problems. The growing role of drugs reminds me of the use of “soma” in Huxley’s Brave New World: “[I don’t understand] why you don’t take soma when you have these dreadful ideas of yours. You’d forget all about them. And instead of feeling miserable, you’d be jolly. So jolly.” Accepting drugs represents an important step toward the dystopia Huxley saw emerging in the world. Ultimately, drugs offer a spiritual dystopia, one that seeks to eliminate the Gospel’s daily call to take up one’s Cross, deny oneself, and to follow Christ. They lead us away from the reality that “it is necessary for us to undergo many hardships to enter the kingdom of God” (Acts 14:22). Drugs cover over our tribulations, seeking an escape hatch from our difficulties, though they generally create even more of them.
Drugs stand at the heart of modern disillusionment with life. At the heart of this crisis lies the lack of a central unifying force for our culture. We have lost a sense of purpose and lack the inspiration needed to work hard in the messiness of reality. Ultimately, drug use reflects our spiritual crisis, as Pope Benedict describes:
The new forms of slavery to drugs and the lack of hope into which so many people fall can be explained not only in sociological and psychological terms but also in essentially spiritual terms. The emptiness in which the soul feels abandoned, despite the availability of countless therapies for body and psyche, leads to suffering. There cannot be holistic development and universal common good unless people’s spiritual and moral welfare is taken into account, considered in their totality as body and soul.
To resign ourselves to a culture that accepts and embraces drugs caves into a position of spiritual despair, raising up an impediment that stops us from offering a more compelling vision through evangelization.
Alcohol, when abused, certainly provides a similar false escape from personal problems. It does not, however, deceive us by offering the possibility of entering some higher realm or false world. Both alcoholism and marijuana addiction isolates users, leading them to withdraw from the social setting set by fraternal drinking. Beer as a work of culture can be ordered toward the building up of culture, unlike drugs. Creating beer as the fruit of culture is an unlocking or perfecting of God’s creation — a perfecting that He intended by making us rational beings. Drugs lead us into a dead end, a satanic turn inward in rebellion against God and man. They lack beer’s ability to promote human flourishing by integrating into a communal life and even holiness.
In order to evaluate the morality of drugs, we must return to Aquinas’s teaching on drunkenness. Aquinas speaks of sobriety as needed for drinks “which by reason of [their] volatility [are] liable to disturb the brain (caput).” We need to drink rationally, respecting the good of our nature and our end. Aquinas teaches us that virtue disposes us to the perfection of our nature. Vice, on the other hand, does the opposite: “Now man derives his species from his rational soul: and consequently whatever is contrary to the order of reason is, properly speaking, contrary to the nature of man, as man.” Consequently, Aquinas defines sin as something contrary to right reason. This does not deny, but includes, the fact that sin ultimately contradicts the will of God, because God created the good of nature and His commands lead us to our own flourishing and happiness.
Aquinas’s description of drunkenness provides a foundation for understanding why drugs harm human life and culture. Unlike alcohol, they are not consumed moderately, but intrinsically involve surrendering full possession of reason. They provide a retreat from a rational and responsible confrontation with reality. Pope Benedict stated it even more strongly by arguing that they also represent an escape from the reality of the spiritual life that God presents to us: “The patient and humble adventure of asceticism, which, in small steps of ascent, comes closer to the descending God, is replaced by magical power, the magical key of drugs — the ethical and religious path is replaced by technology. Drugs are the pseudo-mysticism of a world that does not believe yet cannot get rid of the soul’s yearning for paradise.” Here we see drugs specifically as a distorted attempt to respond to our rational and religious nature, but in a way that ultimately undermines them.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church takes a different angle on drugs, demonstrating how they violate the commands of God, specifically the Fifth Commandment. It emphasizes the harm that drugs inflict on us, the basic threat they pose to human life: “The use of drugs inflicts very grave damage on human health and life. Their use, except on strictly therapeutic grounds, is a grave offense. Clandestine production of and trafficking in drugs are scandalous practices. They constitute direct co-operation in evil, since they encourage people to practices gravely contrary to the moral law” (§2291). The Catechism also implicates those who facilitate and encourage drug use.
Ironically, drugs first became legal in the United States under the rubric of health (with medical marijuana in California in 1996) and have quickly become legal in many states for recreational use as well. Recent statistics show that medical marijuana use in Colorado has decreased, while recreational use has increased. The Catechism notes that drugs can be used for therapeutic reasons, but the need to alleviate pain must balance with the effects that such therapy has on the soul. The right use of reason and one’s spiritual health trump physical concerns. In this light, consideration should be given to other options for care that respect our rational nature and support it, rather than work against it.
Culture should draw us together as we work to pursue the common good. This requires the proper formation of the faculty of reason (which should occur in education) and the exercise of that reason in service to others. Just as drug use provides a retreat from personal problems, it also provides a retreat from a common culture. Drugs stand as a “no” to common goods and self-transcendence and offer a retreat into oneself. Pope Benedict once again provides illumination: “The anti-culture of death, which finds expression for example in drug use, is thus countered by an unselfish love which shows itself to be a culture of life by the very willingness to ‘lose itself’ (cf. Lk. 17:33 et passim) for others.” The contrast is between a culture of death, where individuals selfishly withdraw from others, putting their feelings and pleasure first, and a culture of life that encourages the sacrifice of oneself for others.
Consequences of Marijuana Legalization
Defenders of legalized marijuana claim that it is safe and healthy and benefits our country by taking pressure off law enforcement (although the crime rate has risen in Colorado). This argument fits with our general understanding of freedom: let individuals make their own choices, especially if they are not harming anyone else. The embrace of this radicalized understanding of freedom, however, has come with a cost to both the individual and society. We can see already that legalized pot seriously damages health and presents a moral and physical danger to society.
Pope Francis responded to the growing trend toward legalization as follows:
Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise. … Attempts, however limited, to legalize so-called “recreational drugs,” are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. … Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that.
The question from a Catholic point of view really comes down to whether or not drugs promote the human good. If they do, they can be drawn into the life of virtue; if they do not, they are rather a part of vice and sin that undermine our lives.
When discussing the consequences of legalization, we must focus on the common good rather than on the importance of individual choice. The transfer of drug use from a strong subculture into American mainstream culture will affect the entire nation. Aquinas explains how this is so. Today, we understand law’s purpose as securing personal rights. But Aquinas explains that law is meant to lead the individual beyond the self to an exterior and shared good: “The proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good.” Whatever the law legitimates comes to be seen as good. This has happened in our country with contraception, abortion, euthanasia, and redefining marriage. While it is unfortunately true that some immoral things have to be tolerated, this cannot be used as an excuse to permit things that undermine goodness and happiness on a fundamental level. If drugs attack the faculty that leads to happiness, our reason, then there are legitimate grounds to think they will threaten the maintenance of society and consequently hurt others. We have to ask what kind of citizen we want in our country. Our laws should reflect that ideal, although we do not generally have a shared ideal of citizenship today.
We have already seen a number of damaging effects of marijuana legalization in Colorado. The Denver Post noted that legalizing marijuana immediately encouraged some Coloradans to rethink their position on pot and to try it for the first time because it became “easy, convenient and legal.” By legalizing marijuana, states are saying they no longer see it as fundamentally detrimental to human life and society. But despite marijuana’s growing acceptance, there has been a docuмented rise in health and social problems. Following the legalization of marijuana, Colorado formed a Retail Marijuana Public Health Advisory Committee, which released a report on January 30, 2015. The committee found a general increase in health problems: “In general, there were large increases in poison center calls, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits observed after medical marijuana was commercialized in 2010 and additional increases after retail (recreational) marijuana was legalized in 2014.” The increase in hospitalizations applies to children as well, as Colorado noted that one in six children entering the hospital for lung issues had been exposed to marijuana.
Although defenders of legal pot claim there has not been an increase in youth consumption, schools have dealt with a sharp increase in marijuana-related problems:
An investigation … shows drug violations reported by Colorado’s K-12 schools have increased 45 percent in the past four years, even as the combined number of all other violations has fallen. … The investigation found an increase in high school drug violations of 71 percent since legalization. School suspensions for drugs increased 45 percent. The National Survey on Drug Use and Health found Colorado ranks first in the country for marijuana use among teens, scoring well above the national average.
Legalization has led to even easier access to marijuana for youth.
Colorado has also experienced increased car crashes that involve people impaired by the influence of marijuana. The Advisory Committee cited above found “substantial evidence that risk of motor vehicle crash doubles among drivers with recent marijuana use. Additionally, we found substantial evidence for a positive relationship between THC blood level and motor vehicle crash risk — —that is, substantial evidence that the higher the level of THC in blood, the higher the crash risk.” In 2015, over one hundred thousand people moved to Colorado, with a large number coming for marijuana, driving up housing costs significantly. The roads quickly became congested (with potheads), leading to yearly increases of fatal crashes caused by marijuana’s influence. Other effects include a 4-percent rise in crime at the same time the rest of the country saw a decrease in crime — including an increase, not a decrease, in drug-trafficking. The legalization of marijuana has provided a means for Mexican drug cartels to cover activity and has opened a new and easy means of transmitting pot across the United States. Colorado has also seen an 8-percent spike in the homeless population.
Many state officials, not just in Colorado, have been positive on legalization. In part, this comes from what has been referred to as an “addiction to revenue” from taxing marijuana sales. For the 2014–15 fiscal year, ending last summer, Colorado collected seventy million dollars in taxes on pot, even more than it collected from alcohol. Given the social problems already mentioned, this revenue comes at a serious cost to Colorado citizens. Overall, the tone of the culture has shifted. One crazy example can be found in the International Church of Cannabis, which “claims cannabis as its primary sacrament.” The “church” was prosecuted by the County of Denver for the public consumption of pot, but the judge declared a mistrial because of the difficulty of obtaining jurors with an unbiased view of marijuana. Marijuana advocates have been pushing for greater access to public smoking.
Regarding Prohibition, it was wrong to equate beer consumption with the immoderate consumption of liquor. The temperance movement targeted both, unable to recognize that beer is the moderate alternative. Similarly, beer provides a moderate alternative to marijuana, one that promotes fellowship and therefore links us to a common good that transcends the self. Drug use, like hard liquor, helps us to withdraw from society and even from the goods of our own nature. Many people have compared laws against marijuana to Prohibition. However, just as the prohibition of alcohol clearly failed in the eyes of Americans, I hope legalization of marijuana will do the same. Alcohol, as a foodstuff meant for moderate consumption, could not be banned successfully. Marijuana, which fails to meet the same criteria, should be banned for pushing the user too quickly beyond reason.
-
There was no "microdosing justification". It was an attempt to draw out the principles from people's thick skulls. Microdosing involves the use of just enough THC to provide benefits of relaxation, relief of anxiety and depression, etc. WITHOUT there being a high or even a buzz ... the principle being that the morality hinges entirely on the impairment of the faculties, as the pre-V2 moral theologians very clearly explained. This is not particularly difficult stuff.
B.S. - Ladislaus has been backed into a corner and he has grabbed ahold of the only thing he can, "micro-dosing", but nobody that smokes pot does it not to get high, so his "discovery" of micro-dosing is moot, it means nothing and he is just using it as his excuse to promote the legalization of pot. The man can't think in the real world. In the real world people smoke pot to get high. Pot is the instrumental cause, the wedge that divided children from their parents forever, breaking up the family and destroying the faith. But, Ladislaus thinks he has a better way, micro-dosing "which would not be a sin". People with his mindset would not survive in the real world 5 minutes, if they were ship captains, their ship would have been sunk at the dock.
-
LT...Jone has been quoted about 25x in the last month. You act as if he's irrelevant. :jester:
-
LT...Jone has been quoted about 25x in the last month. You act as if he's irrelevant. :jester:
You are in denial. You dopers are just interpreting it according to your desires. Post an article by a theologian and stop being a cheerleader and parrot.
-
Last Tradhican will refrain from baseless speculation about his opponent (Mark79).
LT claimed that Mark79 was "more likely than not" a non-Catholic. He has ZERO evidence for that wild accusation, aside from his hatred of him. That is not evidence.
On the contrary, the evidence that Mark79 is among the best Catholics on the forum is legion.
There are worse sins than defending, using, or even promoting the use of controlled substances. Please keep that in mind. I'm talking about grave sins against charity, hatred, and sins of the tongue including slander.
Marijuana use -- and I'm talking about recreational smoking of joint(s) until one is AS HIGH AS A KITE -- would be a sin of weakness. It might be mortally sinful, but the wounds it inflicts on the soul (long-term damage) are about the most superficial of all mortal sins. Compare with sins of malice, or diabolical hatred.
At the seminary we learned about the different types of sinner. It's been a while; I wish I had my notes handy.
What I'm saying is, this relatively minor issue in the scheme of things is NOT worth losing one's soul over.
LT, your "ends justifies the means" behavior in your crusade against pot would *only* make sense (humanly speaking) if you had suffered some damage in your private life from marijuana. For example, a career that is not what it should be due to MJ use during youth, or one's wife becoming a user of MJ and then committing adultery and subsequently running off. Those things would cause one to say, "Well, at least I understand why he's so emotional, so invested, so vehement about this issue..."
-
People like LT would argue that "no one buys a 6-pack of beer and just drinks 1 bottle". And "everyone drinks whiskey to get drunk". :facepalm:
People like LT are incapable of grasping the reality that there are 6.5 billion people in the world, and 99% of them think and act differently than himself, thus he's unable to grasp how someone could use MJ in moderation.
-
From: Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana - OnePeterFive
Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana
Peter Kwasniewski, PhD June 12, 2019
o Caffeine does not impair normal brain functioning.
o Alcohol in moderate use does not impair normal brain functioning, but immoderate use does.
o Drugs in ordinary use impair normal brain functioning.
By “ordinary use of drugs,” I mean that people use drugs, including marijuana, specifically to get high. I admit that it is possible to use drugs in a moderate way if small amounts are consumed, but this falls outside ordinary usage and would apply only to a small number of cases, compared to the large number of people who ordinarily use alcohol in moderation.
Thank you, Dr Kwasniewski, for agreeing with me (and many others). The rest of your article is correctly attacking the immorality of MJ when used immoderately, which no one on this site is defending.
-
Then post all those articles by those "every single moral theologian" instead of just saying it. Not a one of you dopers has posted anything but your convenient interpretations.
I already quoted Jone earlier in the thread where he said moderate use of narcotics is not sinful for a reasonable cause such as to settle one's nerves.
But you have it backwards, Last. Theologians do not write books telling us what is licit. They write books or articles saying what is sinful. So if you are arguing that all marijuana usage is sinful, you are the one that needs to quote an authority. But since this topic was discussed in full by pre-Vatican II theologians, who came to the conclusions I have already posted, you will not be able to find one who says it is always immoral; which means that it is not always immoral.
-
There are worse sins than defending, using, or even promoting the use of controlled substances. Please keep that in mind. I'm talking about grave sins against charity, hatred, and sins of the tongue including slander.
Marijuana use -- and I'm talking about recreational smoking of joint(s) until one is AS HIGH AS A KITE -- would be a sin of weakness. It might be mortally sinful, but the wounds it inflicts on the soul (long-term damage) are about the most superficial of all mortal sins. Compare with sins of malice, or diabolical hatred.
At the seminary we learned about the different types of sinner. It's been a while; I wish I had my notes handy.
What I'm saying is, this relatively minor issue in the scheme of things is NOT worth losing one's soul over.
LT, your "ends justifies the means" behavior in your crusade against pot would *only* make sense (humanly speaking) if you had suffered some damage in your private life from marijuana. For example, a career that is not what it should be due to MJ use during youth, or one's wife becoming a user of MJ and then committing adultery and subsequently running off. Those things would cause one to say, "Well, at least I understand why he's so emotional, so invested, so vehement about this issue..."
I have posted detailed specific Catholic articles on the grave danger of using marijuana recreationally, I have posted my personal experiences having gone through this during the 1960's and forward during the period when the Catholic churches were abandoned by the youth, and the instrumental cause was marijuana, it made a wedge between children and their parents that has never been mended. So I have BOTH personally lived the damage and have [posted Catholic articles from authorities that mirror what I have described. I could easily be the father of all of you and I am telling all of you what will become of your children if you preach to them just what Ladislaus is preaching, let alone what the other dopers really mean, all out freedom to smoke pot in whatever quantities they want.
In the 1960's the Latim Mass was the only mass, all Catholics went to the Latin Mass. There were churches walking distance in every town. In those days practically everyone fell away and lost the faith, only a handful, enough to build people to build a 20 person chapel from 100,000 Catholics before. Those people are the real traditionalists that realized what was going on. Those are the real tradtionalist, but they are all dead now. In the 1960's the "sex, drugs and rock and roll" took parents by surprise, it was unprecedented and their children were scarred for life, I saw/see it all around with my friends and their children (if they even have any) . In the last 4 weeks, from what I have read here on CI the young people here with no personal experience and posting not a one Catholic article, are promoting marijuana use and in your case apparently you do not see any danger and are indifferent to the recreational use.
"Those that do not heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it"
-
Like this Catholic article which is specific to your comment:
From: Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana - OnePeterFive
Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana
Peter Kwasniewski, PhD June 12, 2019…
What an a**hole to re-post a lengthy diatribe that has already been debunked.
Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana
the opinion of Peter Kwasniewski, …all reflecting a withdrawal from reality, a breaking down of boundaries and natural limits, and a retreat from personal and social responsibility.
…Although he acknowledges that we need more research the standard canard of anti-MJ zealots is to feign open-mindedness to "further research"
he points out that there has been enough to conclusively… quite the contrary the research suggests that MJ is useful even in his own field, Alzheimer's Disease where the research shows MJ is effective in controlling ALzheimer's agitation without the side effects of alternative medicines.
The moderate consumption of alcohol has a strong place in the Catholic tradition and medicine, and Catholics need to be able to distinguish this practice from the use of a drug. We should not equate it with the recreational use of marijuana. A false claim.
Is Beer a Drug?
The first distinction we need to make to reply to this objection comes from recognizing that beer and wine are foodstuffs. MJ is from a plant and also eaten, hence a "foodstuff"
They come not just from natural substances (uranium is a natural substance), but from substances used for normal human consumption. Marijuana has been normal human consumption for millennia; its consumption and cultivation has demonstrated even in pre-history in various regions and cultures.
Like the components from which they are made, beer and wine are naturally healthy and should be consumed as part of an overall healthy diet. Marijuana is naturally healthy with innumerable health benefits, including lower rates of cancer than with non-consumers.
As a foodstuff, Aquinas defends the consumption of alcohol as permitted within the Gospel’s lifting of the prohibition against normal food and drink: “No meat or drink, considered in itself, is unlawful, according to Matthew 15:11, ‘not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.’” Though already considered “clean” in the Old Covenant, beer and wine would pass the muster set forth in Matthew’s Gospel. Other natural substances, including plants used to produce drugs, would not pass this test; they are not foodstuffs and intrinsically harm the body. Gratuitous assertions that fly in the face of hundreds of studies (many previously cited and ignored by LastPerv). The "foodstuffs" allowed by St. Thomas Aquinas are more toxic and potentially fatal, hence, a fortiori, marijuana too is allowed within the same moral constraints as alcohol.
Many people claim that both caffeine and alcohol are drugs because they alter the body and the functioning of the brain. If we followed this logic, we would have to admit that just about everything we consume is a drug, because all food and drink impact the body and brain in some way. If we look at the differences among caffeine, alcohol, and drugs, we can draw some distinctions:
- Caffeine does not impair normal brain functioning. Caffeine raises blood pressure and induces cardiac arrythmias.
- Alcohol in moderate use does not impair normal brain functioning, but immoderate use does. Alcohol is potentially fatal in and of itself. Marijuana cannot kill by itself.
- Drugs in ordinary use impair normal brain functioning. Alcohol in ordinary use impairs brain functioning.
By “ordinary use of drugs,” I mean that people use drugs, including marijuana, specifically to get high. [sigh] another mind-reader.
I admit that it is possible to use drugs in a moderate way if small amounts are consumed, but this falls outside ordinary usage and would apply only to a small number of cases, another evidence-free gratuitous claim, more mind-reading.
compared to the large number of people who ordinarily use alcohol in moderation. No objective evidence of such "comparison."
Some components of drugs are used in pharmaceuticals, but we have discovered serious problems when these drugs are overused or abused. Alcohol has been used as a pharmaceuticals, but we have discovered serious problems, even fatalities, when alcohol is overused or abused.
If we consider the moderate consumption of alcohol to be a usage of drugs, then we are equivocating. Drugs, as the word usually connotes, are substances that engender a feeling of being high, in a withdrawal from ordinary experience and consciousness. No, drugs are medicines, each having its own profile of risks and benefits. Thousands of drugs, most drugs do not engender a feeling of being high (Can you say "aspirin"?)
Anything we ingest alters us, but normally our food and drink do so in accord with our good, in harmony with the good of our rationality. This fluff merely begs the question: Which has a better benfit/risk profiule? ALcohol or marijuana?
Barley and grapes, along with water, are the main ingredients of beer and wine, respectively. These are foods, which are part of a normal diet, and the fermentation process does not fundamentally alter their nutrition. There is nothing intrinsically harmful in the chemical composition of beer and wine, including alcohol, except at higher dosages. In fact, the moderate use of alcohol has many health benefits, which have been confirmed by many scientific studies. Rod Phillips summarizes these findings: “All other variables being constant, moderate alcohol consumption is a healthier option than abstaining from alcohol.” Some of the particular benefits from the regular and moderate consumption of beer include better bone health, improved cholesterol (Dubious because beer also raises triglyceride levels), decreased stress, reduced risk of type-2 diabetes, and a healthy dose of fiber and vitamins. Even St. Paul confirmed the healthfulness of alcohol: “Stop drinking only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23) and warned of drunkenness.
Marijuana leaves and flowers are foods and the drying/curing process does not fundamentally alter their nutritional value or health benefits or minimal risks. There is nothing intrinsically harmful in the chemical composition of marijuana, even at higher dosages. In fact, the moderate use of marijuana has many health benefits, which have been confirmed by many scientific studies (dozens of which have been repeatedly provide dand ignored by the obsessive LastPerv). Rod Phillips can be paraphrased: “All other variables being constant, moderate marijuana consumption is a healthier option (among many, lower cancer rates) than abstaining from marijuana.” Some of the particular benefits from the regular and moderate consumption of marijuana include better bone health (improved bone density), improved cholesterol (favorably affects the HDL/Total Cholesterol ratio), decreased stress, reduced risk of type-2 diabetes (stabilizes blood sugar levels and decreases the ravages of diabetes such as neuropathy), and a healthy dose of fiber and vitamins. Even St. Paul confirmed that alcohol is dangerous, even can lead to the eternal loss of one's soul: Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:21
The Catholic tradition affirms the moderate use of alcohol, with the support of divine revelation itself! Now that drugs are becoming more and more widespread, it is time for Catholics to mark the clear difference between alcohol and drugs. A false dichotomy.
Drugs demand a negative response, No such "demand" except from the ignorati.
as they do not promote the human good, Numerous drugs, not just marijuana promote the human good (see the previously cited studies). Even opiates can promote the human good when properly used.
neither individually nor culturally. gratuitous, evidence-free
They offer anesthesia, There is a proper medical role for "anesthesia"
a way to escape from a sick culture. But this sick culture desperately needs us to face it and transform it, to fill the black hole of God’s absence.
Gisela Kreglinger,…Rod Phillips has speculated…
Tetrahydrocannabinol, abbreviated as THC, is the main psychoactive chemical found in the cannabis plant. Kwasniewski betrays his ignorance of marijuana pharmacology. Utter and outdated nonsense. There are over 100 cannabinoids in marijuana and hundreds of terpenes and flavinoids that enhance the medicinal benefits of marijuana.
Cannabis has eighty unique chemicals, which can be contrasted with the much simpler chemical makeup of alcoholic drinks, particularly when we contrast THC with ethanol. The plant’s flower buds, when dried, are used to smoke as marijuana; the resin of the plant is used to make hashish, which can be smoked or made into an extract oil. Significantly, THC levels in marijuana have risen from about 1 percent to between 20 and 30 percent in the last fifty years. Fluff.
THC primarily affects the brain: Kwasniewski again betrays his ignorance of marijuana pharmacology.
…
It also has many physical effects, such as greater carcinogenic harm than smoking cigarettes. An outright lie that has been definitively refuted.
Unlike consuming a foodstuff in moderation, the consumption of cannabis immediately affects the functioning of the brain, an effect compounded over time, especially for adolescents.
The consumption of alcohol immediately affects the functioning of the brain, an effect compounded over time, especially for adolescents. Marijuana dosing can be and is often titrated to and strains selected to minimize any undesired "high."
In fact, marijuana usage can permanently alter the brain, leading to a great risk of psychosis, psychological problems, and lower I.Q. scores. Alcohol can permanently alter the brain (Wernicke's encephalopathy). Pre-psychotics and certain other mental health patients (e.g., substance abuse) should avoid alcohol and marijuana.…
-
LT, we all agree with you. Getting high is immoral, damaging and will send you to hell. Using MJ in moderation is a different animal, as even Dr K admits.
-
I have posted detailed specific Catholic articles on the grave danger of using marijuana recreationally, I have posted my personal experiences having gone through this during the 1960's and forward during the period when the Catholic churches were abandoned by the youth, and the instrumental cause was marijuana, it made a wedge between children and their parents that has never been mended. So I have BOTH personally lived the damage and have [posted Catholic articles from authorities that mirror what I have described.
On the other hand, the dopers have not posted one single Catholic article promoting recreational use of Marijuana, nor have they had any personal experience with using it or family members that used it (Ladislaus, Mark79 said many times they have not even had a puff of MJ **) Everything is on my side (personal experience and Catholic articles) and NOTHING is on their side but spam.
(** - I believe that they have tried marijuana, they are just afraid to say it because they fear that their children and parents would be devastated by knowing it. Yet, they come here to promote its use?)
-
LT, we all agree with you. Getting high is immoral, damaging and will send you to hell. Using MJ in moderation is a different animal, as even Dr K admits.
Don't be a fool, they are not talking about micro-dosing, that is just propaganda for the gullible. They want to get high. Nobody smokes weed to not get high. Go buy some pot and try the micro-dosing and you will see for yourself that it is a sham.
You still have to deal with the scandal and harm to the family that even "micro-dosing causes. Marijuana is a scandal and harmful to the family, one can't just say it isn't, it is a reality. If you do not think so, tell your parents and children that you are micro-dosing for as Ladislaus wrote (with my additions in bold):
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 18, 2022, 01:36:18 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/why-catholics-should-oppose-legalization-of-marijuana/msg819667/#msg819667)
Reported Benefits of Microdosing:
1) no feeling of being high or feeling "trippy"
2) improved cognitive function
3) improved creativity
4) lowered anxiety
5) depression relieved
6) positive outlook on life
7) ability to take genuine keen interest in your activities
8) ability to smile genuinely
9) will keep bird poop off your car
10) will make your children orderly and clean their room
11) Will help you win the lottery
12) will help you build muscle and look like an Olympian
13) will unclog your sink
14) will keep mosquitos, ticks, and fleas from biting you
15) will make the temperature 68 degrees all day of the year
Methinks that most of us on this forum here could benefit from micro-dosing THC. In fact, if it were to become legal in my state and I wouldn't risk losing my job over it, I'd likely give it a shot. I find myself worn down these days by working nearly 80 hours per week.
-
Don't be a fool, they are not talking about micro-dosing, that is just propaganda for the gullible. They want to get high. Nobody smokes weed to not get high. Go buy some pot and try the micro-dosing and you will see for yourself that it is a sham.
You still have to deal with the scandal and harm to the family that even "micro-dosing causes. Marijuana is a scandal and harmful to the family, one can't just say it isn't, it is a reality. If you do not think so, tell your parents and children that you are micro-dosing
Re: What's the purpose of smoking marijuana for Recreation? (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/what's-the-purpose-of-smoking-marijuana-for-recreation/msg814903/#msg814903)
« Reply #240 on: March 23, 2022, 01:16:13 AM
A stack of cards, built on assumption on top of assumption, on top of assumption, on top of assumption...... a total end run everywhere one looks.
Here are all the unproven assumptions they use to reach the conclusion that it is OK for anyone and everyone to smoke marijuana recreationally. All the observable history of MJ recreational use being a scandal, being a danger to the family, and being a danger to health, all dismissed by a sleigh of hand
They assume that recreational use will no longer be scandal, because they say so.
They assume that it will not be danger to the family because they just say so.
They assume that it is not a danger to health because the US medical industry has some articles on the medical benefits. They do not listen to the US medical industry on anything (covid, cancer remedies, vitamins, natural remedies, ivermectin), but on this they ignore the 32 points and the actual experience of MJ use since the 1940's, and use ONLY the so-called medical benefits (not proven) and sentimentalism for the sick, to turn EVERYTHING around, do an end run to teach that anyone can smoke MJ, even young girls and boys.
They assume that it is no different than alcohol, then proceed to use the Moral theology on alcohol.
It is all a stack of cards, built on assumption on top of assumption, on top of assumption, on top of assumption...... a total end run everywhere one looks.
-
On the other hand, the dopers have not posted one single Catholic article promoting recreational use of Marijuana, nor have they had any personal experience with using it or family members that used it (Ladislaus, Mark79 said many times they have not even had a puff of MJ **) Everything is on my side (personal experience and Catholic articles) and NOTHING is on their side but spam.
(** - I believe that they have tried marijuana, they are just afraid to say it because they fear that their children and parents would be devastated by knowing it. Yet, they come here to promote its use?)
A. There are no "dopers" participating in your expanding myriad of raving MJ threads.
B. Your opponents do not "promote recreational use" of MJ, hence your opponents have not and need not post "promotional" articles of any provenance on the social use of MJ.
C. You have made quite clear that that both use and non-use disqualify anyone who disagrees with your rabid reefer madness. If someone doesn't use it, you pretend a lack of personal experience is disqualifying. If someone has tried it, they are "dopers" (unless they agree with your reefer madness).
Have you stopped abusing your children? Yes or no!
D. What you "believe" has proven to have no necessary connection to reality.
Remember, you are the a**hole who "believes" that I am a damned rabbi sent here to take down saintly Pharisees such as yourself. :laugh2:
E. "Everything is on my side." — You are a pathetic legend in your own mind.
-
That's funny, "debunked by what authority? Why no other than Mark79. Once again just personal opinions of nobodies. Post an article Rabbi.
Maybe you missed these:
Important reviews
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Hazecamp A and Grotenhermen F. Cannabinoids 2010;5(special issue):1-21.
www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/en_2010_01_special.pdf
Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature, 2000 – 2010. Armentano P. NORML Foundation, Washington DC 2010.
http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Clinical_Applications_for_Cannabis_and_Cannabinoids.pdf
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 1999
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376
popularized in: Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=R1
AIDS/HIV
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7485
“Marijuana and AIDS” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=86
ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease)
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7004
Alzheimer's Disease
Alzheimer's Disease
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7003
Cachexia. Wasting syndrome
See sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Cancer
Gliomas/Cancer
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7008
“Marijuana and Cancer” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=95
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®). National Cancer Institute. 2011.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page1
Cardiovascular disease
The Potential for Clinical Use of Cannabinoids in Treatment
of Cardiovascular Diseases. Durst R and Lotan C. Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2011 Feb;29(1):17-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-5922.2010.00233.x. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946323
The emerging role of the endocannabinoid system in cardiovascular disease. Pacher P, Steffens S. Semin Immunopathol. 2009 Jun;31(1):63-77. Epub 2009 Apr 9.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a04103g160h16450/fulltext.pdf
Cannabinoid receptors in atherosclerosis. Steffens S, Mach F. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2006 Oct;17(5):519-26.
http://journals.lww.com/co-lipidology/Abstract/2006/10000/Cannabinoid_receptors_in_atherosclerosis.5.aspx
Cannabinoid receptors in acute and chronic complications of atherosclerosis. Mach F, Montecucco F, Steffens S. Br J Pharmacol. 2008 January; 153(2): 290–298.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219535/pdf/0707517a.pdf
Endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors in ischaemia-reperfusion injury and preconditioning. Pacher P, Haskó G. Br J Pharmacol. 2008 Jan;153(2):252-62. Epub 2007 Nov 19.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/sj.bjp.0707582/pdf
The role of the endocannabinoid system in atherosclerosis. Mach F, Steffens S. J Neuroendocrinol. 2008 May;20 Suppl 1:53-7.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2826.2008.01685.x/pdf
Cardiovascular Effects of Cannabis | Medicinal Cannabis Information. Independent Drug Monitoring Unit, United Kingdom, undated
http://www.idmu.co.uk/canncardio.htm
Crohns Disease
Gastrointestinal Disorders
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7009
Endocannabinoid sysytem
The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy. National Institute of Health: Pacher P, Bátkai S, Kunos G. Pharmacol Rev. 2006 Sep;58(3):389-462.
http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/58/3/389.full.pdf
Endocrine disease, diabetes
The emerging role of the endocannabinoid system in endocrine regulation and energy balance. Pagotto U, Marsicano G, Cota D, Lutz B, Pasquali R. Endocr Rev. 2006 Feb;27(1):73-100. Epub 2005 Nov 23.
http://fk.uwks.ac.id/elib/Arsip/Departemen/Biokimia/The%20Emerging%20Role%20of%20the%20Endocannabinoid%20System.pdf
Fibromyalgia
Nabilone for the Treatment of Pain in Fibromyalgia. Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethans K, Perry D. J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):164-73. Epub 2007 Nov 5.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9gDyCVhqJSMJ:files.meetup.com/404848/2008_Nabilone-for-the-Treatment-of-Pain-in-Fibromyalgia.pdf+Nabilone+for+the+Treatment+of+Pain+in+Fibromyalgia&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjFGavzxEJkBjsOj_YyWPHuo5PRG034PLna8X6n3sXGT696PVuaEH15HF07xVpfV10wLPfon8-nZoD0RcJfU6LInnuqHOGpKDECN4oQ6OWBgGgwXWckH2QB31FTn1BZn0KX9U7A&sig=AHIEtbQlDN8uMzxJIm6KKL0POTJdhmbsvg
Delta-9-THC based monotherapy in fibromyalgia patients on experimentally induced pain, axon reflex flare, and pain relief. Schley M, Legler A, Skopp G, Schmelz M, Konrad C, Rukwied R. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Jul;22(7):1269-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834825
Fibromyalgia
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7007
Glaucoma
American Glaucoma Society position statement: Marijuana and the treatment of glaucoma. American Glaucoma Society, Prepared by Henry Jampel, M.D., M.H.S., August 10, 2009
http://www.americanglaucomasociety.net/associations/5224/files/Marijuana%20and%20Glaucoma%20august%2030_BOD%20Approved%2010.23.09.pdf
Marijuana and Glaucoma” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=124
Hepatitis C
Hepatitis C
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7010
Marijuana effects, drug levels, DUI
Marijuana effect and delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol plasma level. Chiang CWN and Barnett G. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1984 Aug;36(2):234-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6086207
Contact highs and urinary cannabinoids excretion after passive exposure to marijuana smoke. Cone EJ and Johnson RE. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1986 Sep;40(3):247-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3017628
Do delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations indicate recent use in chronic cannabis users? Karschner EL, Schwilke EW, Lowe RH, Darwin WD, Pope HG, Herning R, Cadet JL, Huestis MA. Addiction. 2009 Dec;104(12):2041-8. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/49/7/1114
Developing limits for driving under cannabis. Grotenhermen F, Leson G, Berghaus G, Drummer OH, Krüger HP, Longo M, Moskowitz H, Perrine B, Ramaekers JG, Smiley A, Tunbridge R. Addiction 2007 Dec;102(12):1910-7. Epub 2007 Oct 4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916224
Urinary cannabinoid detection times after controlled oral administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol to humans. Gustafson RA, Levine B, Stout PR, Klette KL, George MP, Moolchan ET, Huestis MA. Clin Chem. 2003 Jul;49(7):1114-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816908
Editorial: Practical Challenges to Positive Drug Tests for Marijuana. ElSohly MA. Clin Chem. 2003 Jul;49(7):1037-8.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/49/7/1037
Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M, Drummer OH. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Feb 7;73(2):109-19.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/DoseRelatedRiskOfCrashes.pdf
Tolerance and cross-tolerance to neurocognitive effects of THC and alcohol in heavy cannabis users. Ramaekers JG, Theunissen EL, de Brouwer M, Toennes SW, Moeller MR, Kauert G. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Mar;214(2):391-401. Epub 2010 Oct 30.
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/bills/dui/raemakers.etal.pdf
Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review. Armentano P. NORML Foundation, Washington DC 2010
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459
Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance. Anderson BM, Rizzo M, Block RI, Pearlson GD, O'Leary DS. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2010 Mar;42(1):19-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/
Effects of THC on driving performance, physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol. Ronen A, Gershon P, Drobiner H, Rabinovich A, Bar-Hamburger R, Mechoulam R, Cassuto Y, Shinar D. Accid Anal Prev. 2008 May;40(3):926-34. Epub 2007 Nov 26.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360
Muscle Spasms
Dystonia
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7006
“Marijuana and Muscle Spasticity” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=106
Nausea
See sections 3.1 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Pain
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Chronic Pain
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7786
“Marijuana and Pain” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=77#
Post traumatic Stress Disorder
Cannabinoid receptor activation in the basolateral amygdala blocks the effects of stress on the conditioning and extinction of inhibitory avoidance. Ganon-Elazar E, Akirav I. J Neurosci. 2009 Sep 9;29(36):11078-88.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/36/11078.full.pdf+html
[Extinction of emotional response as a novel approach of pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders]. Lehner M, Wisłowska-Stanek A, Płaznik A. Psychiatr Pol. 2009 Nov-Dec;43(6):639-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20209877
The Use of a Synthetic Cannabinoid in the Management of Treatment‐Resistant Nightmares in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Fraser GA. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2009 Winter;15(1):84-8.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2008.00071.x/pdf
Public policy
Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox. Melamede R. Harm Reduct J. 2005 Sep 22;2:17.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-2-17.pdf
Seizures
See sections 3.7 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
“Marijuana and Neurological Disorders” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=115
-
LT has entered the realm of XavierSem, where any rational discussion is impossible. He seeks no understanding of the opposite side; he only seeks to proclaim his own thoughts.
-
Don't be a fool, they are not talking about micro-dosing, that is just propaganda for the gullible. They want to get high. Nobody smokes weed to not get high. Go buy some pot and try the micro-dosing and you will see for yourself that it is a sham.
Idiotic. According to the articles, many people are microdosing, to get the benefits of THC without the high (e.g. to help them be more productive at work ... where you can't actually get high without risk of being fired). And the micro-dosers typically do not smoke but use tinctures that have properly measured and dosed amounts so they can control exactly how much you get. Most people who use pot do so to get high, but your "nobody smokes weed not to get high" is just more madeup nonsense. Your anecdotal "nobody", again, has nothing to do with the moral issues under discussion here.
https://tinyurl.com/2p86sk28
-
Idiotic. According to the articles, many people are microdosing, to get the benefits of THC without the high (e.g. to help them be more productive at work ... where you can't actually get high without risk of being fired). And the micro-dosers typically do not smoke but use tinctures that have properly measured and dosed amounts so they can control exactly how much you get. Most people who use pot do so to get high, but your "nobody smokes weed not to get high" is just more madeup nonsense. Your anecdotal "nobody", again, has nothing to do with the moral issues under discussion here.
https://tinyurl.com/2p86sk28
Once again your micro-dosing article like everything that Mark79 posts is of the world, not a one about recreational use of MJ, not a one written by a Catholic talking about the morality of recreational use. You know nothing of the real world, you can only write in the speculative realm where there are no repercussions. Everything you write about recreational use of MJ is just about saving face seeking a way around "being a sin". "If one does not get high it is not a sin". That is all you have left to hang on to. Moreover, all your articles are from the same sources as covid shots, the world and not the Church. You have fallen hook line and sinker for the idea that science just discovered this snake oil, Marijuana, that cures just about everything. Follow the money, it is all funded by the same people as the Covid shots/"pandemic". I am talking about recreational use of marijuana and you keep bringing in secular articles about unproven medical use.
Where are Mark79's children in all of this, how have they faired using his "discoveries" the last 3 years? No answer. Well, it is where your children will be if you follow him. The blind leading the blind.
-
I missed 9 pages of fun?
Darn! :laugh1:
-
Excerpt from a 2019 SSPX article (Note this article discusses recreational use, not medical use):
Is Using Marijuana a Sin?
The primary effect of the THC is to induce the “high,” and it is practically very rare that one could effectively avoid the stultifying effects of the drug.
For all of the above reasons – that is, impairing of the ability to think and judge properly, damage to the brain, fleeing from reality, unknown physical or psychosomatic effects, difficulty in dosing - moralists conclude that, even though the use of marijuana does not entirely totally suppress the use of reason, it is certainly gravely imprudent to use it.
Thus, the deliberate use of marijuana for recreational purposes is a mortal sin.“
https://florida.sspx.org/en/news-events/news/get-pot-just-say-no-47742
I would like to know who wrote this.
-
1. No one on CathInfo.com has posted anything promoting Marijuana for recreational use (aside from "roscoe", who interestingly hasn't been posting in these threads! Has he?) But at any rate, talking about recreational use being a mortal sin is a non-issue. No one disputes that here. It is a red herring.
2. This article seems to be highly influenced by Fr. Scott's article from the 90's. Using phrases like "practically very rare" is a red flag -- it's the kind of vague language used by someone who hasn't studied the issue very deeply and frankly has few facts to offer. I know that is the language *I* would use if I were short on scientific data and hard facts.
I didn't hear about CBD oil back in the 90's. Nor were there so many varieties of pot, with varying levels of THC. Growers have almost total control over the final product now, it seems.
I would also be willing to entertain the notion that Mark79, who has done quite a bit of research, actually knows MORE about the issue than many ordained SSPX priests with 6 years of Trad seminary formation under their belts. Sometimes a priest has to humble himself (at least in one limited area), giving place to a layman in certain matters of science, business, etc. At the very least, an individual priest is NOT infallible, nor is he the final word on the matter!
6 years in the seminary, and the priestly character received at Ordination, elevates a man above other laymen in certain areas and in certain ways -- but not in all areas. A professional engineer knows WAY more about design than most priests. Which makes sense: he studied engineering for 6 years, instead of the Faith, theology, and philosophy.
I am absolutely in favor of recreational use of MJ, controlled as alcohol is.
"Growers have almost total control over the final product now." Thus, micro dosing through a knowledgeable salesman of MJ is absolutely possible.
The Bible says herbs were made for our use. Abuse of anything God made can be a sin, mortal or venial.
Whoever wrote that anonymous article doesn't know what he's talking about.
-
1) As Rochefoucald has observed, several posts have heavily implied support for recreational use. Perhaps they were disingenuous, and/or taunting their adversaries, but to clear up any confusion, I posted the article.
If nobody here is advocating recreational use, it’s difficult to understand Ladislaus’s repeated example of microdosing not being sinful (which seems to have no other purpose than to “prove” small amounts can be taken -even recreationally- without sin).
Even if that is conceded, see #2 below...
2) “practically very rare” (ie., that a pot user avoids the stultifying effects of MJ) is exactly accurate, not a “red flag” as you seem to think. It clearly means that, unlike alcohol use, 1-2 puffs of weed are taken precisely to produce -and not avoid- this effect (and in fact, that effect is almost always produced). Again, Ladislaus had to go all the way to “microdosing” to avoid recognizing that fact.
3) Mark79 is looking at the issue from the vantage of medicinal benefit, and in that regard he seems to have some knowledge. But from the moral perspective, I’m sure he would not presume to know more about morals that traditional priests. But in any case, the article is not discussing medicinal use.
When a priest tells me that it is immoral and a mortal sin to not vaccinate my child, this is the point I realize he has lost all credibility with me in regards to morals, at least.
-
There was no "microdosing justification". It was an attempt to draw out the principles from people's thick skulls. Microdosing involves the use of just enough THC to provide benefits of relaxation, relief of anxiety and depression, etc. WITHOUT there being a high or even a buzz ... the principle being that the morality hinges entirely on the impairment of the faculties, as the pre-V2 moral theologians very clearly explained. This is not particularly difficult stuff.
EXACTLY!!
-
Alcohol is highly regulated and manufactured, so when you look at a bottle, you know how much alcohol % is contained and you drink according to your tolerance (which is still subjective...because it drinking on an empty/full stomach can DRASTICALLY alter its effects).
MJ is not uniformly grown nor produced. It is impossible to say that 1-2 puffs will get you high, or won't, without knowing the plant, producer, etc. Again, it also depends on the person and how they react to such substances.
Some people can use asprin for pain relief; some people who take asprin will die from allergic shock. The point is...people have to know what they are drinking/smoking and if they aren't responsible, they will sin. God will hold them accountable according to their conscience, lukewarmness or carelessness.
But...for people who do research...they can safely and morally use MJ, in theory (I wouldn't know nor will I ever care to find out).
Exactly the point of the recreational use argument: it should be controlled like alcohol is, identifying strength of each variety or manufacturer, just like alcohol, so people can know what they are getting and, therefore, know how much can be used so as to relax without getting high.
-
Additionally, I would observe that the article which I posted in the OP, which clearly states it is only condemning recreational use of MJ, has already garnered 3 quick down thumbs (a number soon to grow)?
The conclusion most normal people would arrive at is that they don’t want recreational use of MJ to be considered sinful.
cuмulatively, therefore, it’s difficult to concur that nobody here is advocating for the recreational use of MJ.
Drawing false equivalency between beer/wine and pot; microdosing; down-thumbing articles condemning recreational use of MJ...these certainly would create the impression in many folks, barring further explanation, that some here want recreational use of MJ to be “ok.”
Recreational use IS o.k. if it is legal and controlled and sold like alcohol.
-
Once again your micro-dosing article like everything that Mark79 posts is of the world, not a one about recreational use of MJ, not a one written by a Catholic talking about the morality of recreational use. You know nothing of the real world, you can only write in the speculative realm where there are no repercussions. Everything you write about recreational use of MJ is just about saving face seeking a way around "being a sin". "If one does not get high it is not a sin". That is all you have left to hang on to. Moreover, all your articles are from the same sources as covid shots, the world and not the Church. You have fallen hook line and sinker for the idea that science just discovered this snake oil, Marijuana, that cures just about everything. Follow the money, it is all funded by the same people as the Covid shots/"pandemic". I am talking about recreational use of marijuana and you keep bringing in secular articles about unproven medical use.
Where are Mark79's children in all of this, how have they faired using his "discoveries" the last 3 years? No answer. Well, it is where your children will be if you follow him. The blind leading the blind.
(https://matguard.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/billy-madison-quote.jpg)
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0
-
I hold that pot has a worse reputation, more avoidance/mistrust, etc. than it deserves.
Meanwhile, man-made chemical drugs developed and produced by Big Pharma have *way* more respect and trust than they deserve.
If your mother or Grandma had a few bottles of Big Pharma wares on her counter, you wouldn't bat an eye. But if she had medicinal pot, it would be completely different.
Why is that? Totally irrational.
All the evidence points to the dangers of Big Pharma and great benefits from natural remedies, including medicinal pot.
(https://i.imgur.com/iitxZRi.png)
-
That’s part of my argument:
The impairment of the faculties is significantly higher in 1-2 puffs of MJ, than in 1-2 beers (and therefore the argument they amount to the same level of impairment is false. But that is precisely the argument some have made.
Note, however, the level of impairment is not the only cause of sinfulness (contrary to what you said above).
The is flatly false.
Like alcohol, impairment using MJ is different for each person.
For example, a 6' 6" linebacker can typically handle a lot more alcohol than a 4'10" woman.
And, like alcohol, some people are immune to the "high" of MJ (MJ doesn't affect them). I know I am.
-
More to ponder with regards to the sin of scandal:
Would it be okay for a priest to roll a low dose joint at a social event? Not to get high but just to relax and help with his anxiety and back pain?
How about nuns?
I was going to bring this up in the vulgar language thread as well. If there is nothing wrong with vulgar language and it's a necessary evil to wake people up, shouldn't priests start to employ its use regularly?
And the nuns as well...
Yes. It should be as acceptable as if they drank a glass of wine
-
And, as I have said, the respective amounts required to cause impairment are practical considerations and not relevant to the morality.
There are tinctures available now that let you dose it to fractions of a milligram. I don't buy that one puff (for a larger person) would cause the same effect as a couple glasses of beer for someone else. Even for alcohol there's a huge variation in terms of both strengths (proofs or ABV) and how it effect individuals. One person might be drunk from a single glass of champagne (I've seen that happen to some particularly sensitive individuals) while another can have a pint of whiskey and barely feel a buzz. These are practical considerations and have nothing to do with the moral principles.
Given [whatever] amount of THC to cause the same degree of impariment as [whatever] amount of alcohol, what is the difference? I see none.
-
Yes. It should be as acceptable as if they drank a glass of wine
Currently, of course, it's not ... but that's due to the stigma attached to marijuana vs. alcohol, and that's why a lot of the posters here are getting so worked up and emotional about it.
One of the main reasons that marijuana was banned was because the earliest vehicle engines ran on hemp oil, and Jєωιѕн Rockefeller big oil had to suppress it so they could sell their oil. Even now you can, with the right conversion kit, turn almost any diesel engine to bio-diesel (running on various vegetable oils).
Meanwhile, Big Pharma could put THC in pill form, add another ingredient or two, patent it, charge $400 per dose, and it's suddenly sanitized and acceptable.
People have been PROGRAMMED.
Do people know that both Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X drank cocaine-laced wine? Cocaine was not yet illegal. Pope Leo XIII was particularly enthusiastic about it (brand name Vin Mariani), to the point that he awarded a Vatican medal to Angelo Mariani and allowed his likeness to be used in advertisements for it. He credited it with the energy he had, reigning til the age of 93 and having written 88 encyclicals (of the 300 total ever written by popes). I wish I could get my hands on some of that stuff, or the original Coca Cola.
-
Marijuana is safer than any chemical in the pharmacy, even aspirin and Tylenol.
(https://i.imgur.com/LQciqUz.png)
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/Mariani_pope.jpg)
-
Pot supporters here are not going to allow a logical conversation about pot. They may pretend to for a short time, but then they will soon move in for the kill.
Go bake a cake, Meg.
-
I hope you’re done sniffing people at church. Jesus would prefer meditation I think.
(https://i.imgur.com/ELbn1bF.png)
-
B.S. - I've posted articles by the SSPX and can just Google "Catholic marijuana" and post Catholic articles by the 100's, meanwhile in all of Lent and now this week all you post in the same personal interpretation of Jone. YOU have NOTHING from any Catholic source, just your own convenient interpretation. All one has to do is ask any trad priest if they could smoke marijuana and they'll be told the same as Fr. Scott wrote, "no you can't smoke marijuana, what planet are you from?".
Marijuana smoking is a scandal and harmful to the family, any Catholic knows that. Why don't you tell your parents and your children that you have decided to smoke marijuana and see what happens. You are a total idiot when it comes to dealing with the real world, you can only play in the speculative relm where there are no consequence and no correct complete answer (like your ad-nauseum lecturing on the 57 flavors of whether the pope is the pope or not. ).
Wrong! I did ask a trad priest. He told me. As long as you don't get high but only relaxed, it is not sinful. He referred me to the Bible quotes I have posted .ultiple times.
-
B.S. - If that was so, then all you dopers could post 100's of articles by Catholic authors that agree with you, but you can't even post one.
SSPX, CMRI, SSPV, FSSP, ICK, Independent, Novus Ordo and everything in between and not a one article have you people posted. Meanwhile I could post articles from all of them. Go and tell your priest and your parents that you are smoking grass and teaching your children that it is OK and see what will come of it. It will be the most shocking and disappointing day of their lives.
You Dopers are a perfect example of
"For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears: 4 (https://biblehub.com/2_timothy/4-4.htm)And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables. (2Tim4)
LT, you've been around the dung in the back 40 too long.
-
Well, for those who smoke to relax, If MJ suppresses immunity, works on lungs, good luck if you get sick, maybe covid. You have set yourself up.
If one feels like they have to ask if it is ok to use MJ to relax, then their conscience is bothering them, hm, why? My dad relaxed with lucky strikes. About a carton a week. He died at the age of 54. cancer from lung to brain, usual course.
It may be your decision, medically, do it right or not at all. I don't want to meet a driver impaired with MJ on the road. Something that can not be measured, hm, will the driver on MJ be in trouble? Is smoking MJ the same as a cigarette, and no one gets in trouble?
I prefer to relax with a rosary, a good religious book, a bubble bath and save $$$, and be healthier in the long run.
-
Truly such a dumb shit that even your hysterical bitch effort at a cocaine straw man fails...
Both Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius X enthusiastically used Vin Mariani, a proprietary cocaine beverage.
(https://images2.minutemediacdn.com/image/upload/c_fill,w_1440,ar_16:9,f_auto,q_auto,g_auto/shape/cover/sport/644226-publicdomain-wikimediacommons-cc02868dae0b833f4463fdb91df295a2.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/j2cRoK2.png)
-
Uhhh...because moral principles don't change? So when Jone (and the 2 other theologians) explained that mental impairment is the litmus test for sin, there's really nothing else to add. If some Trad priest writes an article and doesn't quote these theologians, he's drifting off course.
Yep.No one of those groups has a theologian amongst them.
-
He slams the same hot-headed nonsense on the table again and again and again.
It hasn't worked with us, it won't, and I'm willing to bet it won't work with his 20 year old children either.
Or his wife who is half his age.
-
B.S. - Ladislaus has been backed into a corner and he has grabbed ahold of the only thing he can, "micro-dosing", but nobody that smokes pot does it not to get high, so his "discovery" of micro-dosing is moot, it means nothing and he is just using it as his excuse to promote the legalization of pot. The man can't think in the real world. In the real world people smoke pot to get high. Pot is the instrumental cause, the wedge that divided children from their parents forever, breaking up the family and destroying the faith. But, Ladislaus thinks he has a better way, micro-dosing "which would not be a sin". People with his mindset would not survive in the real world 5 minutes, if they were ship captains, their ship would have been sunk at the dock.
Show me the data. I dont believe it exits. I believe you and Meg make such blanket statements to support "Catholicism according to LT and Meg".
You both are a couple of narcissists.
-
I have posted detailed specific Catholic articles on the grave danger of using marijuana recreationally, I have posted my personal experiences having gone through this during the 1960's and forward during the period when the Catholic churches were abandoned by the youth, and the instrumental cause was marijuana, it made a wedge between children and their parents that has never been mended. So I have BOTH personally lived the damage and have [posted Catholic articles from authorities that mirror what I have described. I could easily be the father of all of you and I am telling all of you what will become of your children if you preach to them just what Ladislaus is preaching, let alone what the other dopers really mean, all out freedom to smoke pot in whatever quantities they want.
In the 1960's the Latim Mass was the only mass, all Catholics went to the Latin Mass. There were churches walking distance in every town. In those days practically everyone fell away and lost the faith, only a handful, enough to build people to build a 20 person chapel from 100,000 Catholics before. Those people are the real traditionalists that realized what was going on. Those are the real tradtionalist, but they are all dead now. In the 1960's the "sex, drugs and rock and roll" took parents by surprise, it was unprecedented and their children were scarred for life, I saw/see it all around with my friends and their children (if they even have any) . In the last 4 weeks, from what I have read here on CI the young people here with no personal experience and posting not a one Catholic article, are promoting marijuana use and in your case apparently you do not see any danger and are indifferent to the recreational use.
"Those that do not heed the lessons of history are doomed to repeat it"
(https://i.imgur.com/UailYLr.png)
You are about as arrogant as they come.
You could easily be the father of all of us? Really? I somehow doubt that
And not one person here that I have read is in favor of any good Catholic smoking whatever quantities they want of MJ.
You have reading comprehension issues as well as your arrogance.
-
Don't be a fool, they are not talking about micro-dosing, that is just propaganda for the gullible. They want to get high. Nobody smokes weed to not get high. Go buy some pot and try the micro-dosing and you will see for yourself that it is a sham.
You still have to deal with the scandal and harm to the family that even "micro-dosing causes. Marijuana is a scandal and harmful to the family, one can't just say it isn't, it is a reality. If you do not think so, tell your parents and children that you are micro-dosing for as Ladislaus wrote (with my additions in bold):
Quote from: Ladislaus on April 18, 2022, 01:36:18 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/why-catholics-should-oppose-legalization-of-marijuana/msg819667/#msg819667)
(https://i.imgur.com/DPv1BOf.png)
-
A. There are no "dopers" participating in your expanding myriad of raving MJ threads.
B. Your opponents do not "promote recreational use" of MJ, hence your opponents have not and need not post "promotional" articles of any provenance on the social use of MJ.
C. You have made quite clear that that both use and non-use disqualify anyone who disagrees with your rabid reefer madness. If someone doesn't use it, you pretend a lack of personal experience is disqualifying. If someone has tried it, they are "dopers" (unless they agree with your reefer madness).
Have you stopped abusing your children? Yes or no!
D. What you "believe" has proven to have no necessary connection to reality.
Remember, you are the a**hole who "believes" that I am a damned rabbi sent here to take down saintly Pharisees such as yourself. :laugh2:
E. "Everything is on my side." — You are a pathetic legend in your own mind.
(https://i.imgur.com/Qxpl3iW.png)
-
Again, microdosing was raised in an attempt to elicit the proper principles from the thick skulls here. But LT refused to answer the question related to it, so now he’s using it as a strawman attack. It obviously got under his skin and bothered him because he brings it up every post now. He refused to answer the question about whether it would be a sin to microdose, whereby you could relax and relieve anxiety without a high. Absolutely dishonestly refused to answer ... because the obvious answer completely undermines his stupidity.
-
Maybe you missed these:
Important reviews
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Hazecamp A and Grotenhermen F. Cannabinoids 2010;5(special issue):1-21.
www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/en_2010_01_special.pdf
Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature, 2000 – 2010. Armentano P. NORML Foundation, Washington DC 2010.
http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Clinical_Applications_for_Cannabis_and_Cannabinoids.pdf
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 1999
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376
popularized in: Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=R1
AIDS/HIV
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7485
“Marijuana and AIDS” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=86
ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease)
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7004
Alzheimer's Disease
Alzheimer's Disease
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7003
Cachexia. Wasting syndrome
See sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Cancer
Gliomas/Cancer
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7008
“Marijuana and Cancer” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=95
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®). National Cancer Institute. 2011.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page1
Cardiovascular disease
The Potential for Clinical Use of Cannabinoids in Treatment
of Cardiovascular Diseases. Durst R and Lotan C. Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2011 Feb;29(1):17-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-5922.2010.00233.x. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946323
The emerging role of the endocannabinoid system in cardiovascular disease. Pacher P, Steffens S. Semin Immunopathol. 2009 Jun;31(1):63-77. Epub 2009 Apr 9.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a04103g160h16450/fulltext.pdf
Cannabinoid receptors in atherosclerosis. Steffens S, Mach F. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2006 Oct;17(5):519-26.
http://journals.lww.com/co-lipidology/Abstract/2006/10000/Cannabinoid_receptors_in_atherosclerosis.5.aspx
Cannabinoid receptors in acute and chronic complications of atherosclerosis. Mach F, Montecucco F, Steffens S. Br J Pharmacol. 2008 January; 153(2): 290–298.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219535/pdf/0707517a.pdf
Endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors in ischaemia-reperfusion injury and preconditioning. Pacher P, Haskó G. Br J Pharmacol. 2008 Jan;153(2):252-62. Epub 2007 Nov 19.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/sj.bjp.0707582/pdf
The role of the endocannabinoid system in atherosclerosis. Mach F, Steffens S. J Neuroendocrinol. 2008 May;20 Suppl 1:53-7.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2826.2008.01685.x/pdf
Cardiovascular Effects of Cannabis | Medicinal Cannabis Information. Independent Drug Monitoring Unit, United Kingdom, undated
http://www.idmu.co.uk/canncardio.htm
Crohns Disease
Gastrointestinal Disorders
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7009
Endocannabinoid sysytem
The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy. National Institute of Health: Pacher P, Bátkai S, Kunos G. Pharmacol Rev. 2006 Sep;58(3):389-462.
http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/58/3/389.full.pdf
Endocrine disease, diabetes
The emerging role of the endocannabinoid system in endocrine regulation and energy balance. Pagotto U, Marsicano G, Cota D, Lutz B, Pasquali R. Endocr Rev. 2006 Feb;27(1):73-100. Epub 2005 Nov 23.
http://fk.uwks.ac.id/elib/Arsip/Departemen/Biokimia/The%20Emerging%20Role%20of%20the%20Endocannabinoid%20System.pdf
Fibromyalgia
Nabilone for the Treatment of Pain in Fibromyalgia. Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethans K, Perry D. J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):164-73. Epub 2007 Nov 5.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9gDyCVhqJSMJ:files.meetup.com/404848/2008_Nabilone-for-the-Treatment-of-Pain-in-Fibromyalgia.pdf+Nabilone+for+the+Treatment+of+Pain+in+Fibromyalgia&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjFGavzxEJkBjsOj_YyWPHuo5PRG034PLna8X6n3sXGT696PVuaEH15HF07xVpfV10wLPfon8-nZoD0RcJfU6LInnuqHOGpKDECN4oQ6OWBgGgwXWckH2QB31FTn1BZn0KX9U7A&sig=AHIEtbQlDN8uMzxJIm6KKL0POTJdhmbsvg
Delta-9-THC based monotherapy in fibromyalgia patients on experimentally induced pain, axon reflex flare, and pain relief. Schley M, Legler A, Skopp G, Schmelz M, Konrad C, Rukwied R. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Jul;22(7):1269-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834825
Fibromyalgia
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7007
Glaucoma
American Glaucoma Society position statement: Marijuana and the treatment of glaucoma. American Glaucoma Society, Prepared by Henry Jampel, M.D., M.H.S., August 10, 2009
http://www.americanglaucomasociety.net/associations/5224/files/Marijuana%20and%20Glaucoma%20august%2030_BOD%20Approved%2010.23.09.pdf
Marijuana and Glaucoma” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=124
Hepatitis C
Hepatitis C
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7010
Marijuana effects, drug levels, DUI
Marijuana effect and delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol plasma level. Chiang CWN and Barnett G. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1984 Aug;36(2):234-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6086207
Contact highs and urinary cannabinoids excretion after passive exposure to marijuana smoke. Cone EJ and Johnson RE. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1986 Sep;40(3):247-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3017628
Do delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations indicate recent use in chronic cannabis users? Karschner EL, Schwilke EW, Lowe RH, Darwin WD, Pope HG, Herning R, Cadet JL, Huestis MA. Addiction. 2009 Dec;104(12):2041-8. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/49/7/1114
Developing limits for driving under cannabis. Grotenhermen F, Leson G, Berghaus G, Drummer OH, Krüger HP, Longo M, Moskowitz H, Perrine B, Ramaekers JG, Smiley A, Tunbridge R. Addiction 2007 Dec;102(12):1910-7. Epub 2007 Oct 4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916224
Urinary cannabinoid detection times after controlled oral administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol to humans. Gustafson RA, Levine B, Stout PR, Klette KL, George MP, Moolchan ET, Huestis MA. Clin Chem. 2003 Jul;49(7):1114-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816908
Editorial: Practical Challenges to Positive Drug Tests for Marijuana. ElSohly MA. Clin Chem. 2003 Jul;49(7):1037-8.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/49/7/1037
Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M, Drummer OH. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Feb 7;73(2):109-19.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/DoseRelatedRiskOfCrashes.pdf
Tolerance and cross-tolerance to neurocognitive effects of THC and alcohol in heavy cannabis users. Ramaekers JG, Theunissen EL, de Brouwer M, Toennes SW, Moeller MR, Kauert G. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Mar;214(2):391-401. Epub 2010 Oct 30.
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/bills/dui/raemakers.etal.pdf
Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review. Armentano P. NORML Foundation, Washington DC 2010
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459
Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance. Anderson BM, Rizzo M, Block RI, Pearlson GD, O'Leary DS. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2010 Mar;42(1):19-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/
Effects of THC on driving performance, physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol. Ronen A, Gershon P, Drobiner H, Rabinovich A, Bar-Hamburger R, Mechoulam R, Cassuto Y, Shinar D. Accid Anal Prev. 2008 May;40(3):926-34. Epub 2007 Nov 26.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360
Muscle Spasms
Dystonia
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7006
“Marijuana and Muscle Spasticity” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=106
Nausea
See sections 3.1 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Pain
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Chronic Pain
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7786
“Marijuana and Pain” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=77#
Post traumatic Stress Disorder
Cannabinoid receptor activation in the basolateral amygdala blocks the effects of stress on the conditioning and extinction of inhibitory avoidance. Ganon-Elazar E, Akirav I. J Neurosci. 2009 Sep 9;29(36):11078-88.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/36/11078.full.pdf+html
[Extinction of emotional response as a novel approach of pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders]. Lehner M, Wisłowska-Stanek A, Płaznik A. Psychiatr Pol. 2009 Nov-Dec;43(6):639-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20209877
The Use of a Synthetic Cannabinoid in the Management of Treatment‐Resistant Nightmares in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Fraser GA. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2009 Winter;15(1):84-8.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2008.00071.x/pdf
Public policy
Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox. Melamede R. Harm Reduct J. 2005 Sep 22;2:17.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-2-17.pdf
Seizures
See sections 3.7 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
“Marijuana and Neurological Disorders” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=115
I don't see how he could miss them, you posted them enough times... he's just set in his beliefs and he refuses to see Truth.
-
LT has entered the realm of XavierSem, where any rational discussion is impossible. He seeks no understanding of the opposite side; he only seeks to proclaim his own thoughts.
Exactly:
(https://i.imgur.com/KRrvaGt.png)
-
Well… I prefer to relax with a rosary, a good religious book, a bubble bath and save $$$, and be healthier in the long run.
Your opinion is the opinion of a calumniator. Perhaps you are not relaxing enough Rosaries.
You made a false accusation and have neither apologized for nor retracted your false accusation.
Quote from: songbird on April 06, 2022, 07:57:00 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/horrifying-pictures-of-full-term-aborted-babies-recently-obtained/msg818340/#msg818340)
Mark
79 replied to songbird, that placenta fetal cells injections were ok, for joints. I disagree, and gave to Mark79 links with articles saying that different stages of of a baby, such as 3 months in womb were best for harvesting and he still said it was ok!
"fetal" = baby
"placental" = afterbirth, not baby
"placenta fetal" is a really stupid oxymoron equivalent to "not baby/baby."
I have never ever anywhere to anyone said harvesting parts from 3 month old babies is acceptable.
I have never ever anywhere to anyone said harvesting placentas from 3 month in utero babies is acceptable. Damaging the placenta at that gestational age would likely damage the baby.
In no way shape or form do I advocate anything remotely as you said.
Even if stem cells harvested at 3 months are "better" (more efficacious medically), the risk to the baby is immoral and unacceptable.
Placental (not baby) stem cells harvested from the afterbirth (not baby) can be harvested without any harm to full-term babies. Doctors used to throw away the afterbirth. Now doctors use the tissues from the afterbirth to good effect—not using only stem cells, but even using amniotic membranes, umbilical cord blood, Wharton's Jelly, stromal tissue, etc.
Reputable tissue banks use only placentas from carefully screened (medically and socially, no diseases, no crack whores) women having repeat C-sections. Though there was a brief period in the 90's when it was trendy to try to have a vaginal delivery after a first C-section, that fad justifiably passed quickly (concern for uterine rupture during vaginal delivery after a previous C-section). Currently the rule of thumb is "once a C-section, always a C-section." Because the second C-section is scheduled, it is much easier to arrange business hours care of the placental tissue than it is for an emergency C-section in the middle of the night.
If you are going to make claims about what I have said, I'd really appreciate it if you'd get it right.
Quote from: Mark 79 on April 07, 2022, 11:48:44 AM (https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/horrifying-pictures-of-full-term-aborted-babies-recently-obtained/msg818440/#msg818440)
@songbird
I see that you logged in about two hours after I PM'd you and made the post immediately above. I see that you also logged in within the hour of this post, but not a peep from you.
If I had wrongly accused you, I would have apologized and retracted the accusation within minutes of learning my error.
Essentially you accused me of advocating harvesting of tissue from babies in the womb. I did not, do not, and never will advocate such heinous sin.
Your post makes clear that you did not understand the distinction between what is a baby and what is not a baby (the afterbirth). Your post makes clear that you did not understand the distinction between ante-partun (before birth) and post-partum (after the baby is delivered/born) harvesting of placental (afterbirth, not baby) tissue.
In the future, if you decide you need to accuse me of heinous sin, please be so kind as to confirm the details before you post such damaging accusations.
[float=right max=45%]- Reply (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/anyone-familiar-with-this-devotion-to-the-drops-of-blood-lost-by-our-lord-jesus/msg819840/?action=post)
- Quote (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/anyone-familiar-with-this-devotion-to-the-drops-of-blood-lost-by-our-lord-jesus/msg819840/?action=post;quote=819840)
- Notify (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-sacred-catholic-liturgy-chant-prayers/anyone-familiar-with-this-devotion-to-the-drops-of-blood-lost-by-our-lord-jesus/msg819840/?action=notify)
[/float]
-
Currently, of course, it's not ... but that's due to the stigma attached to marijuana vs. alcohol, and that's why a lot of the posters here are getting so worked up and emotional about it.
One of the main reasons that marijuana was banned was because the earliest vehicle engines ran on hemp oil, and Jєωιѕн Rockefeller big oil had to suppress it so they could sell their oil. Even now you can, with the right conversion kit, turn almost any diesel engine to bio-diesel (running on various vegetable oils).
Meanwhile, Big Pharma could put THC in pill form, add another ingredient or two, patent it, charge $400 per dose, and it's suddenly sanitized and acceptable.
People have been PROGRAMMED.
Do people know that both Pope Leo XIII and St. Pius X drank cocaine-laced wine? Cocaine was not yet illegal. Pope Leo XIII was particularly enthusiastic about it (brand name Vin Mariani), to the point that he awarded a Vatican medal to Angelo Mariani and allowed his likeness to be used in advertisements for it. He credited it with the energy he had, reigning til the age of 93 and having written 88 encyclicals (of the 300 total ever written by popes). I wish I could get my hands on some of that stuff, or the original Coca Cola.
Correct. It needs to become legal, and controlled as alcohol, for a decade or so and they will change their tune.
-
Well, for those who smoke to relax, If MJ suppresses immunity, works on lungs, good luck if you get sick, maybe covid. You have set yourself up. I am pretty sure MJ does not suppress immunity. Actually, I think it helps strengthen it.
If one feels like they have to ask if it is ok to use MJ to relax, then their conscience is bothering them, hm, why? Why do you jump the gun and assume that? The priest and I were discussing a young man who we both know uses MJ and I asked the priest if MJ was si full to use. But no, it wouldnt occur to you that it could be a casual discussion with a priest. You jump the gun and assume i had to ask due to a guilty conscience.. go hang your head in shame. My dad relaxed with lucky strikes. About a carton a week. He died at the age of 54. cancer from lung to brain, usual course. He might not have died if he had smoked MJ, or used Rick Simpson Oil to CURE his cancer, or at least not suffer an agonizing or dopey death if he had smoked it or had eaten edibles.
It may be your decision, medically, do it right or not at all. I don't want to meet a driver impaired with MJ on the road. Something that can not be measured, hm, will the driver on MJ be in trouble? Is smoking MJ the same as a cigarette, and no one gets in trouble? I wouldn't want to meet a driver impaired with alcohol on the road, either
I prefer to relax with a rosary, a good religious book, a bubble bath and save $$$, and be healthier in the long run. Your female choice. Others, especially men, prefer a glass of wine, a bottle of beer, a shot of whiskey, or some MJ to relax after a hard day's work.
-
B.S. …
Glad you admit your posts are "B.S."
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/104/784/202/original/2c114d52e71f8229.png)
-
Oooops…
62% Of Gen Z Says They Used Alcohol Before Their First sɛҳuąƖ Experience, New Survey Finds
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/62-gen-z-says-they-used-alcohol-their-first-sɛҳuąƖ-experience-new-survey-finds
The site's findings were as follows:
89% of Gen Z students felt stressed before their first sɛҳuąƖ experience.
Reported average age of the first sɛҳuąƖ interaction is 16.1
68% used alcohol drinks at least 1 hour before their first sɛҳuąƖ experience.
42% said their first sɛҳuąƖ experience was worse than expected.
52% stated they never had a first sɛҳuąƖ contact with a new partner without alcohol.
31% believes that strong alcohol allows to build a more intimate and trusting approach to the first sɛҳuąƖ interaction.
8% reported drinking alcohol every time before every they have sex.
14% find alcohol to be an essential part of the active sɛҳuąƖ life.…
… Yeah… Ooops. :jester:
-
One of the main reasons that marijuana was banned was because the earliest vehicle engines ran on hemp oil, and Jєωιѕн Rockefeller big oil had to suppress it so they could sell their oil.
True. Also, the hemp plant (non-MJ) is still banned in the southeastern US, even though it has a variety of manufacturing/agricultural uses. Why? Because the elites want to destroy US farming and any type of agricultural endeavor. Hemp can produce oil, rope, animal food, etc. But it's still banned in most states, even if MJ is legal. It all boils down to $ and control.
-
True. Also, the hemp plant (non-MJ) is still banned in the southeastern US, even though it has a variety of manufacturing/agricultural uses. Why? Because the elites want to destroy US farming and any type of agricultural endeavor. Hemp can produce oil, rope, animal food, etc. But it's still banned in most states, even if MJ is legal. It all boils down to $ and control.
At Whole Foods and Sprouts I see several brands of "hemp seed" cereals as anti-oxidants.
Oooops… it's a "foodstuff." :jester:
-
At Whole Foods and Sprouts I see several brands of "hemp seed" cereals as anti-oxidants.
ANATHEMA!!! :laugh1:
-
I have almost concluded that when God inspired 2 Thessalonians 2:10-11, He had CI's truth-haters in mind.
-
It is all a stack of cards, built on assumption on top of assumption, on top of assumption, on top of assumption...... a total end run everywhere one looks.
I agree.
It's the same with Tradition. There is no church that is actually traditional. So....Tradition can be re-invented to be anything we want it to be. I'm not sure that I believe anymore that Tradition actually exists, except in the mind. We all invent our own church and tradition, and hope that everyone else will play along. And when they don't play along? We attack them mercilessly.
The conciliarists invent all sorts of novelties, because they can. Trads do the same thing, because they can. There is no standard for Tradition. Tradition can be whatever we want it to be.
Maybe Tradition is an illusion which only exists in our minds. Sure, we may have a good prayer life and devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, but hardly anyone here talks about that. Way too boring. The sacraments at whatever chapel we attend may be real enough, but outside of Mass, who really cares about Our Lord and Our lady?
Trads are quite worldly. I'm worldly too. It's obvious that Tradition is not the answer to the Crisis in the Church. What is the answer?
-
(https://i.imgur.com/LQciqUz.png)
Link (https://news.ohsu.edu/2022/01/25/chronic-marijuana-use-negatively-impacts-male-reproductive-health-may-decrease-testicular-function)
Chronic marijuana use negatively impacts male reproductive health, may decrease testicular function
OHSU study is the first to link daily use of edible THC with reduced testes size, lowered testosterone levels in nonhuman primates
(https://s3.amazonaws.com/cms.ipressroom.com/296/files/20220/61f02622b3aed363391da3d7_THC+male+fertility+study/THC+male+fertility+study_d64bbaa2-00a6-4fa3-a18d-5078c5482d5c-prv.jpg)
Chronic use of marijuana may greatly impact male fertility and reproductive outcomes, says a new report (https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(21)02321-9/fulltext) published online in the journal Fertility & Sterility. The study is the first to assess the impacts of substance use on testicular function via a mode of delivery, and dosage, that reflects current human consumption.
Clinician-scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University, monitored the reproductive systems of healthy male nonhuman primates following exposure to Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC — the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
The nonhuman primates, all of reproductive age with a history of proven paternity and no prior exposure to cannabis, received a THC edible once daily over the course of seven months. Their THC dose was based on published medical marijuana acclimation recommendations for humans, and was increased every 70 days in alignment with the animals’ sperm development cycle. Dose adjustments were made until it reached the equivalent of a heavy medical marijuana dose in humans. Semen samples were collected at baseline before initiation of THC, and again at the end of each THC dosing timepoint.
“Our analysis of the collected samples found that THC use was associated with significant adverse impacts to the animals’ reproductive hormones, including decreased levels of testosterone and severe testicular shrinkage. Specifically, we observed a greater than 50% decrease in testicular size,” said the study’s senior author Jamie Lo, M.D., M.C.R., associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology (perinatology and maternal-fetal medicine), OHSU School of Medicine, and Division of Reproductive & Developmental Sciences, Oregon National Primate Research Center at OHSU. “Unfortunately, these effects appeared to worsen as the THC dose was increased, suggesting a possible dose-dependent effect.”
These results align with previous studies, conducted by Lo, that indicate similar THC-associated impacts to female reproductive hormones and the menstrual cycle (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666335X2100046X).
“While more research is necessary to better understand the potential long-term impacts of THC in humans, these early findings are concerning from a clinical standpoint,” said study lead author Jason C. Hedges, M.D., Ph.D., associate professor of urology in the OHSU School of Medicine. “As the prevalence of edible marijuana use continues to increase in the U.S. and worldwide — particularly in males of prime reproductive age — even moderate doses could have a profound impact on fertility outcomes. While family planning may not be top of mind for those in their late teens and early 20s, the longer-term effects of THC on male reproductive health are not well-defined; it is possible that THC could cause lasting impacts that may alter family planning later in life.”
In collaboration with Carol Hanna, Ph.D., director of the Assisted Reproductive Technology Core at Oregon National Primate Research Center at OHSU, and researchers from University of Georgia and Duke University, Lo and Hedges will continue to expand their understanding of the relationship between THC and reproductive health in both male and female nonhuman primates. The research team will examine longer term THC exposure impacts, including changes to sperm count and motility, and whether adverse effects may be reversed with the discontinuation of THC products.
(https://i.imgur.com/LzgEt7K.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/7pG18x7.jpg)
-
There is no church that is actually traditional. I'm not sure that I believe anymore that Tradition actually exists, except in the mind...Maybe Tradition is an illusion which only exists in our minds. Sure, we may have a good prayer life and devotion to Our Lord and Our Lady, but hardly anyone here talks about that?
The sacraments at whatever chapel we attend may be real enough, but outside of Mass, who really cares about Our Lord and Our lady?
Trads are quite worldly. I'm worldly too. It's obvious that Tradition is not the answer to the Crisis in the Church.
Saying this does not bring me satisfaction, but your comments make me think of the almost-universal effects of the monumentally and radically erroneous philosophy of Kant, arch-Modernist that he was. He believed, in a nutshell, that our minds create reality, not that reality simply IS and the health of our minds, i.e., our sanity, is measured by how well our minds conform to objective reality.
I am also reminded of materialism in piety, something I have posted about many times. Many within Traddieland may *think* they have a good prayer life because they are faithful to a few external practices, but the inordinate attachment to the material side of the objectively-valuable deeds, rather than to the invigorating spiritual side, leaves them largely void. The intended spiritual fruit flows over them, never penetrating the soul, like water flowing over a rock.
Men are worldly, period, and always have been. Most, maybe even the majority, throughout Traddieland continuously look at this or that take as if it is, or at least proposes to be a solution, an answer. There is NO answer, for the solution, whatever God decides it is to eventually be, is entirely in His hands, not ours. Christ proved He is God precisely because He raised Himself from the dead, by His own divine power. Holy Church will be shown, to the entire world, to be Divine by a similar, unquestionably-divine miracle. Very, very few in Traddieland want to accept (or even consider) the fact that Holy Church, like Her Spouse, died. Her soul was separated from Her body, although not within the order of law (i.e., via a legal pronouncement confirming what is plain to all with eyes to see within the order of fact). The wound will be healed, but not by human means, power or agency. We helped caused the problem, but only God can provide the healing solution. Our only duty is to hold fast to the faith and practices of our fathers as best we can. Godspeed, Meg. Do not give into doubt. You have striven too hard until now to give way to despair.
-
Chronic marijuana use…
The title says: "Chronic marijuana use negatively impacts male reproductive health"
and the article says:
Chronic use of marijuana may greatly impact male fertility and reproductive outcomes, says a new report published online in the journal Fertility & Sterility. The study is the first to assess the impacts of substance use on testicular function via a mode of delivery, and dosage, that reflects current human consumption.
[EXCEPT THEY DIDN'T STUDY HUMANS]
Clinician-scientists at the Oregon National Primate Research Center at Oregon Health & Science University, monitored the reproductive systems of healthy male nonhuman primates following exposure to Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC — the main psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.
… [wait for it] “While more research is necessary to better understand the potential long-term impacts of THC in humans, these early findings are concerning from a clinical standpoint,” ……… [blah, blah, blah]
I'm surprised they didn't cite Tweets from Twitter.
Meanwhile the ignorati fail to have noticed a dramatic continuing global decrease in human fertility for about 70 years. https://www.shareradio.co.uk/media/7509/bbc-fertility-rate-150720.pdf (https://www.shareradio.co.uk/media/7509/bbc-fertility-rate-150720.pdf)
The phenomenon is noticed from China and Japan through Nigeria and the USA.
Maybe China, Japan, and Nigeria have also been awash with a marijuana pandemic for 70 years, but nobody noticed???
:facepalm:
-
Also the test doses on the monkeys started at a dose equivalent to an average (70kg) man taking 10mg every day.
Since micro-dosing is generally in the 2 to 5mg range, the monkeys were given a starting daily dose that is 2 to 5 times greater than the micro-dosing we have been discussing.
The non-paywalled portion of the article does not say how much higher the dosing went to get the results they claim. At $31.50 I won't buy access to an article that doesn't pass the most basic methodological scrutiny.
-
10 mg is reported to be ROUGHLY the threshold at which human beings might experience psychoactive effects (i.e. a bit of a buzz or high).
-
Yes, roughly. That is why the article's starting dose disqualifies it as evidence against appropriate medical use or social use within the bounds of Catholic moral theology.
There is also an interesting blind spot (so surprised!) in the researchers' assumptions. In the non-paywalled portion available online, the researchers only refer to MJ down-regulating the hypthalamic-pituitary-gonadal axis, but that is a bogus assumption.
As I described in the Endocannabinoid thread (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/the-endocannabinoid-systemwhazzat/), the Encdocannabinoid System ("ECS" in the article) is quite unique from other neurotransmitter systems. Re-read that article to understand that the ECS is a post-synaptic release that seeks homeostasis; over-active components are down-regulated and under-active components are up-regulated. Hence, the many hundreds of MJ chemiocals (why researchers studying one chemical, THC, cannot paint an honest picture of MJ use) can either up-regulate or down-regulate fertility (as it does with the dozens of other ECS components like bone density, mood, etc.).
Phytocannabinoids (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/phytocanabinoidsthc-and-other-marijuana-chemicals/) (see that thread) behave similarly, up-regulate where needed and down-regulate where needed. Another topic in which I have been interested is placental (not a baby, songbird (https://www.cathinfo.com/health-and-nutrition/why-marijuana-is-gravely-sinful/msg820339/#msg820339), but the afterbirth previously discarded) stem cells. Stem cells, like MJ, enhance homeostasis—by different mechanisms than MJ, but still promote health by up-regulating or down-regulating as the body's healing systems need.
-
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/104/784/202/original/2c114d52e71f8229.png)
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/104/828/343/original/0ea6a9be30c62991.png)
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/104/828/430/original/3d5f899de56b5712.png)
-
The Krasnewski polemic was so flawed each sentence warranted deconstruction on multiple errors.
Beer vs. Pot: Why Catholics Should Oppose Legalization of Marijuana
the opinion of Peter Kwasniewski, …all reflecting a withdrawal from reality, a breaking down of boundaries and natural limits, and a retreat from personal and social responsibility.
…Although he acknowledges that we need more research the standard canard of anti-MJ zealots is to feign open-mindedness to "further research"
he points out that there has been enough to conclusively… quite the contrary the research suggests that MJ is useful even in his own field, Alzheimer's Disease where the research shows MJ is effective in controlling ALzheimer's agitation without the side effects of alternative medicines.
The moderate consumption of alcohol has a strong place in the Catholic tradition and medicine, and Catholics need to be able to distinguish this practice from the use of a drug. We should not equate it with the recreational use of marijuana. A false claim.
Is Beer a Drug?
The first distinction we need to make to reply to this objection comes from recognizing that beer and wine are foodstuffs. MJ is from a plant and also eaten, hence a "foodstuff"
They come not just from natural substances (uranium is a natural substance), but from substances used for normal human consumption. Marijuana has been normal human consumption for millennia; its consumption and cultivation has demonstrated even in pre-history in various regions and cultures.
Like the components from which they are made, beer and wine are naturally healthy and should be consumed as part of an overall healthy diet. Marijuana is naturally healthy with innumerable health benefits, including lower rates of cancer than with non-consumers.
As a foodstuff, Aquinas defends the consumption of alcohol as permitted within the Gospel’s lifting of the prohibition against normal food and drink: “No meat or drink, considered in itself, is unlawful, according to Matthew 15:11, ‘not what goes into the mouth defiles a man, but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.’” Though already considered “clean” in the Old Covenant, beer and wine would pass the muster set forth in Matthew’s Gospel. Other natural substances, including plants used to produce drugs, would not pass this test; they are not foodstuffs and intrinsically harm the body. Gratuitous assertions that fly in the face of hundreds of studies (many previously cited and ignored by LastPerv). The "foodstuffs" allowed by St. Thomas Aquinas are more toxic and potentially fatal, hence, a fortiori, marijuana too is allowed within the same moral constraints as alcohol.
Many people claim that both caffeine and alcohol are drugs because they alter the body and the functioning of the brain. If we followed this logic, we would have to admit that just about everything we consume is a drug, because all food and drink impact the body and brain in some way. If we look at the differences among caffeine, alcohol, and drugs, we can draw some distinctions:
- Caffeine does not impair normal brain functioning. Caffeine raises blood pressure and induces cardiac arrythmias.
- Alcohol in moderate use does not impair normal brain functioning, but immoderate use does. Alcohol is potentially fatal in and of itself. Marijuana cannot kill by itself.
- Drugs in ordinary use impair normal brain functioning. Alcohol in ordinary use impairs brain functioning.
By “ordinary use of drugs,” I mean that people use drugs, including marijuana, specifically to get high. [sigh] another mind-reader.
I admit that it is possible to use drugs in a moderate way if small amounts are consumed, but this falls outside ordinary usage and would apply only to a small number of cases, another evidence-free gratuitous claim, more mind-reading.
compared to the large number of people who ordinarily use alcohol in moderation. No objective evidence of such "comparison."
Some components of drugs are used in pharmaceuticals, but we have discovered serious problems when these drugs are overused or abused. Alcohol has been used as a pharmaceuticals, but we have discovered serious problems, even fatalities, when alcohol is overused or abused.
If we consider the moderate consumption of alcohol to be a usage of drugs, then we are equivocating. Drugs, as the word usually connotes, are substances that engender a feeling of being high, in a withdrawal from ordinary experience and consciousness. No, drugs are medicines, each having its own profile of risks and benefits. Thousands of drugs, most drugs do not engender a feeling of being high (Can you say "aspirin"?)
Anything we ingest alters us, but normally our food and drink do so in accord with our good, in harmony with the good of our rationality. This fluff merely begs the question: Which has a better benfit/risk profiule? ALcohol or marijuana?
Barley and grapes, along with water, are the main ingredients of beer and wine, respectively. These are foods, which are part of a normal diet, and the fermentation process does not fundamentally alter their nutrition. There is nothing intrinsically harmful in the chemical composition of beer and wine, including alcohol, except at higher dosages. In fact, the moderate use of alcohol has many health benefits, which have been confirmed by many scientific studies. Rod Phillips summarizes these findings: “All other variables being constant, moderate alcohol consumption is a healthier option than abstaining from alcohol.” Some of the particular benefits from the regular and moderate consumption of beer include better bone health, improved cholesterol (Dubious because beer also raises triglyceride levels), decreased stress, reduced risk of type-2 diabetes, and a healthy dose of fiber and vitamins. Even St. Paul confirmed the healthfulness of alcohol: “Stop drinking only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments” (1 Tim. 5:23) and warned of drunkenness.
Marijuana leaves and flowers are foods and the drying/curing process does not fundamentally alter their nutritional value or health benefits or minimal risks. There is nothing intrinsically harmful in the chemical composition of marijuana, even at higher dosages. In fact, the moderate use of marijuana has many health benefits, which have been confirmed by many scientific studies (dozens of which have been repeatedly provide dand ignored by the obsessive LastPerv). Rod Phillips can be paraphrased: “All other variables being constant, moderate marijuana consumption is a healthier option (among many, lower cancer rates) than abstaining from marijuana.” Some of the particular benefits from the regular and moderate consumption of marijuana include better bone health (improved bone density), improved cholesterol (favorably affects the HDL/Total Cholesterol ratio), decreased stress, reduced risk of type-2 diabetes (stabilizes blood sugar levels and decreases the ravages of diabetes such as neuropathy), and a healthy dose of fiber and vitamins. Even St. Paul confirmed that alcohol is dangerous, even can lead to the eternal loss of one's soul: Romans 13:13, Galatians 5:21
The Catholic tradition affirms the moderate use of alcohol, with the support of divine revelation itself! Now that drugs are becoming more and more widespread, it is time for Catholics to mark the clear difference between alcohol and drugs. A false dichotomy.
Drugs demand a negative response, No such "demand" except from the ignorati.
as they do not promote the human good, Numerous drugs, not just marijuana promote the human good (see the previously cited studies). Even opiates can promote the human good when properly used.
neither individually nor culturally. gratuitous, evidence-free
They offer anesthesia, There is a proper medical role for "anesthesia"
a way to escape from a sick culture. But this sick culture desperately needs us to face it and transform it, to fill the black hole of God’s absence.
Gisela Kreglinger,…Rod Phillips has speculated…
Tetrahydrocannabinol, abbreviated as THC, is the main psychoactive chemical found in the cannabis plant. Kwasniewski betrays his ignorance of marijuana pharmacology. Utter and outdated nonsense. There are over 100 cannabinoids in marijuana and hundreds of terpenes and flavinoids that enhance the medicinal benefits of marijuana.
Cannabis has eighty unique chemicals, which can be contrasted with the much simpler chemical makeup of alcoholic drinks, particularly when we contrast THC with ethanol. The plant’s flower buds, when dried, are used to smoke as marijuana; the resin of the plant is used to make hashish, which can be smoked or made into an extract oil. Significantly, THC levels in marijuana have risen from about 1 percent to between 20 and 30 percent in the last fifty years. Fluff.
THC primarily affects the brain: Kwasniewski again betrays his ignorance of marijuana pharmacology.
…
It also has many physical effects, such as greater carcinogenic harm than smoking cigarettes. An outright lie that has been definitively refuted.
Unlike consuming a foodstuff in moderation, the consumption of cannabis immediately affects the functioning of the brain, an effect compounded over time, especially for adolescents.
The consumption of alcohol immediately affects the functioning of the brain, an effect compounded over time, especially for adolescents. Marijuana dosing can be and is often titrated to and strains selected to minimize any undesired "high."
In fact, marijuana usage can permanently alter the brain, leading to a great risk of psychosis, psychological problems, and lower I.Q. scores. Alcohol can permanently alter the brain (Wernicke's encephalopathy). Pre-psychotics and certain other mental health patients (e.g., substance abuse) should avoid alcohol and marijuana.…
-
erroneous posting
-
non-erroneous posting:
Important reviews
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009. Hazecamp A and Grotenhermen F. Cannabinoids 2010;5(special issue):1-21.
www.cannabis-med.org/data/pdf/en_2010_01_special.pdf
Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Emerging Clinical Applications for Cannabis and Cannabinoids: A Review of the Recent Scientific Literature, 2000 – 2010. Armentano P. NORML Foundation, Washington DC 2010.
http://norml.org/pdf_files/NORML_Clinical_Applications_for_Cannabis_and_Cannabinoids.pdf
Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base. National Academy of Science Institute of Medicine, 1999
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6376
popularized in: Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=R1
AIDS/HIV
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7485
“Marijuana and AIDS” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=86
ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Lou Gehrig's Disease)
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7004
Alzheimer's Disease
Alzheimer's Disease
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7003
Cachexia. Wasting syndrome
See sections 3.1 and 3.2 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Cancer
Gliomas/Cancer
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7008
“Marijuana and Cancer” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=95
Cannabis and Cannabinoids (PDQ®). National Cancer Institute. 2011.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page1
Cardiovascular disease
The Potential for Clinical Use of Cannabinoids in Treatment
of Cardiovascular Diseases. Durst R and Lotan C. Cardiovascular Therapeutics 2011 Feb;29(1):17-22. doi: 10.1111/j.1755-5922.2010.00233.x. Epub 2010 Oct 14.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20946323
The emerging role of the endocannabinoid system in cardiovascular disease. Pacher P, Steffens S. Semin Immunopathol. 2009 Jun;31(1):63-77. Epub 2009 Apr 9.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/a04103g160h16450/fulltext.pdf
Cannabinoid receptors in atherosclerosis. Steffens S, Mach F. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2006 Oct;17(5):519-26.
http://journals.lww.com/co-lipidology/Abstract/2006/10000/Cannabinoid_receptors_in_atherosclerosis.5.aspx
Cannabinoid receptors in acute and chronic complications of atherosclerosis. Mach F, Montecucco F, Steffens S. Br J Pharmacol. 2008 January; 153(2): 290–298.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219535/pdf/0707517a.pdf
Endocannabinoids and cannabinoid receptors in ischaemia-reperfusion injury and preconditioning. Pacher P, Haskó G. Br J Pharmacol. 2008 Jan;153(2):252-62. Epub 2007 Nov 19.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/sj.bjp.0707582/pdf
The role of the endocannabinoid system in atherosclerosis. Mach F, Steffens S. J Neuroendocrinol. 2008 May;20 Suppl 1:53-7.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2826.2008.01685.x/pdf
Cardiovascular Effects of Cannabis | Medicinal Cannabis Information. Independent Drug Monitoring Unit, United Kingdom, undated
http://www.idmu.co.uk/canncardio.htm
Crohns Disease
Gastrointestinal Disorders
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7009
Endocannabinoid sysytem
The Endocannabinoid System as an Emerging Target of Pharmacotherapy. National Institute of Health: Pacher P, Bátkai S, Kunos G. Pharmacol Rev. 2006 Sep;58(3):389-462.
http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/content/58/3/389.full.pdf
Endocrine disease, diabetes
The emerging role of the endocannabinoid system in endocrine regulation and energy balance. Pagotto U, Marsicano G, Cota D, Lutz B, Pasquali R. Endocr Rev. 2006 Feb;27(1):73-100. Epub 2005 Nov 23.
http://fk.uwks.ac.id/elib/Arsip/Departemen/Biokimia/The%20Emerging%20Role%20of%20the%20Endocannabinoid%20System.pdf
Fibromyalgia
Nabilone for the Treatment of Pain in Fibromyalgia. Skrabek RQ, Galimova L, Ethans K, Perry D. J Pain. 2008 Feb;9(2):164-73. Epub 2007 Nov 5.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:9gDyCVhqJSMJ:files.meetup.com/404848/2008_Nabilone-for-the-Treatment-of-Pain-in-Fibromyalgia.pdf+Nabilone+for+the+Treatment+of+Pain+in+Fibromyalgia&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjFGavzxEJkBjsOj_YyWPHuo5PRG034PLna8X6n3sXGT696PVuaEH15HF07xVpfV10wLPfon8-nZoD0RcJfU6LInnuqHOGpKDECN4oQ6OWBgGgwXWckH2QB31FTn1BZn0KX9U7A&sig=AHIEtbQlDN8uMzxJIm6KKL0POTJdhmbsvg
Delta-9-THC based monotherapy in fibromyalgia patients on experimentally induced pain, axon reflex flare, and pain relief. Schley M, Legler A, Skopp G, Schmelz M, Konrad C, Rukwied R. Curr Med Res Opin. 2006 Jul;22(7):1269-76.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16834825
Fibromyalgia
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7007
Glaucoma
American Glaucoma Society position statement: Marijuana and the treatment of glaucoma. American Glaucoma Society, Prepared by Henry Jampel, M.D., M.H.S., August 10, 2009
http://www.americanglaucomasociety.net/associations/5224/files/Marijuana%20and%20Glaucoma%20august%2030_BOD%20Approved%2010.23.09.pdf
Marijuana and Glaucoma” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=124
Hepatitis C
Hepatitis C
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7010
Marijuana effects, drug levels, DUI
Marijuana effect and delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol plasma level. Chiang CWN and Barnett G. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1984 Aug;36(2):234-8.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6086207
Contact highs and urinary cannabinoids excretion after passive exposure to marijuana smoke. Cone EJ and Johnson RE. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics 1986 Sep;40(3):247-56.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3017628
Do delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol concentrations indicate recent use in chronic cannabis users? Karschner EL, Schwilke EW, Lowe RH, Darwin WD, Pope HG, Herning R, Cadet JL, Huestis MA. Addiction. 2009 Dec;104(12):2041-8. Epub 2009 Oct 5.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/49/7/1114
Developing limits for driving under cannabis. Grotenhermen F, Leson G, Berghaus G, Drummer OH, Krüger HP, Longo M, Moskowitz H, Perrine B, Ramaekers JG, Smiley A, Tunbridge R. Addiction 2007 Dec;102(12):1910-7. Epub 2007 Oct 4.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17916224
Urinary cannabinoid detection times after controlled oral administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol to humans. Gustafson RA, Levine B, Stout PR, Klette KL, George MP, Moolchan ET, Huestis MA. Clin Chem. 2003 Jul;49(7):1114-24.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12816908
Editorial: Practical Challenges to Positive Drug Tests for Marijuana. ElSohly MA. Clin Chem. 2003 Jul;49(7):1037-8.
http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/49/7/1037
Dose related risk of motor vehicle crashes after cannabis use. Ramaekers JG, Berghaus G, van Laar M, Drummer OH. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2004 Feb 7;73(2):109-19.
http://www.ukcia.org/research/DoseRelatedRiskOfCrashes.pdf
Tolerance and cross-tolerance to neurocognitive effects of THC and alcohol in heavy cannabis users. Ramaekers JG, Theunissen EL, de Brouwer M, Toennes SW, Moeller MR, Kauert G. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2011 Mar;214(2):391-401. Epub 2010 Oct 30.
http://www.cannabistherapyinstitute.com/bills/dui/raemakers.etal.pdf
Cannabis and Driving: A Scientific and Rational Review. Armentano P. NORML Foundation, Washington DC 2010
http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7459
Sex differences in the effects of marijuana on simulated driving performance. Anderson BM, Rizzo M, Block RI, Pearlson GD, O'Leary DS. J Psychoactive Drugs. 2010 Mar;42(1):19-30.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033009/
Effects of THC on driving performance, physiological state and subjective feelings relative to alcohol. Ronen A, Gershon P, Drobiner H, Rabinovich A, Bar-Hamburger R, Mechoulam R, Cassuto Y, Shinar D. Accid Anal Prev. 2008 May;40(3):926-34. Epub 2007 Nov 26.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18460360
Muscle Spasms
Dystonia
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7006
“Marijuana and Muscle Spasticity” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=106
Nausea
See sections 3.1 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
Pain
University of California Center for Medical Cannabis Research—2010 Report to the Legislature
http://www.cmcr.ucsd.edu/images/pdfs/CMCR_REPORT_FEB17.pdf
Chronic Pain
http://www.norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=7786
“Marijuana and Pain” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=77#
Post traumatic Stress Disorder
Cannabinoid receptor activation in the basolateral amygdala blocks the effects of stress on the conditioning and extinction of inhibitory avoidance. Ganon-Elazar E, Akirav I. J Neurosci. 2009 Sep 9;29(36):11078-88.
http://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/36/11078.full.pdf+html
[Extinction of emotional response as a novel approach of pharmacotherapy of anxiety disorders]. Lehner M, Wisłowska-Stanek A, Płaznik A. Psychiatr Pol. 2009 Nov-Dec;43(6):639-53.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20209877
The Use of a Synthetic Cannabinoid in the Management of Treatment‐Resistant Nightmares in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Fraser GA. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2009 Winter;15(1):84-8.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1755-5949.2008.00071.x/pdf
Public policy
Harm reduction-the cannabis paradox. Melamede R. Harm Reduct J. 2005 Sep 22;2:17.
http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/pdf/1477-7517-2-17.pdf
Seizures
See sections 3.7 of Cannabinoids in medicine: A review of their therapeutic potential. Amar MB. Journal of Ethnopharmacology 105 (2006) 1–25.
http://www.ucla.edu.ve/dmedicin/departamentos/fisiologia/cannabinoidsRevPatologias.pdf
“Marijuana and Neurological Disorders” in Marijuana As Medicine? – The Science Behind the Controversy. Mack A and Joy J. National Academy of Science. National Academy Press, Washington DC 2000.
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9586&page=115
-
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/104/857/603/original/1dedd68d044685ae.png)
-
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/104/784/202/original/2c114d52e71f8229.png)
(https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1400,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/media_attachments/files/104/828/343/original/0ea6a9be30c62991.png)
(https://c.tenor.com/7gw0yQXn60oAAAAC/so-true.gif)
-
erroneous posting
All your postings are erroneous.