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.

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?

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.

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).

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.

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.

Yes, alcohol and MJ can be used non-medically/recreationally because low doses produce similar effects - promotion of relaxation, healthy moods and well being.

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.