May one invest in a company that offers cannabis for medical use?

Questions about investing typically require moral analysis using the principles of cooperation. The major distinction here is that between formal and material cooperation. In formal cooperation, the agent purposely contributes to an immoral action carried out by another; hence, this type of cooperation is always wrong. Material cooperation occurs when the agent does not purposely contribute to an immoral action but does so in some indirect and even unintentional manner. This type of cooperation must be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Generally, an investor will place his money in a fund that includes a collection of stocks, some of which may be morally compromised. Because the investor does not choose those stocks that have an immoral character, his general investment is permissible, though there are exceptions for companies that engage in intrinsically immoral actions; for example, investments in funds which include stocks that directly promote or contribute to abortion.

Limited conditions
 
For this analysis, I assume that the investor is placing his money into a single company that produces, distributes, or promotes cannabis use for medical purposes. There is evidence that the drug can have a palliative effect on certain patients. Its use for a legitimate medical purpose is therefore permissible within Catholic teaching, even though it routinely has a deleterious side effect. Cannabis produces euphoria and disorientation. As a result, no one should drive an automobile or engage in other activities that require fine motor skills when using cannabis.

Regrettably, many medical marijuana dispensaries are poorly run fronts for marijuana distribution and will accept almost anyone as a “patient.” The movement to have cannabis recognized as a legitimate medical product has been driven in part by those who want society to have wider access to a drug that until recently was universally illegal. Criminal penalties have been lessened, and its use in some places has been completely decriminalized. This has had a detrimental effect on society, especially among those prone to addiction or who have psychiatric difficulties. The growing use of marijuana is a social scourge that harms the general quality of life.

Nonetheless, if the investor can be certain that the cannabis company carries out its activities for strictly medical purposes, it is permissible. A company that strictly monitors its production of cannabis and supplies it only for medical purposes is not cooperating with any wrongdoing and thus is not even under the principles of cooperation. The production of cannabis would be no different than making any other medical product for a good use, for example, thread for use in surgical stitching.

Dividing lines 

The widespread misuse of marijuana within society, however, and the lack of clear lines between legitimate medical use and its widespread distribution by marijuana dispensaries, does raise the problem of immorality under the heading of material cooperation. If there is any seepage, as it were, between the company’s legitimate efforts to provide a medical product and the illicit purchase of the same product for the sake of its exhilarating effects, then the moral analysis changes and the investment then becomes illicit material cooperation. 

Not all material cooperation is permissible, although many ethicists seem to think so. In this case, even though the investor does not have as his purpose the growth of its illicit use among the public, the failure to keep a strict division between medical use and recreational use places him into a position that undermines his good aim and renders his action an illicit form of proximate material cooperation. He knows that the company is not properly limiting the distribution of cannabis to physicians and carefully operated clinics. The good of his investment does not outweigh the negative effects on society.

Possible scandal

Moreover, the investment can also become a form of theological scandal, a term that refers to the tendency of an action to lead others to think that wrongdoing is permissible. If a Catholic investor is known to be funding medically appropriate cannabis use, it can lead others to think that recreational use may indeed be permissible, especially if it can be justified in an individual’s own mind by the excuse that one has an undiagnosed pain or condition that might benefit from cannabis.

The situation is worse if the company is not careful. There is then the spillover effect from legitimate use outlined above. Given the problems associated with marijuana generally, the difficulty of ensuring that a cannabis company is carefully monitoring its product, and the possible misunderstanding by others, it seems that, on prudential grounds alone, a Catholic would avoid this type of investment no matter the benefit of financial gain.