So in my english class we have to write a research paper for a case to legalize marijuana or not to. Would it be a sin to write in favor of legalizing it even though the legalization and the use of it is explicitly condemned.
Actually, trying to write the arguments for , can help strengthen the arguments against. Its called playing the Devils Advocate, which the Church uses in certain matters.
Legalization of marijuana is not explicitly condemned.
I’m not saying I’m in favor or use or legalization of pot, but I don’t think it’s true that it has been explicitly condemned by the Church. Where did you get that idea?
There’s a passage in the Catechism condemning the use of drugs in general, which someone quoted when this came up a while ago on the forum. Of course, one could argue that “drugs” is a very broad concept, and if it doesn’t include caffeine and alcohol, perhaps it doesn’t include marijuana either. . . . .
But the OP’s issue here is with arguing for a position he doesn’t agree with. As others have said, this is commonly done in debate and I don’t think it constitutes dishonesty.
No. It isn’t unusual. I was asked to do it in high school social studies classes.