Jump to content
smac97

Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

Recommended Posts

Here:

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY – The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints released a statement regarding a medical marijuana ballot initiative in Utah.

The First Presidency stated:

“We commend the Utah Medical Association for its statement of March 30, 2018, cautioning that the proposed Utah marijuana initiative would compromise the health and safety of Utah communities. We respect the wise counsel of the medical doctors of Utah.

The public interest is best served when all new drugs designed to relieve suffering and illness, and the procedures by which they are made available to the public, undergo the scrutiny of medical scientists and official approval bodies.”

The Utah Medical Association expressed its concern for that the backers of medical marijuana were, “misrepresenting and misappropriating the position of the medical profession in Utah to garner support for their initiative.”

The statement from the church comes as other Utah leaders, including Governor Gary Herbert, condemned the ballot initiative.

The initiative had gathered 160,000 signatures but needed 113,000 more to get on November ballots in Utah.

The U.M.A. statement is worth a read: https://www.utahmed.org/docs/MJ/MarijuanaStatement.pdf

Some excerpts:

Quote

The Utah Medical Association (UMA) is concerned that backers of the Utah Marijuana Initiative are misrepresenting and misappropriating the position of the medical profession in Utah to garner  support for their initiative.  

For example, in responding to Governor Herbert’s statements opposing the initiative, D.J. Schanz, Vice  President of the Libertas Institute and director of the so‐called Utah Patients Initiative, stated that the  Governor’s opposition was one more example of “politicians standing between patients and their  physicians.”  Many similar statements have been made throughout this campaign.  

Neither D.J. Schanz, the Libertas Institute, the Marijuana Policy Project, nor any of the other backers of  this initiative speak for the physicians of Utah, nor for the majority of their patients. As the largest  organization representing physicians in Utah, UMA unequivocally states its opposition to the current  initiative and applauds Gov. Herbert for speaking out in opposition as well, fulfilling his role in  protecting public health and safety.  Although UMA supports the use of FDA‐approved cannabis‐based medicines, this initiative is not about  medicine. Supporters have used images and stories of suffering patients to disguise their true aim:  opening another market for their products and paving the way for recreational use of marijuana in Utah. 

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Here:

The U.M.A. statement is worth a read: https://www.utahmed.org/docs/MJ/MarijuanaStatement.pdf

Some excerpts:

Thanks,

-Smac

I just read this statement as well, and i have to say I'm somewhat torn.  In general, I've been supportive of medical Marijuana, but the UMA statement brings up some valid criticisms, and since I typically like to proceed with caution, I'm not sure where I stand now.  I need to read more of the debates on this topic and I'd like to hear some of the responses from those promoting the ballot initiative and their responses to the UMA statement.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I just read this statement as well, and i have to say I'm somewhat torn.  In general, I've been supportive of medical Marijuana, but the UMA statement brings up some valid criticisms, and since I typically like to proceed with caution, I'm not sure where I stand now.  I need to read more of the debates on this topic and I'd like to hear some of the responses from those promoting the ballot initiative and their responses to the UMA statement.  

I'm there with ya.  Proceeding with caution is the way to go.  But I think that means maintaining the status quo.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Depressing, I guess the church will sway voters, IMO.

What's "depressing?"

Are you likewise critical of the U.M.A. seeking to "sway voters?"  Or the Libertas Institute, or the Marijuana Policy Project?

Or is it only the LDS Church that, in your view, should not be allowed to voice an opinion on this topic?

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I'm a big fan of the Libertas Institute.  I think the Church is dead wrong on this.  A childhood friend has a son who had a hemispherectomy as a toddler to stop constant seizures.   Cannabinoid oil is helping many children who suffer similarly.  Perhaps had it been available and legal ten years ago his son would have hope of a normal life instead of being permanently mentally disabled.  There is promising research overseas suggesting that cannabinoid oil also can shrink brain tumors.  It's all well and good to say we need things tested by the government, but what if you're dying of cancer in the mean time?  Should you not be able to try any therapy you wish? 

Beyond this, I don't believe the State has the right to tell people what they will or won't put in their bodies.  The framers of the Constitution never would have supported prohibition.  Ever.  See D&C 98

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

 

Edited by drums12

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm there with ya.  Proceeding with caution is the way to go.  But I think that means maintaining the status quo.

Well, there are costs to status quo maintenance as well.  I'd like to try and weigh the pros and cons, recognizing that any initiative isn't perfect, and acknowledging that we shouldn't let a standard of perfection become an obstacle to making important changes.  Certainly the legislature could come back next session and make changes and updates to the initiative if it feels certain aspects are lacking in rigor.  Nothing is set in stone, and I worry that just maintaining the status quo has detrimental impacts on a certain segment of society.  

I will definitely be studying this further before its time to vote.  

Share this post


Link to post

I'm torn on this because, like Smac said, I think it will end up just supporting the status quo instead of doing due diligence on medical marijuana so that someday soon it can be legalized.  We have family friends with a teenage girl that has cerebral palsy and cannabis oil is one of the only things that helps her severe leg cramps with no other bad side affects.  The family can't buy it here in Utah though so it's difficult to get.  I feel bad for them (and others dealing with similar issues).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

if a member was prescribed it would they be breaking the WOW? i'm guessing there is a difference between medical marijuana and behind the dumpster at Timmie's marijuana

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Well, there are costs to status quo maintenance as well. 

I agree.  But those costs are known.  Upending the status quo, particularly given the points raised by the U.M.A., seems unwise.  In the words of G.K. Chesterton: “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

9 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I'd like to try and weigh the pros and cons, recognizing that any initiative isn't perfect, and acknowledging that we shouldn't let a standard of perfection become an obstacle to making important changes.  Certainly the legislature could come back next session and make changes and updates to the initiative if it feels certain aspects are lacking in rigor.  Nothing is set in stone, and I worry that just maintaining the status quo has detrimental impacts on a certain segment of society.  

I will definitely be studying this further before its time to vote.  

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if a member was prescribed it would they be breaking the WOW? i'm guessing there is a difference between medical marijuana and behind the dumpster at Timmie's marijuana

Of course Marijuana is not mentioned in the WOW, but it could be considered breaking the spirit and intention of the Word like illegal drugs would be. 
It is still against federal laws and I don't think the Church will agree to its use until the people behind the UMA statement are satisfied. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

From what I hear reported, if prescribed in states where it is legal, it is not affecting WoW status.  I have heard reports by bishops of having marijuana farmers in the ward.

So while I can't personally confirm it, I don't believe prescribed Marijuana is considered breaking the spirit anymore than prescribed narcotics.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, drums12 said:

I'm a big fan of the Libertas Institute.  I think the Church is dead wrong on this. 

What are your thoughts about the U.M.A., is it "dead wrong" as well?

26 minutes ago, drums12 said:

A childhood friend has a son who had a hemispherectomy as a toddler to stop constant seizures.   Cannabinoid oil is helping many children who suffer similarly.  Perhaps had it been available and legal ten years ago his son would have hope of a normal life instead of being permanently mentally disabled.  There is promising research overseas suggesting that cannabinoid oil also can shrink brain tumors.  It's all well and good to say we need things tested by the government, but what if you're dying of cancer in the mean time?  Should you not be able to try any therapy you wish? 

Beyond this, I don't believe the State has the right to tell people what they will or won't put in their bodies.  The framers of the Constitution never would have supported prohibition.  Ever.  See D&C 98

I think regulating addictive and dangerous substances falls squarely within the "police power" found in the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, summarized here:

Quote

In United States constitutional law, police power is the capacity of the states to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants.[1] Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the states or to the people. This implies that the Federal Government does not possess all possible powers, because most of these are reserved to the State governments, and others are reserved to the people.

Police power is exercised by the legislative and executive branches of the various states through the enactment and enforcement of laws. States have the power to compel obedience to these laws through whatever measures they see fit, provided these measures do not infringe upon any of the rights protected by the United States Constitution or in the various state constitutions, and are not unreasonably arbitrary or oppressive. Methods of enforcement can include legal sanctions, physical means, and other forms of coercion and inducement. Controversies over the exercise of state police power can arise when exercise by state authorities conflicts with individual rights and freedoms.

I am curious what your thoughts are about laws which regulate (that is, prohibit) misuse of, say, bath salts.  See, for example, this story:

Quote

On May 26, Miami police shot and killed a homeless man who was allegedly feasting on the face of another homeless man in a daylight attack on a busy highway. Before now-infamous "face-eating cannibal" Randy Eugene was stopped by four police bullets, say authorities, he had gnawed the face of victim Ronald Poppo down to his goatee. "The forehead was just bone," said a witness. "No nose, no mouth." Police said that Eugene, 31, who had ripped off his clothes and refused police orders to stop eating Poppo's flesh, showed behavior consistent with ingesting the synthetic cocaine substitute known as bath salts. Bath salts have been connected to a range of violent incidents and a spike in emergency room visits since they became popular several years ago. Last fall, the Drug Enforcement Administration banned three chemicals used in bath salts, and 38 states have enacted their own bans, but incidents continue.

Thanks,

-Smac

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Calm said:

From what I hear reported, if prescribed in states where it is legal, it is not affecting WoW status.  I have heard reports by bishops of having marijuana farmers in the ward.

So while I can't personally confirm it, I don't believe prescribed Marijuana is considered breaking the spirit anymore than prescribed narcotics.

I'm in N. CA where there are dispensaries on nearly every corner.  My husband is a bishop and has strict instructions from the Stake Pres. that anyone using marijuana, even with a 215  card (they're not technically prescriptions.  I can't remember the right term for them) may not have a temple recommend.  

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Calm said:

From what I hear reported, if prescribed in states where it is legal, it is not affecting WoW status.  I have heard reports by bishops of having marijuana farmers in the ward.

So while I can't personally confirm it, I don't believe prescribed Marijuana is considered breaking the spirit anymore than prescribed narcotics.

That reminds me, I always thought it was really odd that two different stake presidents in the stake I grew up in grew barley for Coors.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Can we compare the number of deaths attributable to the use of well tested , medically approved ,government accepted drugs like , say , opioids  , and the use of medical or even recreational MJ ???

The war on marijuana has been an expensive and largely ineffective one. It HAS contributed to the high incarceration rates found in the US. The war is also not an insignificant component to the deterioration of some minority communities.

  Liberal rant off !

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

I'm in N. CA where there are dispensaries on nearly every corner.  My husband is a bishop and has strict instructions from the Stake Pres. that anyone using marijuana, even with a 215  card (they're not technically prescriptions.  I can't remember the right term for them) may not have a temple recommend.  

Interesting, I wonder if this has changed or if the SP made the decision himself.  Do you know if there are considered any valid cases for marijuana use (such as nausea for chemo?).

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

I really wish the Church would STAY OUT POLITICAL issues - and please before any “its a moral issue” starts - I disagree and I wish the Church would stay out it.

 

The UMA statement is wrutrwn by someone who comes off a real blowhard. The UMA statement makes claims without references. Any who read the UMA statement should be concerned that UMA reps are mistepresenting or misappropriating the posistions of others. Frankly there should just be wholesale disregard for the statement as written.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, provoman said:

The UMA statement is wrutrwn by someone who comes off a real blowhard. The UMA statement makes claims without references. Any who read the UMA statement should be concerned that UMA reps are mistepresenting or misappropriating the posistions of others. Frankly there should just be wholesale disregard for the statement as written.

Got references for that? ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Calm said:

Interesting, I wonder if this has changed or if the SP made the decision himself.  Do you know if there are considered any valid cases for marijuana use (such as nausea for chemo?).

As far as I am aware, he does not consider any reason valid.  I don't know about severe/terminal medical cases, and I don't know where he stands on things like cannabis oil.  Honestly, there are so many people around that are on it for "medical" reasons that I'm sure it's hard to parse out which ones are legit. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree.  But those costs are known.  Upending the status quo, particularly given the points raised by the U.M.A., seems unwise.  In the words of G.K. Chesterton: “Don't ever take a fence down until you know the reason it was put up.”

Sounds good.

Thanks,

-Smac

The risks of legalizing medical marijuana is hardly an unknown.  In some states, marijuana has been legal for 40 years.  New Mexico was first to legalize it for medical use.  After 40 years, any horror stories you want to relate?  Because there are plenty of stories where this medicine which has been branded as some kind of evil drug has helped thousands of people who suffer.  

Why not pass laws prohibiting other drugs?  Should states ban morphine? I just got a steroid shot in my shoulder to minimize a constant pain I have had for a number of years.  Should we outlaw that as well?  Preventing a legitimate drug that helps people who have health issues makes no sense, especially if you are the person with the medical problem.  As far as I know, no one is forced to take any drug.  So one might vote for legalizing medical marijuana and never actually use or need the drug.  But you are denying it's use from someone who could benefit highly from its medicinal uses if you vote against it.  

And why does the church have a stance on this issue.  Are they experts in medicine?  It seems like just a power play that the church loves to do.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, drums12 said:

I'm a big fan of the Libertas Institute.  I think the Church is dead wrong on this.  A childhood friend has a son who had a hemispherectomy as a toddler to stop constant seizures.   Cannabinoid oil is helping many children who suffer similarly.  Perhaps had it been available and legal ten years ago his son would have hope of a normal life instead of being permanently mentally disabled.  There is promising research overseas suggesting that cannabinoid oil also can shrink brain tumors.  It's all well and good to say we need things tested by the government, but what if you're dying of cancer in the mean time?  Should you not be able to try any therapy you wish? 

Beyond this, I don't believe the State has the right to tell people what they will or won't put in their bodies.  The framers of the Constitution never would have supported prohibition.  Ever.  See D&C 98

5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.

6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;

7 And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.

 

So you think all drugs (not just Marijuana) should be legalized whether they have any medical benefit or not?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Booooo!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Calm said:

Got references for that? ;)

Nice and yes.

 

Her accusation is the those pushing for the law do not speak for All patients nor ALL Drs. Yet she sets herself up as the spokesperson for all States with marijuana usage laws - by claiming those states have buyers remorse. Well she does not speak for ALL States and there is no reason to believe her unsourced claim.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Ginger Snaps said:

Honestly, there are so many people around that are on it for "medical" reasons that I'm sure it's hard to parse out which ones are legit. 

I get that.  I wish there was an exception made for chronic problems...maybe if they got a note from the doctor explaining why it was the best treatment and a necessary one?  I think there are enough doctors (no references, just opinion based on what I read ) that use it for legit reasons that I think the Church is going to have to rule on allowing it or risk forcing members to choose between the best for their health and a temple recommend.  Since narcotics cause no issue in the Church as far as medical use, I don't see why this should too difficult.

If someone is willing to go the extra mile to violate the spirit of the WoW, I think that should be on their head and not the heads of those who can medically benefit from a drug.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×