Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

[The Nehor]

46 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Now would actually be the time to separate the church from state.  Gosh..whatever happened to that???

The real version or the made up version people get hysterical about?

[Jeanne]

Just now, The Nehor said:

The real version or the made up version people get hysterical about?

Either/or...it shouldn't be.

[The Nehor]

Just now, Jeanne said:

Either/or...it shouldn't be.

Why?

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why?

 

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why?

The real version is an actual separation of church and state .so one does not interfere with the other..priceless.  The made up version as you say...is still the same game..it is thinking your religion can interfere with others...you might say it could work both ways somehow..but not according the constitution.  And look what state you are looking at...every Tom, **** and Harry is LDS..

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

 

The real version is an actual separation of church and state .so one does not interfere with the other..priceless.  The made up version as you say...is still the same game..it is thinking your religion can interfere with others...you might say it could work both ways somehow..but not according the constitution.  And look what state you are looking at...every Tom, **** and Harry is LDS..

That is not what the real one means. It requires the state not to support a church or for the state to interfere with the free exercise of religion. It comes from the First Amendment protecting freedom of religion. The separation of Church and State is a paraphrase from something Jefferson said:

”I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Note that it was entirely about keeping the government from meddling in religious affairs. The idea that religions should not take political stances or share political views is a modern secular addition tied up more with non-profit status and not the First Amendment. The separation of church and state does not mean what those who want churches to shut up think it means.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what the real one means. It requires the state not to support a church or for the state to interfere with the free exercise of religion. It comes from the First Amendment protecting freedom of religion. The separation of Church and State is a paraphrase from something Jefferson said:

”I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Note that it was entirely about keeping the government from meddling in religious affairs. The idea that religions should not take political stances or share political views is a modern secular addition tied up more with non-profit status and not the First Amendment. The separation of church and state does not mean what those who want churches to shut up think it means.

i would add that Churches have every right to try to help their members in pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. If the government wants to do away with laws against murder, Churches and individually their members, should speak up. Churches should oppose policies detrimental to the family. individual rights or otherwise detrimental to their members. The trend against Churches having a say probably began with the Roe v. Wade decision. Nevertheless, there is nothing unconstitutional about Churches speaking out or supporting government bills or you can bet your bottom dollar that it wouldn't happen in this day and age..

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The separation of church and state does not mean what those who want churches to shut up think it means.

It means for the churches to shut up only about issues the shut-uppers don’t want to hear. For example, churches played a huge role in abolition and the civil rights movement. No one complained, or did they?

Edited April 12, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[provoman]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That is not what the real one means. It requires the state not to support a church or for the state to interfere with the free exercise of religion. It comes from the First Amendment protecting freedom of religion. The separation of Church and State is a paraphrase from something Jefferson said:

”I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”

Note that it was entirely about keeping the government from meddling in religious affairs. The idea that religions should not take political stances or share political views is a modern secular addition tied up more with non-profit status and not the First Amendment. The separation of church and state does not mean what those who want churches to shut up think it means.

It is a wall not a one way street.

So yes a wall separates Government from Religion and that same wall (not a one way street) sparates religion from government.

[The Nehor]

2 minutes ago, provoman said:

It is a wall not a one way street.

So yes a wall separates Government from Religion and that same wall (not a one way street) sparates religion from government.

It is a metaphor and the person who coined the metaphor does not support your reading. It is also not law. The First Amendment is Law.

So, no.

[mnn727]

20 hours ago, Danzo said:

 I never heard of an occasion where breathing smoke from any burning plant was healthy. When I was a firefighter in my youth, we were instructed to avoid breathing in smoke where possible.

If there is a good use for the drugs contained within, i would think that there would be a healthier way to administer them.

 

Smoking MJ is not the only way, in fact most real medical use does not involve smoking.

[Teancum]

On 4/10/2018 at 6:14 PM, 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.  

Perhaps the UMA should check with other states Medical associations and research arms on this issue.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Smoking MJ is not the only way, in fact most real medical use does not involve smoking.

So if I see someone smoking it, I can assume it is recreational?

[Avatar4321]

On 4/10/2018 at 5:55 PM, JAHS said:

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. 

Would it? Or would it be considered an herb that is good to use?

smoking obviously is not the appropriate use of it

[Calm]

13 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I've had some UTI problems in the past and was prescribed antibiotics over and over again. Not once did a doctor suggest a more natural less harmful way to treat it. But the last one I got, I'd had enough and searched for other ways to treat it and found D'mannose was the trick. I ran out and bought it before going to the doctor, and within a few hours it was gone. Now I just take a daily tablet for preventative purposes. 

Calm, I'm sorry you've had to suffer so..   

We get used to our own issues, I am grateful I don't have anyone else's.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

We get used to our own issues, I am grateful I don't have anyone else's.

In our addiction recovery support group one evening, one sister asked, “Is there anyone here who would trade someone else’s problems for yours?” There were no takers. 

[carbon dioxide]

I am for medical use of pot.  Pot is no more dangerous than half or more of the drugs at the local pharmacy.  However if what the UMA statement regarding this issue is true, then I am concerned. They say

"The Utah initiative would allow possession of 4 times the amount of marijuana than most other "medical" marijuana states. Violations of the law would result in no more than a $100 fine, no matter the severity. Anyone could avoid prosecution simply by saying (whether true or not) they have some illness that they are using marijuana to treat as an affirmative defense, regardless of whether or not there is any scientific basis for such treatment."

Medical marijuana should be regulated and treated like any other prescription and it should be prescribed based on actual research and science.  I was going to vote for this initiative but if this is the case that it is not going to be treated like other drug prescriptions, then the whole thing has been a lie.  I was one of the many people who signed this thing to get it put for a vote.  None of this was mentioned when they went around the neighborhood for signatures.

[Calm]

You should read the ballotpedia link I posted to get accurate information.

According to the fact checking of the standard examiner, the claim of 4 times etc. is bogus. I haven't had time to read the actual initiative as well as the summary on ballotpedia, so I don't have a solid opinion yet, but I highly doubt law makers/initiative pushers  in utah would be so much less conservative than most other states, even the liberal ones because they must know it would fail.

Edited April 12, 2018 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’ve known a few doctors who have given bad advice. Is this fellow known for always giving good advice?

He’s not the chap who’s given the Church the advice he claims is bad.

[cipriano]

On 4/11/2018 at 1:15 AM, flameburns623 said:

How would the bishop know? It's not one of the standard TR questions. If the member, in good conscience,  felt they were using MM appropriately and as prescribed,  for bona fide medical purposes, why would they volunteer the info? Does the prudent and  appropriate use of prescription Oxycontin cause the loss of a TR?

Amen. Seems like that SP and Bishop have gone rogue. Perhaps as far as unrighteous dominion?

[rongo]

4 hours ago, cipriano said:

Amen. Seems like that SP and Bishop have gone rogue. Perhaps as far as unrighteous dominion?

In my experience, members ask for the interpretation and clarification from the leaders (in my case, because they express a desire to get their recommend). If they give their interpretation and clarification, are they "going rogue?"

I don't think very many at all directly ask about medical marijuana in the course of temple recommend questions. But when people ask, I don't think there's anything wrong with giving counsel according to his lights.  

[mnn727]

19 hours ago, Danzo said:

So if I see someone smoking it, I can assume it is recreational?

Did I say that?

You can assume anything you'd like, it wouldn't make you correct though.

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

Did I say that?

You can assume anything you'd like, it wouldn't make you correct though.

So there are medicinal uses from burning it and inhaling the fumes?

Are there other pharmaceuticals that are applied this way?

Doctor: ":Take these two pills and burn them and breath the smoke"

Edited April 12, 2018 by Danzo

[pogi]

57 minutes ago, Danzo said:

So there are medicinal uses from burning it and inhaling the fumes?

Are there other pharmaceuticals that are applied this way?

Doctor: ":Take these two pills and burn them and breath the smoke"

Prescription medications are often inhaled with vapors - "vaping".  Smoking, while effective, is not recommended due to the damage it can cause to the lungs.  But it can be a quicker delivery method to the brain vs ingesting a pill.  Prescription pain pills, for example, are often smoked for a more instantaneous and bigger high. 

So, yes, smoking is effective for medicinal uses, but it is best to avoid the side effects of smoke. 

Edited April 12, 2018 by pogi

[mnn727]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

So there are medicinal uses from burning it and inhaling the fumes?

Are there other pharmaceuticals that are applied this way?

Doctor: ":Take these two pills and burn them and breath the smoke"

My wife uses a nebulizer for her asthma which converts the medicine to vapor that she inhales.

She also has an inhaler which provides "a combination of a long-acting beta-agonist bronchodilator and an inhaled steroid" 

So yes, people DO inhale medicine.

[Danzo]

18 minutes ago, mnn727 said:

My wife uses a nebulizer for her asthma which converts the medicine to vapor that she inhales.

She also has an inhaler which provides "a combination of a long-acting beta-agonist bronchodilator and an inhaled steroid" 

So yes, people DO inhale medicine.

After burning it?