Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

[Storm Rider]

45 minutes ago, Calm said:

It has not been tested for everything it is used for, purity and dosages are not standardized yet.  Call it a supplement like tons of other stuff out there that may have been proven to work for one or two things...or not...but then get put up as the latest cure all, but are not controlled much by the FDA.

I absolutely agree that it is not a cure-all and that many will treat it as the new snake oil.  But, it seems like that is pretty typical with a lot of different things.  Though I am no longer living in Seattle I do get back regularly and they apparently highly regulate their hemp products - everything from food, to a throat losange type thing/candy, to all kinds of smoking products - really, the variation is countless.  

My wife recently was going to pick up some shaving gel that I use.  The store was out so she picked up another product.  It wasn't a gel, but a light shaving cream.  What was so strange was that as I read the ingredients I noticed there was hemp oil in it.  I was stunned.  I live in Virginia and hemp is not legal here.  However, I guess that by-products of hemp is expanding far beyond just those that are looking for a high or relief from pain or other aliment. 

 

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am  not sure you are right on this.  Dosages are regulated.  Edibles for example have to be clearly labeled as to what the dose you are getting.  In California, it is a pretty highly regulated business.

But is it consistent across states such as prescription drugs are?

[Bernard Gui]

23 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Bernard, here is an issue with semantics.  If someone takes hemp oil and their seizures cease; when then stop taking the oil their seizures recommence; so they choose to take hemp oil.  Is it medicine?  Is it effective?  I remember hearing the old saying, "If it walks like a duck and sounds like a duck:....we don't need to call it a dog until some doctors do tests to confirm it is a duck.  

Let's assume that it strictly psychosomatic - so what.  If the seizures stop and they feel better let them take the hemp oil.

Abe Lincoln said, “If you call a dog’s tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have? Still four. Calling the tail a leg does not make it a leg.”

It’s really quite simple...if it is really medicine, then treat it like medicine. Sage brush is great medicine....better than pot.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

But is it consistent across states such as prescription drugs are?

I don't know what regulations are in other states.  But since they can determine the dosage in California, then it would be possible to do the same anywhere medical marijuana is legal.  

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't know what regulations are in other states.  But since they can determine the dosage in California, then it would be possible to do the same anywhere medical marijuana is legal.  

It makes all the difference to have the right dosage, and product, and so important for them to change it from being a schedule 1 drug so those that need it can get it done right. Totally doesn't belong there after reading it more thoroughly....

SCHEDULE 1 (CLASS I) DRUGS are illegal because they have high abuse potential, no medical use, and severe safety concerns; for example, narcotics such as Heroin, LSD, and cocaine. Marijuana is also included as a Class 1 drug despite it being legal in some states and it being used as a medicinal drug in some states.

No medical use? Perposterous!

Here is a little history about it becoming a schedule 1...big red flag...Nixon...

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/296559

 

The who and the why.

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) handles enforcement of the drug schedule and oversees any changes. President Richard Nixon established the DEA in July 1973 to consolidate the federal government’s efforts in “a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America.” Until then, anti-drug policy was carried out by a number of federal agencies such as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. 

Nixon created the new DEA agency by executive order No. 11727, signed July 7, 1973. He had talked about the problem of drug abuse and trafficking since taking office in 1968, including a 1971 “special message” to Congress.

“The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency,” he said in that message. The agency started with1,470 agents and a budget of less than $75 million. It now has about 5,000 agents and a budget of more than $2 billion.

Controversy

Nixon’s executive order also gave oversight of anti-drug efforts to the attorney general. John Mitchell, who held the position at the time, created a “schedule” of drugs as part of the 1970 Controlled Substance Act. Mitchell, later disgraced during the Watergate scandal, included marijuana on the list of drugs with no medical benefit and a high probability of abuse and addiction.

Congress approved the measure. It’s stayed there ever since.

Interestingly, marijuana had been listed as a legal medicine in the U.S. up until 1942. Even the American Medical Association initially opposed prohibiting its use, according to Scientific American, which also reported that by 1944 the La Guardia Committee report from the New York Academy of Medicine questioned making marijuana illegal.

Edited April 15, 2018 by Tacenda

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

SCHEDULE 1 (CLASS I) DRUGS are illegal because they have high abuse potential, no medical use, and severe safety concerns; for example, narcotics such as Heroin, LSD, and cocaine. Marijuana is also included as a Class 1 drug despite it being legal in some states and it being used as a medicinal drug in some states.

Cocaine is not schedule 1. It is schedule 2.

[Tacenda]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Cocaine is not schedule 1. It is schedule 2.

https://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html

You're right, I didn't see it listed on this link. That is so off the mark right there.

[mnn727]

On 4/13/2018 at 5:02 PM, rongo said:

and I think that it is embarrassing that active Mormons aren't "tougher" or more resilient than they are (anti-depressants, pain medication, etc.).

I had 2 collapsed discs in my lower back, pinching my sciatic nerve(the main nerve running from your spine to your foot) on a scale of 10 my pain level never dropped below a 9 without pain medication, it was 6 months I lived with it doing all the steps the doctors (or should I say the insurance company) required up to and finally including back surgery to repair the damage. I'm really sorry I just wasn't tough enough for you.

Had I had legal access to mm I would have used it. Instead I was stuck with addicting opioids, which then took me a while to kick -- I did kick them though. From personal experience when I was a young man and before I was LDS I know mj is not addictive and does not lead to other drugs.

Edited April 16, 2018 by mnn727

[mnn727]

On 4/14/2018 at 1:13 PM, bluebell said:

I think some states have poisoned the well a bit. Montana allowed medical marijuana use with a medical marijuana card, and it was a huge joke. You could get those cards for any slight ailment. My brother in law had one while he was in college and there was absolutely nothing wrong with him. 

That's on the doctor that prescribed it for him, sames as the doctors that over prescribe opioids - they should be arrested and charged, but don't take the option away from people who benefit from it and don't abuse it.

[Stargazer]

On 11/04/2018 at 12:09 AM, smac97 said:

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

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

I am of conflicted notions about this.

I dislike marijuana; I hate its smell when burnt. I have a great deal of disapprobation towards its effects on people -- just as I do towards the effect of alcohol.

So, on one hand, I have a degree of sympathy towards the regulation of dangerous substances as within the purview of the police power of the state. On the other, however, I do believe that the state has a tendency to over-regulate.  I agree that marijuana may have deleterious health outcomes in habitual users, and wise use is advisable.  But is it dangerous "enough" to justify absolute prohibition?  I highly doubt it.  

And there is the matter of medical use. Apparently some people report salutary effects on some health conditions, and must we judge people as inventing such effects under the suspicion that they are merely justifying their recreational use of it?  What if it should turn out that smoking dried banana rind produced health benefits, but also concomitantly produced a "high"?  Would we then see bananas turned into a controlled substance, because of the latter?

Marijuana helped my late wife during the process of her journey to the other side, by bridging for a time, the gap of pain relief she had between oxycodone, that couldn't handle breakthrough pain, and morphine.  For a few weeks before the hospice doctor would authorize morphine in replacement for oxycodone, she obtained occasional temporary relief by using marijuana. And this was fortunately easily obtained in Washington state, since not long beforehand the state law changed, authorizing recreational use.  Had the law not changed, obtaining medical marijuana would have been difficult, since doctors were very wary of prescribing it, since the government regulators were anxious to pound down any outbreak of its use that they deemed to be recreational in nature, rather than medical.  And my wife was a very law-abiding person with a strong Word of Wisdom ethic.  She would never have gone against the law -- and would have suffered.  Unnecessarily.

 

[mnn727]

On 4/14/2018 at 4:20 PM, Bernard Gui said:

 

Are you saying it’s simply another thing like ibuprofen, aspirin, or Tylenol? If so, those are regulated

And in many cases bad for your kidneys.

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It makes all the difference to have the right dosage, and product, and so important for them to change it from being a schedule 1 drug so those that need it can get it done right. Totally doesn't belong there after reading it more thoroughly....

SCHEDULE 1 (CLASS I) DRUGS are illegal because they have high abuse potential, no medical use, and severe safety concerns; for example, narcotics such as Heroin, LSD, and cocaine. Marijuana is also included as a Class 1 drug despite it being legal in some states and it being used as a medicinal drug in some states.

No medical use? Perposterous!

Here is a little history about it becoming a schedule 1...big red flag...Nixon...

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/296559

 

The who and the why.

The federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) handles enforcement of the drug schedule and oversees any changes. President Richard Nixon established the DEA in July 1973 to consolidate the federal government’s efforts in “a full-scale attack on the problem of drug abuse in America.” Until then, anti-drug policy was carried out by a number of federal agencies such as the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the Bureau of Drug Abuse Control. 

Nixon created the new DEA agency by executive order No. 11727, signed July 7, 1973. He had talked about the problem of drug abuse and trafficking since taking office in 1968, including a 1971 “special message” to Congress.

“The problem has assumed the dimensions of a national emergency,” he said in that message. The agency started with1,470 agents and a budget of less than $75 million. It now has about 5,000 agents and a budget of more than $2 billion.

Controversy

Nixon’s executive order also gave oversight of anti-drug efforts to the attorney general. John Mitchell, who held the position at the time, created a “schedule” of drugs as part of the 1970 Controlled Substance Act. Mitchell, later disgraced during the Watergate scandal, included marijuana on the list of drugs with no medical benefit and a high probability of abuse and addiction.

Congress approved the measure. It’s stayed there ever since.

Interestingly, marijuana had been listed as a legal medicine in the U.S. up until 1942. Even the American Medical Association initially opposed prohibiting its use, according to Scientific American, which also reported that by 1944 the La Guardia Committee report from the New York Academy of Medicine questioned making marijuana illegal.

Nixon and Mitchell get the blame? Ummmmm....a lot of political water has flowed left and right since 1973, no? A lot of stuff and many people have been disgraced, but there have been plenty of opportunities to change things. Many executive orders have come and gone. President Boxers (“I didn’t inhale”) and the Choom Gang President (“I inhaled frequently ”) could have changed it with the stroke of their pens.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, mnn727 said:

That's on the doctor that prescribed it for him, sames as the doctors that over prescribe opioids - they should be arrested and charged, but don't take the option away from people who benefit from it and don't abuse it.

The system in Montana was set up so that abuse was prolific and not a big deal. States like that need to do better and take responsibility for the flawed system they created. 

 

[Bernard Gui]

For some fascinating  reading, you all may want to peruse the Washington laws regarding medical marijuana....https://www.doh.wa.gov/YouandYourFamily/Marijuana/MedicalMarijuana

 

Quote

2) Labels for compliant products must not:

(a) Use any word(s), symbol, or image commonly used in or by medical or pharmaceutical professions including, but not limited to: Depiction of a caduceus, staff of Asclepius, bowl of Hygieia, or mortar and pestle; or use of the word "prescription" or letters "RX";

(b) State or imply any specific medical or therapeutic benefit; or

(c) Mimic a brand of over-the-counter or legend drug.

(3) The label must prominently display the following statement: "This product is not approved by the FDA to treat, cure, or prevent any disease."

 

[Calm]

5 hours ago, mnn727 said:

I had 2 collapsed discs in my lower back, pinching my sciatic nerve(the main nerve running from your spine to your foot) on a scale of 10 my pain level never dropped below a 9 without pain medication, it was 6 months I lived with it doing all the steps the doctors (or should I say the insurance company) required up to and finally including back surgery to repair the damage. I'm really sorry I just wasn't tough enough for you. Had I had legal access to mm I would have used it. Instead I was stuck with addicting opioids, which then took me a while to kick -- I did kick them though. From personal experience when I was a young man and before I was LDS I know mj is not addictive and does not lead to other drugs.

I went for three years walking in agony after 20 minutes on my feet because I was taught to be tough and resilent and avoid medications by my parents (mom's doctors were overprescribing tranquilizers, she figured the cost was too high; dad had a high pain threshold and little empathy about health though compassionate in other things).  I just needed to exercise a bit more, build up the right muscles, get rid of those lbs that last pregnancy put on me.

Three years later I found out it wasn't a matter of being out of shape, overweight, but bones in the wrong place.  Permanent damage done to nerves.

Pain is there to tell us something is wrong.  Ignoring it is like ignoring the smell of smoke; sure, it might be just a little crumb burning in the toaster, but if it isn't....you have lost your house.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

In what way is the Church qualified to issue a statement about the merits of medicinal marijuana?

[Calm]

Quote

and I think that it is embarrassing that active Mormons aren't "tougher" or more resilient than they are (anti-depressants, pain medication, etc.).

Anxiety, depression, and chronic pain don't just affect the quality of life of the individual experiencing them, but it affects those they live with and love as well, deeply if they have an ounce of compassion in their soul.  I know way too many people whose loved ones refuse to be treated because they too are embarrassed about being seen as weak and they put their family and friends through crap, if not hell for years because of it.  When it is unnecessary because there is medical help for them, that is sinful in my opinion.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Calm

[phaedrus ut]

There was a relevant article in yesterday's Tribune

Kirby: Yes, I sold weed out of my Mormon church library … but let me explain

Some here who have debated smoking etc.  You'll notice he uses a topical balm. 

Phaedrus 

[RevTestament]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

Anxiety, depression, and chronic pain don't just affect the quality of life of the individual experiencing them, but it affects those they live with and love as well, deeply if they have an ounce of compassion in their soul.  I know way too many people whose loved ones refuse to be treated because they too are embarrassed about being seen as weak and they put their family and friends through crap, if not hell for years because of it.  When it is unnecessary because there is medical help for them, that is sinful in my opinion.

I'm sorry Calm. I cannot go quite that far. As you of all people know, drugs have side affects. It is not sin to refuse drugs. Even relatively benign drugs can have bad side effects. I for one am not ready to start condemning people for refusing medical help. That is always the individual right of a patient.

From personal experience I know that I can get cranky and unpleasant when I am in severe pain, but I will insist on full control of how I treat that pain, and what if any drugs I take. I too do not want to be a burden on others - I make every effort to acknowledge my weakness, but have traditionally resisted narcotic use. I acknowledge some people can be a pain in the rear, but if they choose to refuse treatment, hopefully they will learn to choose a good attitude with that first choice. I am not willing to forego my freedom for fear they won't choose well.

Edited April 16, 2018 by RevTestament

[california boy]

On 4/14/2018 at 7:10 PM, Calm said:

But is it consistent across states such as prescription drugs are?

By California law the dosage on edibles must be labeled 

[california boy]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

The system in Montana was set up so that abuse was prolific and not a big deal. States like that need to do better and take responsibility for the flawed system they created. 

 

Do you have any statics supporting your claims of prolific fraud?

Maybe the reason why law enforcement doesn’t challenge college students marijuana cards is that they rather see them in college rather than jail. 

Honest w=question. Do you think using weed is worse than using alcohol?

[Bernard Gui]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

In what way is the Church qualified to issue a statement about the merits of medicinal marijuana?

In the same ways of any other entity which speaks out on issues. It’s our right and duty.

Edited April 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, phaedrus ut said:

There was a relevant article in yesterday's Tribune

Kirby: Yes, I sold weed out of my Mormon church library … but let me explain

Some here who have debated smoking etc.  You'll notice he uses a topical balm. 

Phaedrus 

Tiger Balm, Australian Dream, and Blue Emu have money-back guarantees. And you can’t get high using them. Plus they don’t stink. 

Edited April 16, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[phaedrus ut]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Tiger Balm, Australian Dream, and Blue Emu have money-back guarantees. And you can’t get high using them. Plus they don’t stink. 

Topical creams can be effective but the difference is that they can't use the body's endocannabinoid system to reduce pain and inflammation. 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

Topical creams can be effective but the difference is that they can't use the body's endocannabinoid system to reduce pain and inflammation. 

You hit the nail on the head, thank you!