Jump to content
smac97

Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Gosh Tacenda..keep us posted on all this.  May I commend you in being so involved and participating in conversations and action for you and other citizens! like me!!

Thanks Jeanne, I want it for the prevention of Alzheimer's but there are thousands that need it for so many things. So my fight is for them as well after reading story after story. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Calm said:

CFR please.

Encouraging people to vote against the initiative is not the same thing as attempting to remove it from the ballot.  I didn't see the Church listed in the groups trying to do the latter (UMA, a federal agency's task force, Eagle Forum according to SLT, see link for the group's own list...doesn't include the Church).

http://safehealthyutah.org/whoisdsu/

More info on the complaints:

http://fox13now.com/2018/05/09/election-complaint-filed-over-medical-marijuana-ballot-initiative/

How is it not an attempt to remove it from the ballot? It's asking for our names to be removed therefore if not enough signatures then it won't be on the ballot. Am I missing something? I guess the church didn't say it in those words, but their intentions are loud and glaringly clear.

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks Jeanne, I want it for the prevention of Alzheimer's but there are thousands that need it for so many things. So my fight is for them as well after reading story after story. 

I am all for this..I worry about Alzheimer;s at this point in my life as well as anything that could relieve cancer..seizure..pain.  I would love to sign up...but where...where can I sign up where the church doesn't ask me not to or ask to take my name off???😒 Perhaps it is possible in the State of Utah that they won't ask those who are not mormon??

Edited by Jeanne

Share this post


Link to post

My sister in law has bad seizures..my brother even took her to Mexico for some help..it is so scary that she is unable to drive.  I asked her if there had been any consideration for the use of marijuana for adult seizures..if she would consider trying out that option if she could..oh hey...no way...church says no..

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, janderich said:

It definitely is debatable. Based on your statement I would say you support some form of legalization of marijuana. 

It's debatable only if you're using some nonstandard definition.  Cannabis is an herbaceous plant.  And,  yes. . I support the freedom to responsibly use botanical medicines.  That would entail some form of legalization for Cannabis. 

Edited by cacheman

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

My sister in law has bad seizures..my brother even took her to Mexico for some help..it is so scary that she is unable to drive.  I asked her if there had been any consideration for the use of marijuana for adult seizures..if she would consider trying out that option if she could..oh hey...no way...church says no..

The church says they aren't totally against it but want more research done, which could take years. If someone would just read the research they could see that it's legitimate.

I think the church worries about potheads wondering the streets of Utah, which happens everyday anyway. But the problem comes when marijuana is illegal and drives it underground which happened in the 60's/70's and then creates drug cartels and puts a lot of people behind bars, it was called a drug war at the time but it really was a race/hippie war, Nixon started it and Reagan took hold of it and now it is what it is.  https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

I wish it was like it was before that, when doctors used marijuana to cure ailments long before that. Cannibioids are in our DNA, I keep seeing that comment, so I wonder how this herb could be bad, but I do see a problem if someone is addicted to the high, although cannibus isn't addictive, it still can be habit forming. 

I have seen articles where you can just eat the plant (salad) and it's supposed to have all kinds of healing properties. I like the CBD oil, which I hear is perfectly fine to buy in Utah, but it doesn't have the THC and I believe I need that to prevent the plaque on the brain.

There are different strains for different ailments and that's why it would be prudent to have some kind of dispensary or pharmacy to buy the specifics rather than have to do it on your own and worry it will land you in jail and ruin your life. It's true people have to fear going across borders to buy it and are desperate enough to try to get the help they need like your sister tried to do. She should be able to drive down the road and buy what she needs, there are very knowledgeable people at these dispensaries that could help her, hopefully in the future.

 

Edited by Tacenda

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church says the arenI before that, when doctors used marijuana to cure ailments long before that. Cannibioids are in our DNA, I keep seeing that comment, so I wonder how this herb could be bad, but I do see a problem if someone is addicted to the high, although cannibus isn't addictive, it still can be habit forming. 

I have seen articles where you can just eat the plant (salad) and it's supposed to have all kinds of healing properties. I like the CBD oil, which I hear is perfectly fine to buy in Utah, but it doesn't have the THC and I believe I need that to prevent the plaque on the brain.

There are different strains for different ailments and that's why it would be prudent to have some kind of dispensary or pharmacy to buy the specifics rather than have to do it on your own and worry it will land you in jail and ruin your life. It's true people have to fear going across borders to buy it and are desperate enough to try to get the help they need like your sister tried to do. She should be able to drive down the road and buy what she needs, there are very knowledgeable people at these dispensaries that could help her, hopefully in the future.

 

I understand what you are saying and what info is being provided.  Hopefully more research will provide some better understanding for those who don't understand.  If this "pot" as they say can help in different strains for different things..it would be just as relevant as basic pain and overall care of so many.  We need to see this medicinal plant in a different light.  It is going to take a certain cultural development that let these studies come into eventual law that provides the same care as aspirin.

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, janderich said:

Because there have been zero deaths attributed to marijuana use it does not mean that it's effects have been adequately studied and it's completely safe. 

Quote

 

A report published Thursday by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine analyzed more than 10,000 studies to see what could conclusively be said about the health effects of all this marijuana. And despite the drug's increasing popularity — a recent survey suggests about 22 million American adults have used the drug in the last month — conclusive evidence about its positive and negative medical effects is hard to come by, the researchers say.

According to the report, that's at least partly because the federal drug enforcement agency's designation of the drug as a Schedule I substance — having "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse" — entails so many restrictions that it has been difficult for researchers to do rigorous research on marijuana. We just need "far more information," Dr. Marie McCormick, chair of the NAS committee and professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, tells Shots. (https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/12/509488977/marijuanas-health-effects-scientists-weigh-in)

 

 

Wow 10,000 studies.  I had no idea there have been so many studies.  Yet people, including this legal statement is asking for more studies before considering legalization for medical use.  Sounds like the report you linked to makes smoking marijuana a much higher risk which doesn't surprise me.  

I am not saying that there is no risks to taking marijuana, but especially for pain relief medications, marijuana seems to be the least harmful compared to the commonly prescribed opioids.  To take MJ completely off the table for medical use seems to be more fear based than scientific based.  And controlling this drug through legitimate means seems like a no brainer rather then continuing to make it a street drug with no assurances of any governmental oversight.  

I have to admit I have not always had this point of view.  I was very skeptical when medical marijuana was put on the California ballot.  But after this many years of medical marijuana being legal in California, I am completely in favor of having doctors have this option.  It is too bad the church is weighing in on trying to prevent this ballot unitive from being passed.  That seems like fear based advice as well.   This lawyer document is embarrassing and tells more about where the church is coming from.  Fear Fear Fear.  Rather than scientific and medical arguments which is what is really needed.  

I voted against the total legalization of marijuana when it was on the California ballot a year ago.  Mostly because I didn't want it to become a big business and have corporate takeover of this drug.  I consider that issue to be a completely different issue.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I understand what you are saying and what info is being provided.  Hopefully more research will provide some better understanding for those who don't understand.  If this "pot" as they say can help in different strains for different things..it would be just as relevant as basic pain and overall care of so many.  We need to see this medicinal plant in a different light.  It is going to take a certain cultural development that let these studies come into eventual law that provides the same care as aspirin.

I just noticed I said sister, I mean't sister in law. 

I really feel like a nut case for my passion in this, what if I'm wrong? But I don't think that I am. I really believe that if handled better marijuana could be groundbreaking and many other natural things as well. The pharm companies have totally sideswipped the natural cures or preventative measures in some cases.

I wonder if the regular CBD oil would help your sister-in-law, has she looked into that? https://pharmahemp.store/blog-en/use-cbd-oil-epilepsy/.

I am with a FB group called "Cannibus Success Stories". You could become a member and then go to the left side in the search option and put in any ailment and see many posts of people's experiences and read what they tried or failed at. Hope that helps!

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The church says they aren't totally against it but want more research done, which could take years. If someone would just read the research they could see that it's legitimate.

I think the church worries about potheads wondering the streets of Utah, which happens everyday anyway. But the problem comes when marijuana is illegal and drives it underground which happened in the 60's/70's and then creates drug cartels and puts a lot of people behind bars, it was called a drug war at the time but it really was a race/hippie war, Nixon started it and Reagan took hold of it and now it is what it is.  https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

I wish it was like it was before that, when doctors used marijuana to cure ailments long before that. Cannibioids are in our DNA, I keep seeing that comment, so I wonder how this herb could be bad, but I do see a problem if someone is addicted to the high, although cannibus isn't addictive, it still can be habit forming. 

I have seen articles where you can just eat the plant (salad) and it's supposed to have all kinds of healing properties. I like the CBD oil, which I hear is perfectly fine to buy in Utah, but it doesn't have the THC and I believe I need that to prevent the plaque on the brain.

There are different strains for different ailments and that's why it would be prudent to have some kind of dispensary or pharmacy to buy the specifics rather than have to do it on your own and worry it will land you in jail and ruin your life. It's true people have to fear going across borders to buy it and are desperate enough to try to get the help they need like your sister tried to do. She should be able to drive down the road and buy what she needs, there are very knowledgeable people at these dispensaries that could help her, hopefully in the future.

 

I really am not an expert on Marijuana, but from what I have heard, it is not the leaves that have the medicinal properties, it is the buds and seeds.  And from what I understand, they have to be heated to bring out the THC. That is why it works so well in edibles.

Share this post


Link to post
17 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I just noticed I said sister, I mean't sister in law. 

I really feel like a nut case for my passion in this, what if I'm wrong? But I don't think that I am. I really believe that if handled better marijuana could be groundbreaking and many other natural things as well. The pharm companies have totally sideswipped the natural cures or preventative measures in some cases.

I wonder if the regular CBD oil would help your sister-in-law, has she looked into that? https://pharmahemp.store/blog-en/use-cbd-oil-epilepsy/.

I am with a FB group called "Cannibus Success Stories". You could become a member and then go to the left side in the search option and put in any ailment and see many posts of people's experiences and read what they tried or failed at. Hope that helps!

Thank you!!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, california boy said:

I really am not an expert on Marijuana, but from what I have heard, it is not the leaves that have the medicinal properties, it is the buds and seeds.  And from what I understand, they have to be heated to bring out the THC. That is why it works so well in edibles.

You're correct that the flowers (buds) have the highest concentration of cannabinoids.  The small leaves surrounding the flowers also contain significant amounts,  but the larger fan leaves have very little. The seeds also have little to no cannabinoids, but can be pressed for a non psychoactive oil. 

Without being heated,  the flowers are full of thc-a and cbd-a.  Upon heating they are converted to thc and cbd. All four of those are potentially medicinal (along with other cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavanoids.  Thc-a has been shown to be anti-spasmodic, analgesic, and in cell line studies has shown anti-tumor properties.  More and more people are eating raw Cannabis or juicing it for those effects.  Since there's no high associated with eating raw Cannabis,  it's possible to ingest a lot more Cannabinoids than by ingesting de-carboxylated (heated) Cannabis. It actually makes a good pesto! 

To my knowledge,  no negative health effects or side effects have been reported with raw Cannabis. 

Edited by cacheman
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How is it not an attempt to remove it from the ballot? It's asking for our names to be removed therefore if not enough signatures then it won't be on the ballot. Am I missing something? I guess the church didn't say it in those words, but their intentions are loud and glaringly clear.

Where is the Church party to asking the names to be removed?

Just because the attempt to do that by Safe Drugs Utah (iirc) is reported at the same time the Church's memo is doesn't mean the Church is involved in the attempt to remove names.

As far as I can tell, the Church is attempting to influence the vote, not stop it.

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, cacheman said:

You're correct that the flowers (buds) have the highest concentration of cannabinoids.  The small leaves surrounding the flowers also contain significant amounts,  but the larger fan leaves have very little. The seeds also have little to no cannabinoids, but can be pressed for a non psychoactive oil. 

Without being heated,  the flowers are full of thc-a and cbd-a.  Upon heating they are converted to thc and cbd. All four of those are potentially medicinal (along with other cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavanoids.  Thc-a has been shown to be anti-spasmodic, analgesic, and in cell line studies has shown anti-tumor properties.  More and more people are eating raw Cannabis or juicing it for those effects.  Since there's no high associated with eating raw Cannabis,  it's possible to ingest a lot more Cannabinoids than by ingesting de-carboxylated (heated) Cannabis. It actually makes a good pesto! 

To my knowledge,  no negative health effects or side effects have been reported with raw Cannabis. 

Hey thanks for the additional information 

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Calm said:

Where is the Church party to asking the names to be removed?

Just because the attempt to do that by Safe Drugs Utah (iirc) is reported at the same time the Church's memo is doesn't mean the Church is involved in the attempt to remove names.

As far as I can tell, the Church is attempting to influence the vote, not stop it.

They put out the Kirton and McConkie report? Isn't that enough to get people to rethink their signing the petition?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

They put out the Kirton and McConkie report? Isn't that enough to get people to rethink their signing the petition?

If the Safe Drug Utah wasn't mentioned in the article, I would never heard of them and learned that there were people trying to get others to rescind their signature and I was one who signed to get it on the ballot (I think it should be voted for, not pushing for voting yes or no yet as I need to study the initiative rather than what people are saying about it before I do that).  I see no reason for the Church to assume people would automatically learn about the potential for removal; if the Church really wanted to encourage people to take back their sigs, it was stupid of them not to make that the top line in their memo.

And one can believe it should be voted on without believing it should be passed.  Learning there are those who want signatures removed doesn't change my mind in the least that it should be voted on.  My response if I can use the memo in my decision whether to vote for or against, my mind even knowing I could remove my sig only went there, not the least bit ambivalent about my signature.

And since there is no information attached to the memo saying "oh by the way, you can remove your signature", I bet most who hear about the memo won't realize they could remove their signature if they wanted to.  Generally when you sign something, there are no take backs, so I think default position with most will be assuming there is no removal.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Calm said:

If the Safe Drug Utah wasn't mentioned in the article, I would never heard of them and learned that there were people trying to get others to rescind their signature and I was one who signed to get it on the ballot (I think it should be voted for, not pushing for voting yes or no yet as I need to study the initiative rather than what people are saying about it before I do that).  I see no reason for the Church to assume people would automatically learn about the potential for removal; if the Church really wanted to encourage people to take back their sigs, it was stupid of them not to make that the top line in their memo.

And one can believe it should be voted on without believing it should be passed.  Learning there are those who want signatures removed doesn't change my mind in the least that it should be voted on.  My response if I can use the memo in my decision whether to vote for or against, my mind even knowing I could remove my sig only went there, not the least bit ambivalent about my signature.

And since there is no information attached to the memo saying "oh by the way, you can remove your signature", I bet most who hear about the memo won't realize they could remove their signature if they wanted to.  Generally when you sign something, there are no take backs, so I think default position with most will be assuming there is no removal.

I wish I could show you the letter I received. It's telling me I should sign a paper to have my signature removed and had a list of representatives from the Utah State Capital, pretty sure IMO that it's because of the church.

https://www.ksl.com/article/46318852/lds-church-issues-statement-regarding-utah-medical-marijuana-initiative

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900015455/lds-church-issues-statement-on-proposed-utah-marijuana-initiative.html

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

You think the Church told these people to do these things? (Try to get the initiative removed from the ballot by encouraging people to remove their signatures)

Or do you mean these people see the Church's position as giving them a better chance of success so they acted where they might not have?

Or do you mean these people were assumed this is what the Church wanted and that is why they have acted?

If Drug Safe Utah did not exist, is there anything in the statements from the Church that would have to be changed? If not, this means the Church's statements only need to be relevant to saying "yes" or "no" on that ballot.  There is nothing in them that suggests they don't want people to have a chance to vote on the initiative.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post

Tacenda, consider this use of the vote by the Church in the past and remember sometimes getting the people to vote "no" is seen as better than having no vote at all:

https://historytogo.utah.gov/utah_chapters/statehood_and_the_progressive_era/womenssuffrageinutah.html

Quote

 At the same time, an unsuccessful effort to gain the vote for women in Utah territory had been launched in the East by antipolygamy forces; they were convinced that Utah women would vote to end plural marriage if given the chance. Brigham Young and others realized that giving Utah women the vote would not mean the end of polygamy, but it could change the predominant national image of Utah women as downtrodden and oppressed and could help to stem a tide of antipolygamy legislation by Congress. With no dissenting votes, the territorial legislature passed an act giving the vote (but not the right to hold office) to women on 10 February 1869. The act was signed two days later by the acting governor, S. A. Mann, and on 14 February, the first woman voter in the municipal election reportedly was Sarah Young, grandniece of Brigham Young. Utah thus became the second territory to give the vote to women; Wyoming had passed a women's suffrage act in 1869. No states permitted women to vote at the time. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

You think the Church told these people to do these things? (Try to get the initiative removed from the ballot by encouraging people to remove their signatures)

Or do you mean these people see the Church's position as giving them a better chance of success so they acted where they might not have?

Or do you mean these people were assumed this is what the Church wanted and that is why they have acted?

Calm, I don't understand what you want me to answer exactly. Does this answer your question...I think the church is putting out the analysis in order to alarm people to send in the letter to take their signature off. 

http://utahpolicy.com/index.php/features/insider-surveys/16470-political-insiders-split-on-how-lds-church-opposition-will-affect-medical-cannabis-proposal This article shows that 80% of insider Republicans feel the church being against the initiative will hurt the proposal come November.

Did you receive a letter in the mail with a form that you could send back to your county's clerk office if you'd like your signature removed? Just curious, if you don't mind me asking. Because I think they went out to people who signed the petition.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

Not yet.

Why can't Safe Drug Utah be acting on their own?  Do you know what a big sign it would be to the legislature if the initiative gets blown out of the water with a massive "No!" in the vote.  Very good chance MJ bills won't besubmitted every session which seems to be happening lately.

If the Church has enough influence to cause enough people to pull off their signatures, then there is enough influence to get the initiative to be defeated with a vote which will delay it being brought up again longer than trying to get the initiative pulled, imo.

"Proponents of this initiative reported submitting about 200,000 signatures before the deadline on Monday, April 16, 2018. Of these, 113,143 signatures (56.57 percent) need to be found valid."  

https://ballotpedia.org/Utah_Medical_Marijuana_Initiative_(2018)

Unless there is a large number already invalid (we are talking about finding and getting over 85,000 people to mail in the forms), I think it would be pretty significant to get enough people to make the effort to rescind rather than just blowing it off and saying 'I will just vote "no" on the ballot'.

Quote

his article shows that 80% of insider Republicans feel the church being against the initiative will hurt the proposal come November

Kind of stupid of the Church to come out so strongly then if they are dead set at the initiative not passing...Church leaders aren't stupid, imo.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/28/2018 at 5:06 AM, Kenngo1969 said:

Is there any good way to die, forcryingoutloud?!!  Would it be OK if someone simply took me to a taxidermist, had me stuffed, and propped me up in a chair?! 

You mean, like this guy?

image.thumb.png.cb12a47596c721d3eb3c1d06dfc83a65.png

This is the British philosopher Jeremy Bentham. "On his death in 1832, Bentham left instructions for his body to be first dissected, and then to be permanently preserved as an "auto-icon" (or self-image), which would be his memorial. This was done, and the auto-icon is now on public display at University College London."  

On occasion, Jeremy's "auto-icon" is brought out for meetings of the College Council, and in the minutes is listed as "present but not voting."

More about him HERE.

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/24/2018 at 5:01 PM, Bernard Gui said:

The same argument can be made for any unorthodox or unnatural mating. Examples....group, polygamous, incestual, or intra-species.

 

On 4/24/2018 at 7:21 PM, cacheman said:

I'm actually a big fan of intraspecific marriage!  I would fight against any efforts to ban it! 

I must chime in here and clue Bernard into the joke.  

Ahem, there is a difference between the two prefixes, "intra" and "inter".  Intra-species mating is mating between individuals of the same species.  I think the sense that Bernard was going for was "interspecies", which is mating between individuals of different species.

So cacheman being a fan of intraspecific marriage is to favor marriage between individuals of the same species.  😆

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

I must chime in here and clue Bernard into the joke.  

Ahem, there is a difference between the two prefixes, "intra" and "inter".  Intra-species mating is mating between individuals of the same species.  I think the sense that Bernard was going for was "interspecies", which is mating between individuals of different species.

So cacheman being a fan of intraspecific marriage is to favor marriage between individuals of the same species.  😆

Yep. I stand corrected. Either way is ok in some quarters. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 4/27/2018 at 11:11 AM, pogi said:

Tobacco is also an herb.  If members would read their scriptures they would realize that it is not an endorsement for ingesting all herbs - you do realize that some are dangerous and even deadly, right?  

 

Hemlock?  European mistletoe, anyone?  (They are herbs, after all, so if that is the dispositive criterion ...)

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.

×