Jump to content
bluebell

LDS Church gets beat on medical marijuana

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, the Feds have a patent on the stuff while essentially keeping it illegal! U.S. Patent No. 6,630,507 was granted in 2003 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the potential use of non-psychoactive cannabinoids to protect the brain from damage or degeneration caused by certain diseases, such as cirrhosis. I believe the trick with cannabis is keeping out the mostly undesirable use of THC strains, which have proven medical drawbacks and negative societal implications while allowing use for beneficial CBDs which so far seem to have few to no drawbacks. I seek to legislate a rational and beneficial use of the latter while avoiding the former. I believe the former is why we need legislation on the issue or else I'm not sure there is much point in legislating it as I think eventually THC strains will work themselves into the public through the gateway of legal medical use, unfortunately.

THC in oil doesn't produce a high and it is needed to reduce plaque. Very stupid not to use THC with cannabis to treat most ailments. Without it you won't prevent or cure some cancers and prevent plaque in the brain. You're basically going to cut what is needed for cures or treatments just because THC can get you high, when all that's needed is correct dosages or methods?http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3666357/Could-cannabis-cure-Alzheimer-s-Drug-s-active-ingredient-helps-remove-key-toxic-protein-brain-cells.html 

And...http://www.collective-evolution.com/2013/08/23/20-medical-studies-that-prove-cannabis-can-cure-cancer/

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, 2BizE said:

It has been revealed, not by the church, the church's financial interests in big Pharma, which have been in conflict with mm.  (ie continued involvement in opioid epedemic). For the church to use its vast resources to develop opposition documents seems a conflict of interest.  I would hope the church would always take the higher road.

I don't believe the Church's position has anything to do with their investments.  I don't think we need to be conerned about that.  Life is short, and there will be a judgement. 

Many in leadership are very successful, professionally trained physicians.  In addition to their training, they are regularly taught by pharma sales people.  It is no wonder to me they have strongly held opinions and a desire to share them.  I don't think their position on medical marijuana is doctrinally based.  (I was wrong one before though.)  I believe they are expressing concern out of an abundance of caution.  I see this discussion similar to the Scouting discussion with good, faithful members on both sides of the issue.

I have seen the negative gateway influence of marijuana on loved ones who have spent years in addiction, so am very sympathetic to regulating the recreational use.  I have also seen the healing effects on friends and others, and believe it is more effective than many other prescription or OTC drugs and without negative side effects.  And I am an active, TR holding member who tries to do what is right.

Edited by Meerkat

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, cacheman said:

CFR.  I'm familiar with the GHSA report that just came out.  But, it doesn't show 'increased deaths caused by driving under the influence of pot in states where it has been legalized'.  Could you please share this study you're referencing or let us know if you just misinterpreted the alcohol industry funded GHSA report?

Quote

Marijuana use may increase when a state authorizes recreational use. In Colorado, in the three years (2013-2015) after the state legalized recreational marijuana compared to the three prior years (2010–2012), use by youth (age 12-17) increased by 12 percent to 11.8%; use by young adults (age 18-25) increased by 16 percent to 31.5%; and use by adults aged 26 and above increased by 71 percent to 13.6% (RHMIDTA, 2017) 

Fatally-injured drivers, reported in FARS: In 2016, 41.1% of the drug-positive fatally- injured drivers were positive for some form of marijuana. About three-quarters of
these drivers were positive for active marijuana, coded as Delta 9 or THC. In 2006, the marijuana-positive proportion was 34.5
eational use

In 2016, 54.3% of the fatally-injured drivers were tested. This means that 22.3%— almost one-quarter—of all fatally-injured drivers were known to have been marijuana- positive.

While the limitations of FARS data discussed above apply, the general conclusions areclear: marijuana is the most common drug found in fatally-injured drivers and marijuanapresence has increased substantially in the past decade. https://www.ghsa.org/sites/default/files/2018-05/GHSA_DrugImpairedDriving_FINAL.pdf

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greggardner/2018/05/31/marijuana-opioids-rival-alcohol-as-factors-in-traffic-fatalities/#75723e033b9c

Quote

Marijuana-related deaths, suspensions & problems spike in Colorado – reportPublished time: 22 Sep, 2015 04:11 © Steve Dipaola / Reuters 

A new study of marijuana drug use in Colorado found increases in marijuana-related traffic deaths, hospital visits, school suspensions, lab explosions, and pet poisonings. The study was conducted by a federal government program.The 166-page report released this month analyzed the effects of legalizing marijuana for medical and recreational use in Colorado spanning the time period from 2006 to the present. Along with the state of Washington, Colorado is considered as something of laboratory in which the effects of legalizing marijuana use can be studied. The study showed that the number of drivers testing positive for marijuana increased 100 percent from 2007 to 2012, with marijuana-related fatalities doubling from 37 to 78. Traffic fatalities total around 500 a year in the state. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2018/05/31/drugged-driving-marijuana-opioids/658778002/

 

Quote

Drugs are being detected more often in drivers responsible for fatal crashes, according to a new study by the Governors Highway Safety Association. Although it's difficult to tell when drugged driving is a cause of accidents, the findings renew concern that marijuana and opioids are factors for a growing safety crisis on American roadways. Some 44% of drivers killed in crashes in 2016 who were tested afterward had drugs in their system, according to the GHSA study. That's up from 28% a decade ago. To be sure, traces of marijuana use remain in the body for much longer than alcohol, meaning a driver who tests positive wasn't necessarily high. The effect of opioids on driving is also not well understood. https://www.forbes.com/sites/greggardner/2018/05/31/marijuana-opioids-rival-alcohol-as-factors-in-traffic-fatalities/#75723e033b9c

Quote

The percentage of traffic deaths in which at least one driver tested positive for drugs has nearly doubled over a decade, raising alarms as five states are set to vote on legalization of marijuana.

Amid a disquieting increase in overall U.S. traffic fatalities, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has tracked an upswing in the percentage of drivers testing positive for illegal drugs and prescription medications, according to federal data released to USA TODAY and interviews with leaders in the field.

The increase corresponds with a movement to legalize marijuana, troubling experts who readily acknowledge that the effects of pot use on drivers remain poorly understood. Recreational marijuana use is now legal in Colorado, Washington state, Oregon, Alaska and the District of Columbia, even as it remains outlawed on a federal level. Five states — Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts and Nevada — are set to vote on legalization.

It's "very probable" that Colorado's move to legalize recreational marijuana has caused an increase in fatal crashes, said Glenn Davis, the state's highway safety manager. https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/10/27/drugged-driving-dui-nhtsa-auto-safety/92678186/

I'm not interested in getting into a debate with dueling sources. I don't support recreational use of pot and never will. Nothing good ever comes from it. You get the last word.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greggardner/2018/05/31/marijuana-opioids-rival-alcohol-as-factors-in-traffic-fatalities/#75723e033b9c

 

I'm not interested in getting into a debate about sources. I don't support recreational use of pot and never will. Nothing good comes from it.

Just as I thought.  You don't have the support for your statement.  This isn't the first time that you've misreported Cannabis related research.  Please retract your statement or update it to reflect what's indicated in your sources. 

As for your lack of support for recreational Cannabis.... that's fine.  I understand the negatives of Cannabis abuse, and I respect the fact that people are wary of legalization efforts.  However, I strongly believe that the drug policies in the US need a drastic overhaul.  The 'drug war' has failed us as a society.  What are we to do?

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
46 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I'm not interested in getting into a debate with dueling sources. I don't support recreational use of pot and never will. Nothing good ever comes from it. You get the last word.

You're talking about the effects of recreational use in this post as opposed to medical marijuana, right?  I agreed 100%!  Nothing good comes from recreational drug use.  I'm opposed to it.

Edited by Meerkat

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, the Feds have a patent on the stuff while essentially keeping it illegal! U.S. Patent No. 6,630,507 was granted in 2003 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the potential use of non-psychoactive cannabinoids to protect the brain from damage or degeneration caused by certain diseases, such as cirrhosis. I believe the trick with cannabis is keeping out the mostly undesirable use of THC strains, which have proven medical drawbacks and negative societal implications while allowing use for beneficial CBDs which so far seem to have few to no drawbacks. I seek to legislate a rational and beneficial use of the latter while avoiding the former. I believe the former is why we need legislation on the issue or else I'm not sure there is much point in legislating it as I think eventually THC strains will work themselves into the public through the gateway of legal medical use, unfortunately.

Since you are making such an observation, I assume that you already know that the body naturally produces THC.  It is how the body regulates many of the nervous system that controls such things as pain, appetite, etc.  The THC in marijuana works almost exactly the same as the THC the body produces naturally.  The difference is that by taking marijuana, you are increasing the THC that the body produces, which increases the effectiveness.  

THC is a very important component in using marijuana for medical benefits.  To eliminate it completely from medical marijuana would reduce its effectiveness completely in treating some ailments.  CBC's work on the body in a different way than the THC.  It is an amazing drug, which is why it has such a wide variety of medical applications.

Marijuana has been used for medicine in many cultures for thousands of years.  Would it make any difference to you if you found out that some scholars believe that the Israelites used cannabis?  They had a special oil that among other ingredients contained cannibis.  

Quote

 

Exodus 30:23-25

“Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘Take the following fine spices: 500 shekels of liquid myrrh, half as much (that is, 250 shekels) of fragrant cinnamon, 250 shekels of fragrant calamus [cannabis], 500 shekels of cassia—all according to the sanctuary shekel—and a hint of olive oil. Make these into a sacred anointing oil, a fragrant blend, the work of a perfumer. It will be the sacred anointing oil.’”


 

It is interesting that cannabis has been shown to help heal people with glaucoma.  Some speculate that Jesus who anointed the blind man with oil may very well have used this oil that the Jews used in healing and that the active ingredient that may have made the blind man to see was cannabis.

The decision to keep a medication illegal should not be made from religious prejudice, but from the demonstrable results the drug has to offer those that are sick.  We certainly don't use religious beliefs in deciding to legalize other medical drugs.  The church using its legal firm to spread disinformation is quite frankly a real shame and only breeds mistrust in church leadership.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

How would the legalising of medicinal marijuana affect the stock price of other pain relief producing drug companies?

Edited by Marginal Gains

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greggardner/2018/05/31/marijuana-opioids-rival-alcohol-as-factors-in-traffic-fatalities/#75723e033b9c

 

I'm not interested in getting into a debate with dueling sources. I don't support recreational use of pot and never will. Nothing good ever comes from it. You get the last word.

From the article you quoted.

Quote

Without more robust testing processes "the presence of the drug itself can't prove impairment to the degree that the drug was the cause of the accident," Holmes said.

And this

 

Quote

 

Collision claim frequency was measured by dividing the number of claims by the number of insured vehicle years.

The upshot: Claims were 3% more frequent in Colorado, Washington and Oregon than in the neighboring, non-legalized states, a diffierence the institute described as “small, but significant.”

Shortly after the IIHS released its report, the American Journal of Public Health published an analysis that found no increase in vehicle crash deaths in Colorado and Washington, compared with similar states where marijuana use is not legal. That study looked at driver fatality data between 2009 and 2015.

 

Just trying to get the facts right.  So much disinformation is being used on this issue.  Did you not read this in the article you linked?  Or did you just ignore it because it didn't support your agenda.

 

Edited by california boy

Share this post


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

From the article you quoted.

And this

 

Just trying to get the facts right.  So much disinformation is being used on this issue.  Did you not read this in the article you linked?  Or did you just ignore it because it didn't support your agenda.

 

Thanks for the observations. 

ETA clarify: Yes, I read the study and all the articles I linked. We can disagree on our understanding of the information. You get the last word.

Edited by Bernard Gui
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

You're talking about the effects of recreational use in this post as opposed to medical marijuana, right?  I agreed 100%!  Nothing good comes from recreational drug use.  I'm opposed to it.

Yes. But whether medical or recreational, no one using pot (unless they are using a derived substance that does not cause impairment) has any business driving a vehicle.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. But whether medical or recreational, no one using pot (unless they are using a derived substance that does not cause impairment) has any business driving a vehicle.

I agree with you that nobody should drive while impaired by Cannabis.  The 'studies' that you referenced did not evaluate impairment.  They also did not evaluate Cannabis as a causal factor in traffic accidents.   There are so many issues with these reports we could discuss them for days.  I am very skeptical of non-peer reviewed one-sided papers.....especially when the funding sources have a clear bias.  I can see why you don't wish to debate your sources.  You have your mind made up.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Exiled said:

My mother, temple recommend holder, uses medical marijuana for her knee pain. The dose she takes is similar to taking hydrocodone as far as pain relieving strength goes yet without an addiction risk. It works for her and does for many others too. Let the people govern themselves, yes.

Any mind altering effects?

Mom has mild dementia, mainly memory stuff...I don't think .I would feel comfortable her living on her own if there was any loopiness with it, but she is in a lot of pain that ibuprofen just takes the edge off of.  I don't feel comfortable with asking her doctor for an opiod because of the dementia.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, cacheman said:

I agree with you that nobody should drive while impaired by Cannabis.  

Cannabis?  [Ken searches for picture of bus].

Oh.  Wait.  You spelled it correctly!  Congratulations! ;) 

The trick is that it's fairly easy to determine who is impaired by alcohol, how much they are impaired,  and what level of intoxication will result from the consumption of a particular quantity of alcohol within a given period of time. Not so with marijuana.  How do we deal with that?  Do we ban people from driving who have any measurable amount of THC in their blood?

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

... It is interesting that cannabis has been shown to help heal people with glaucoma.  Some speculate that Jesus who anointed the blind man with oil may very well have used this oil that the Jews used in healing and that the active ingredient that may have made the blind man to see was cannabis. ...

"Some" also "speculate" that shape-shifting reptilian aliens did it. ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/greggardner/2018/05/31/marijuana-opioids-rival-alcohol-as-factors-in-traffic-fatalities/#75723e033b9c

 

I'm not interested in getting into a debate with dueling sources. I don't support recreational use of pot and never will. Nothing good ever comes from it. You get the last word.

I'm with you, but want it for more than say, seizures or cancer related symptoms.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cannabis?  [Ken searches for picture of bus].

Oh.  Wait.  You spelled it correctly!  Congratulations! ;) 

The trick is that it's fairly easy to determine who is impaired by alcohol, how much they are impaired,  and what level of intoxication will result from the consumption of a particular quantity of alcohol within a given period of time. Not so with marijuana.  How do we deal with that?  Do we ban people from driving who have any measurable amount of THC in their blood?

I'm guilty for spelling it wrong, I've been thinking it was cannibus until today when I saw it spelled differently in a google search, lol.

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you are making such an observation, I assume that you already know that the body naturally produces THC.  It is how the body regulates many of the nervous system that controls such things as pain, appetite, etc.  The THC in marijuana works almost exactly the same as the THC the body produces naturally.  The difference is that by taking marijuana, you are increasing the THC that the body produces, which increases the effectiveness.  

I know I am probably a minority on this issue. I am not going to please the pro-legalization crowd nor the conservative anti-MJ crowd, so I might as well stop. No, I disagree. There are more differences. The usual way of getting the extra THC is by smoking pot. This introduces dozens of carcinogens as well. If you vape it to eliminate those, studies have indicated that the extra THC is still damaging to adolescents. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. The body produces nowhere near the amount of THC used by the average recreational user. If the body needed the extra THC, it would typically produce it.

Quote

THC is a very important component in using marijuana for medical benefits.  To eliminate it completely from medical marijuana would reduce its effectiveness completely in treating some ailments.  CBC's work on the body in a different way than the THC.  It is an amazing drug, which is why it has such a wide variety of medical applications.

You will note that I did not talk about eliminating THC. I talked about limiting it to non-psychoactive levels. ! or 2% THC is typically enough to get the needed medical benefit for basically all but palliative pain relief of severe pain, when combined with higher level of CBDs. There are presently strains that meet these criteria. 

Quote

Marijuana has been used for medicine in many cultures for thousands of years.  Would it make any difference to you if you found out that some scholars believe that the Israelites used cannabis?  

NO.

Quote

It is interesting that cannabis has been shown to help heal people with glaucoma.  Some speculate that Jesus who anointed the blind man with oil may very well have used this oil that the Jews used in healing and that the active ingredient that may have made the blind man to see was cannabis.

The decision to keep a medication illegal should not be made from religious prejudice, but from the demonstrable results the drug has to offer those that are sick.  We certainly don't use religious beliefs in deciding to legalize other medical drugs.  The church using its legal firm to spread disinformation is quite frankly a real shame and only breeds mistrust in church leadership.

I have not brought in religion to the issue. Allowing high THC strains will result in damaged brains to youth, increased traffic accidents, probably increase work accidents, and a less motivated work force. Those are plenty of reasons not to encourage its use. The CBD strains of Cannabis do seem to harbor a lot of untapped potential, however my rationales for allowing its use do not include "Jesus used it!" I do not believe I am spreading disinformation. Nor do I represent the Church. There are studies out there. Some have been linked in the recent threads on MM. It is up to the states to regulate the health and welfare of their public. MJ has plenty of reasons to make regulating its use sensible, and in the best interest of the general public. I think the best way to do that for Utah is to just keep out the psychoactive THC strains, while allowing true medical CBD strains. The people who need it get its benefits, and the people who are interested in getting high will go to other states. Best of both worlds.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm guilty for spelling it wrong, I've been thinking it was cannibus until today when I saw it spelled differently in a google search, lol.

If it makes you feel any better, you're not the only person I've needled about the "canna-bus." ;)   You're in good company.

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks for the observations. 

ETA clarify: Yes, I read the study and all the articles I linked. We can disagree on our understanding of the information. You get the last word.

I have nothing to say.  I was only pointing out the conclusions from the article you posted.  Their conclusions was different than yours, and they explained why.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I know I am probably a minority on this issue. I am not going to please the pro-legalization crowd nor the conservative anti-MJ crowd, so I might as well stop. No, I disagree. There are more differences. The usual way of getting the extra THC is by smoking pot. This introduces dozens of carcinogens as well. If you vape it to eliminate those, studies have indicated that the extra THC is still damaging to adolescents. There is such a thing as too much of a good thing. The body produces nowhere near the amount of THC used by the average recreational user. If the body needed the extra THC, it would typically produce it.

I completely agree that smoking pot is an unhealthy way to take the drug.  And of course adolescents should not take this drug.  And yes the body does not produce anywhere near the amount of THC as marijuana introduces.  I think that is the point of taking it as a medication.  Of course you could make this same comment about ANY drug introduced into the body.

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You will note that I did not talk about eliminating THC. I talked about limiting it to non-psychoactive levels. ! or 2% THC is typically enough to get the needed medical benefit for basically all but palliative pain relief of severe pain, when combined with higher level of CBDs. There are presently strains that meet these criteria. 

Not sure what this accomplishes.  With higher THC content, aren't we now strictly talking about dosage?  If you eat a cookie that has less THC in it is there a difference than only eating a half of cookie that has twice the THC?  People that I know that take marijuana have to do a little testing of what they individually should take.  A friend takes only a quarter of a brownie nightly for his condition.  More than that and he gets stoned.  Of course anyone can take more than is necessary with any medication.  But the difference between taking more marijuana than say opioids is that you can not OD from marijuana.  From a medical perspective, it is a much safer drug.  Isn't that a good thing? 

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

NO.

I have not brought in religion to the issue. Allowing high THC strains will result in damaged brains to youth, increased traffic accidents, probably increase work accidents, and a less motivated work force. Those are plenty of reasons not to encourage its use. The CBD strains of Cannabis do seem to harbor a lot of untapped potential, however my rationales for allowing its use do not include "Jesus used it!" I do not believe I am spreading disinformation. Nor do I represent the Church. There are studies out there. Some have been linked in the recent threads on MM. It is up to the states to regulate the health and welfare of their public. MJ has plenty of reasons to make regulating its use sensible, and in the best interest of the general public. I think the best way to do that for Utah is to just keep out the psychoactive THC strains, while allowing true medical CBD strains. The people who need it get its benefits, and the people who are interested in getting high will go to other states. Best of both worlds.

I completely agree with you.  The second part of my post had nothing to do with your stand on this issue.  It is the church that introduced religion into the politics, not you.  Maybe I should have put it in a separate post to avoid confusion.  And yes, "Jesus used it" is highly speculative.  I just found that perspective interesting.  

After doing more research on THC, I am going to just disagree that it should be eliminated as a medical option.  Too many benefits of THC seem to be derived from it.  It seems, like with most drugs, how doctors deal with authorizing dispensing this drug is the key component.  But I guess that is true with any drug as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, california boy said:

Since you are making such an observation, I assume that you already know that the body naturally produces THC.  It is how the body regulates many of the nervous system that controls such things as pain, appetite, etc.  The THC in marijuana works almost exactly the same as the THC the body produces naturally.  The difference is that by taking marijuana, you are increasing the THC that the body produces, which increases the effectiveness.  

THC is a very important component in using marijuana for medical benefits.  To eliminate it completely from medical marijuana would reduce its effectiveness completely in treating some ailments.  CBC's work on the body in a different way than the THC.  It is an amazing drug, which is why it has such a wide variety of medical applications.

Marijuana has been used for medicine in many cultures for thousands of years.  Would it make any difference to you if you found out that some scholars believe that the Israelites used cannabis?  They had a special oil that among other ingredients contained cannibis.  

It is interesting that cannabis has been shown to help heal people with glaucoma.  Some speculate that Jesus who anointed the blind man with oil may very well have used this oil that the Jews used in healing and that the active ingredient that may have made the blind man to see was cannabis.

The decision to keep a medication illegal should not be made from religious prejudice, but from the demonstrable results the drug has to offer those that are sick.  We certainly don't use religious beliefs in deciding to legalize other medical drugs.  The church using its legal firm to spread disinformation is quite frankly a real shame and only breeds mistrust in church leadership.

Thanks for this post, you explained it beautifully. And about the oil Jesus may have used to heal the blind man and the quote with actual cannabis being a sacred oil, wow!

I actually think a lot of the crazy prophesies in the bible may be from ingesting too much of the stuff. Finding these things out, gets crazier and crazier, realizing that half the bible is probably stories from those that have ingested too many mushrooms and cannabis.

I guess we need to figure out the safest approaches to treat medical problems with cannabis. And hopefully keep big pharm from messing with it, which I'm afraid will happen or already has.

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for this post, you explained it beautifully. And about the oil Jesus may have used to heal the blind man and the quote with actual cannabis being a sacred oil, wow!

I actually think a lot of the crazy prophesies in the bible may be from ingesting too much of the stuff. Finding these things out, gets crazier and crazier, realizing that half the bible is probably stories from those that have ingested too many mushrooms and cannabis.

I guess we need to figure out the safest approaches to treat medical problems with cannabis. And hopefully keep big pharm from messing with it, which I'm afraid will happen or already has.

Jesus healed the blind men with his spittle, his touch, and his word. If they were healed by him using pot, it would have to have been the result of mixing in unchewed brownie crumbs in the dirt or blowing second hand smoke in their faces.

One wild unscriptural speculation about a miracle performed by Jesus using  pot and now half the Bible is a product of pot haze? That’s like picking up your quarterback’s fumble and running down the field in the opposite direction for a touchdown....for the other team. 😊

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, california boy said:

Some speculate that Jesus who anointed the blind man with oil may very well have used this oil that the Jews used in healing and that the active ingredient that may have made the blind man to see was cannabis.

Which bible translation describes Jesus healing a blind man with oil? I can only find three examples...by his touch, his word, and his spittle mixed with clay. Maybe he had rubbed some pot oil on his hands for his arthritis and then accidentally spread it to the man’s eyes when he touched him, or maybe he breathed second hand pot fumes in his face, or maybe he had just eaten a pot brownie and got some unchewed crumbs mixed in with the spittle?

CFR that Jesus healed a blind man with oil.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which bible translation describes Jesus healing a blind man with oil? I can only find three examples...by his touch, his word, and his spittle mixed with clay. Maybe he had rubbed some pot oil on his hands for his arthritis and then accidentally spread it to the man’s eyes when he touched him, or maybe he breathed second hand pot fumes in his face, or maybe he had just eaten a pot brownie and got some unchewed crumbs mixed in with the spittle?

CFR that Jesus healed a blind man with oil.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I believed Jesus used cannabis.  The speculation that I posted about is that Jesus used this oil that evidently was used by Jews at the time that contained cannabis.  The link to the scriptures of what this oil contained was already posted.  Since I never wanted to imply that I believed Jesus used cannabis, I easily withdraw the statement.  We good?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, 2BizE said:

It has been revealed, not by the church, the church's financial interests in big Pharma, which have been in conflict with mm.  (ie continued involvement in opioid epedemic). For the church to use its vast resources to develop opposition documents seems a conflict of interest.  I would hope the church would always take the higher road.

Seems to me that if pot were really this fantastic medical cure-all, Big Pharma would be the first in line to capitalize on it and corner the market. Who has all the resources in place to make it Big Pot? There’s a ton of money to be made...already being made in the little strip mall pot pharmacies. Big Pharma could co-opt the co-ops and run them out of business, sucking up all the pot trade. If their objective is to make lots and lots of money, wouldn’t they want this miracle drug cash cow all for their own? Thus the Church should be all in for that because Big Pot would make its investments in Big Pharma even more lucrative. Only a fool would oppose something that could exponentially increase the value of his portfolio. Seriously.

Edited by Bernard Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×