Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

What is sad is that for some..it is a last effort for any quality of life outside a hospital..and that..means a lot to the one who is extending life for family.  If there was a real way to regulate..I don't think it is fair to deprive anyone of just getting through another day.  

If I recall, the WoW states that tobacco is not for the body or the belly but to treat bruises (and sick cattle). That is, used as a medicine (with great skill and wisdom)

I think medical  marijuana could follow the same logic. Not for smoking for illicit purposes but to be used as a medicine. Again with skill and wisdom.

 

1 minute ago, provoman said:

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

I sometimes agree with you.  That said, I am content that the Brethren these days do a very good job of generally refraining from "political issues."  The challenge is when "moral" issues are being addressed in a political context.  I don't think the Church should (or can) tie its own hands when that happens.  It has a mandate, after all.

1 minute ago, provoman said:

The UMA statement is wrutrwn by someone who comes off a real blowhard.

The UMA statement is the combined statement of ten MDs.  Blowing them off as blowhards would seem to be . . . ill-advised.

Doctors are human, of course.  But they seem to lack any particular dog in this fight, except that they care about the health and welfare of Utahns (as opposed to, say, advocacy groups who may have ulterior - $$$ - motives for pushing for legalization).

1 minute ago, provoman said:

The UMA statement makes claims without references.

I think the statement can rely on the credentials and bona fides of the organization and the signatories to the letter, particularly since it makes a fairly substantial concession ({the} UMA supports the use of FDA-approved cannabis-based medicines...Utah's physician community is greatly interested in discovering the legitimate medical uses of cannabis-based medicines, but the Utah initiative is not the way to do it").

The statement also makes some very cogent points about the initiative going well beyond most other "'medical' marijuana states" in terms of legalizing how much MJ can be possessed legally.  The initiative also essentially eliminates any criminal penalties for exceeding those limits (nobody would be deterred by a $100 fine) and avoiding criminal charges by saying some magic words, allows children to use MJ, and so on.

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Any who read the UMA statement should be concerned that UMA reps are mistepresenting or misappropriating the posistions of others.

Such as?

1 minute ago, provoman said:

Frankly there should just be wholesale disregard for the statement as written.

That, frankly, is an amazing statement.  With respect, I think it is utterly wrongheaded.

Thanks,

-Smac

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

The risks of legalizing medical marijuana is hardly an unknown.  

The risks of legalizing medical marijuana under the auspices of the initiative being discussed is very much an unknown.

Quote

In some states, marijuana has been legal for 40 years.  New Mexico was first to legalize it for medical use.  After 40 years, any horror stories you want to relate?  

I'll be honest, I'm something of a neophyte in this area.  Which is why my preliminary foray into it relies on commentary from trained medical experts, as opposed to anonymous people whom I do not know and whose judgment I have no particular reason to trust (regarding MJ).

Quote

Because there are plenty of stories where this medicine which has been branded as some kind of evil drug has helped thousands of people who suffer.

The UMA statement acknowledges that.  

Quote

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

Again, I think the UMA's statement on this is very reasonable.  It's not the all-or-nothing scenario you seem to be painting.

Quote

And why does the church have a stance on this issue.  

Why not?  Why do you have a stance on this issue?

The censorious nature of people like you never ceases to surprise.  And disappoint.

Quote

Are they experts in medicine?  

No.  Are you?  And yet here you are, voicing a "stance" while simultaneously complaining when the Church dares to voice its "stance."

Quote

It seems like just a power play that the church loves to do.  

The Church is pointing to the UMA statement.  The Church is pointing to a medical organization that is recommending caution.

Censorship.  It's an ugly thing.

If the UMA statement is flawed, then we can discuss that.  But complaining about its existence is absurd.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2018 by smac97

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The risks of legalizing medical marijuana under the auspices of the initiative being discussed is very much an unknown.

I'll be honest, I'm something of a neophyte in this area.  Which is why my preliminary foray into it relies on commentary from trained medical experts, as opposed to anonymous people whom I do not know and whose judgment I have no particular reason to trust (regarding MJ).

The UMA statement acknowledges that.  

Again, I think the UMA's statement on this is very reasonable.  It's not the all-or-nothing scenario you seem to be painting.

Why not?  Why do you have a stance on this issue?

The censorious nature of people like you never ceases to surprise.  And disappoint.

No.  Are you?  And yet here you are, voicing a "stance" while simultaneously complaining when the Church dares to voice its "stance."

The Church is pointing to the UMA statement.  The Church is pointing to a medical organization that is recommending caution.

Censorship.  It's an ugly thing.

If the UMA statement is flawed, then we can discuss that.  But complaining about its existence is absurd.  

Thanks,

-Smac

So you think the church has an equal voice to a single poster on this board?   Like I said, a power play.  

And who is censoring the church?  Did I say the church could not make a comment?  Am I not allowed an opinion on how I feel about the church once again sticking its nose into politics?  

Frankly I couldn't care less that the church does this kinds of political forays.  But the church should also take full responsibility for the cost such pronouncements on how to vote brings.  When I was serving my mission, California was the top baptizing mission in the church.  As a zone leader, I actually contacted the California mission to see what programs they were having success with. The image of the church was very strong as a religion that streghtened and supported families.  People wanted to hear the message the church had to tell.

Now there is a complete turn around.  The image of the church in California is mostly contempt.  I was at a public event a couple of weeks ago.  Someone on the stage made a reference to the Mormon church.  Some in the audience actually booed.  Why the turn from such a positive image in this state to one of contempt?  The church deciding that Prop 8 was their fight.  They just couldn't allow gay couples their civil right to marry just like every other citizen of the state.  

So yeah.  Support the church making its holy all knowing medical pronouncement on this political issue.  But quit blaming everyone else for the poor image the church lives with today.  If the church wants to continue to wander in the area of politics, they have to live with the consequences of those choices.  When those suffering from illness that medical marijuana could benefit them, just who do you think they will think of when the vote goes against their ability to obtain proper medical help.  It is very naive of you to suggest that the church does. not hold a lot of sway in the state of Utah on how a vote goes.  

25 minutes ago, Prof said:

If I recall, the WoW states that tobacco is not for the body or the belly but to treat bruises (and sick cattle). That is, used as a medicine (with great skill and wisdom)

I think medical  marijuana could follow the same logic. Not for smoking for illicit purposes but to be used as a medicine. Again with skill and wisdom.

 

 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.

 

1 minute 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 marijuana is not the only way to administer the drug.

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Smoking marijuana is not the only way to administer the drug.

Good to know

I'm disappointed that the UMA statement again pulls the "this isn't the right way, so no, because we say so" approach. Why not engage in problem solving the initiative? Why not recommend an alternative? Why not actually work to address the barriers to FDA research into MJ? 

That is what makes this statement so egregious in my mind. From the perspective of a mental health professional, the current situation in regards to MJ is an embarrassment. It is helpful in many situations. But we can't find out which. 

And states like Utah and Idaho are so scared if the very word that they won't allow even the FDA approved variants. Why isn't the UMA proactively proposing legislation that would make those alternatives legal? That's suspicious to me. 

Edit: It looks like Utah recently did pass legislation allowing the use of CBD oil. Idaho legislators have used the Church's position to reject all such efforts. 

Edited April 11, 2018 by kllindley

4 minutes ago, california boy said:

Smoking marijuana is not the only way to administer the drug.

Just curious, but when the Marijuana is prescribed is it in certain increments, like,  take 50 many mg twice a day, or is it more like use it until you feel better?

Edited April 11, 2018 by Danzo

48 minutes ago, Prof said:

If I recall, the WoW states that tobacco is not for the body or the belly but to treat bruises (and sick cattle). That is, used as a medicine (with great skill and wisdom)

I think medical  marijuana could follow the same logic. Not for smoking for illicit purposes but to be used as a medicine. Again with skill and wisdom.

 

Prof...you are profound!! I agree!

1 hour ago, california boy said:

So you think the church has an equal voice to a single poster on this board?  

I think the Church is entitled to having a voice in this discussion.  Unlike you, who complains that the Church's stance even exists and has been published.

Where does the LDS Church get off, thinking it has a right to free speech, anyway?

Quote

Like I said, a power play.  

Like I said, censorship is an ugly thing.

Quote

And who is censoring the church?  

But for the wonderful First Amendment...

Quote

Did I say the church could not make a comment?  

You are complaining that the Church has a stance and has voiced it.

Fortunately, the LDS Church and people like me are protected from . . . people like you.

Quote

Am I not allowed an opinion on how I feel about the church once again sticking its nose into politics?  

"Sticking its nose," as if the Church is not entitled to voice its view.

Censorious.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Quote

Frankly I couldn't care less that the church does this kinds of political forays.  

Sure you could care less.  You could critique the Church's stance, instead of complaining that the Church dared to voice its stance.

Quote

But the church should also take full responsibility for the cost such pronouncements on how to vote brings.  

Nice and ominous.

Censorship.  It's an ugly thing.

Quote

When I was serving my mission, California was the top baptizing mission in the church.  As a zone leader, I actually contacted the California mission to see what programs they were having success with. The image of the church was very strong as a religion that streghtened and supported families.  People wanted to hear the message the church had to tell.

Now there is a complete turn around.  The image of the church in California is mostly contempt.  

Well, much of the "contempt" is thanks to the efforts of you and your compatriots to vilify and demonize the Church.  For having an opinion different from yours.  For daring to voice that opinion.

Just consider what you are doing here.  Making ominous predictions about the Church should it dare cross people like you again.  2008 redux.  And you seem to be gleefully anticipating such a thing. 

I'm reminded of the protests outside of the LA Temple.  The frenzied hatred and self-righteousness on display.  The hatred.  The mob mentality. See here:

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like Kristallnacht happened."

But for the rule of law, I wonder what that mob would have done. 

Quote

I was at a public event a couple of weeks ago.  Someone on the stage made a reference to the Mormon church.  Some in the audience actually booed.  Why the turn from such a positive image in this state to one of contempt?  

An interesting question.  Were the other 48+% of Californians who voted in favor of Prop 8 booed?  Nope.  

The answer to your question is: Scapegoat.  

Quote

The church deciding that Prop 8 was their fight.  

Apparently so.  Hence the video above.  Hence the ongoing efforts of people like you to publicly defame and vilify the LDS Church.  

Because the LDS Church had an opinion, and because the Church voiced it, and because that opinion varies from yours, the Church must be punished.  For the content of its speech.  By people like you.

As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8."  And yet I don't recall people like you accusing African Americans of "deciding that Prop 8 was their fight," or faulting the African American community for "sticking its nose into politics."  Why is that, do you think?  

Quote

So yeah.  Support the church making its holy all knowing medical pronouncement on this political issue.  

It's expressing concern and pointing to the UMA statement.

Quote

But quit blaming everyone else for the poor image the church lives with today.  

Right.  And the Jews deserved Kristallnacht.    

Quote

If the church wants to continue to wander in the area of politics, they have to live with the consequences of those choices.  

A second veiled threat.  

Quote

When those suffering from illness that medical marijuana could benefit them, just who do you think they will think of when the vote goes against their ability to obtain proper medical help.  

Again, the UMA statement addresses this.

Quote

It is very naive of you to suggest that the church does. not hold a lot of sway in the state of Utah on how a vote goes.  

Of course the Church holds sway in the minds of its members.  Nobody disputes that.  Oddly, people like you aren't even complaining about the Church's stance as much as about the fact that the Church dared to voice it.  As if that is . . . wrong.  And then there are the veiled threats and fond reminiscences of the backlash your compatriots spewed against the Church in 2008 are not a way to persuade me to the merits of your views.

Censorship and veiled threats of (or hope for) violence in response to political speech.  It's an ugly thing.

I am grateful for the rule of law in this country. 

-Smac

EDIT TO ADD:

Here's another vid from 2008 (a mob screaming at and physically assaulting an elderly woman, screaming her down, denying her right to speak):

Is this sort of thing one of the "consequences" that will arise - again - if the LDS Church dares to speak in ways people like him dislike?

Here's another:

From the video:

Quote

"When I got there I could not believe the amount of angst, and venom, and even hate, towards the Mormon Church.  The things that I saw them saying, heard them saying, things that I saw them doing, the signs that they were holding.  I mean, this was a vicious crowd.  Not a very good showing for the gay and lesbian movement."

And now, in 2018, we have California Boy saying stuff like this:

• "Frankly I couldn't care less that the church does this kinds of political forays.  But the church should also take full responsibility for the cost such pronouncements on how to vote brings."
• "So yeah.  Support the church making its holy all knowing medical pronouncement on this political issue.  But quit blaming everyone else for the poor image the church lives with today.  If the church wants to continue to wander in the area of politics, they have to live with the consequences of those choices."

Reminders of the Prop 8 backlash, followed by ominous references to the Church facing "the consequences of those choices" should it "choose" to speak in ways that people like California Boy doesn't like.

Censorship.  

Edited April 11, 2018 by smac97

20 minutes 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.

 

Well...there's brownies...

The extract of the plant has been used effectively in eye drop form for people with glaucoma. Not sure how many drops need to be applied. 

8 minutes ago, Prof said:

The extract of the plant has been used effectively in eye drop form for people with glaucoma. Not sure how many drops need to be applied. 

That is the kind of thing I can support.

I do, however hope they have tested the stuff using the standard double blind method they test other medications.

9 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Well...there's brownies...

I wonder if they have Oxycontin brownies as well?

1 minute ago, Danzo said:

That is the kind of thing I can support.

I do, however hope they have tested the stuff using the standard double blind method they test other medications.

Unfortunately, even the testing is still illegal in many states, and not completely safe for an institution on a federal level. 

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I wonder if they have Oxycontin brownies as well?

Who knows...I mean there are jello shots...I sure hope not!!

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church is entitled to having a voice in this discussion.  Unlike you, who complains that the Church's stance even exists and has been published.

Where does the LDS Church get off, thinking it has a right to free speech, anyway?

Like I said, censorship is an ugly thing.

But for the wonderful First Amendment...

You are complaining that the Church has a stance and has voiced it.

Fortunately, the LDS Church and people like me are protected from . . . people like you.

"Sticking its nose," as if the Church is not entitled to voice its view.

Censorious.

Disappointing, but not surprising.

Sure you could care less.  You could critique the Church's stance, instead of complaining that the Church dared to voice its stance.

Nice and ominous.

Censorship.  It's an ugly thing.

Well, much of the "contempt" is thanks to the efforts of you and your compatriots to vilify and demonize the Church.  For having an opinion different from yours.  For daring to voice that opinion.

Just consider what you are doing here.  Making ominous predictions about the Church should it dare cross people like you again.  2008 redux.  And you seem to be gleefully anticipating such a thing. 

I'm reminded of the protests outside of the LA Temple.  The frenzied hatred and self-righteousness on display.  The hatred.  The mob mentality. See here:

I remember at the time thinking "Hmm.  So this is how things like the Kristallnacht happened."

But for the rule of law, I wonder what that mob would have done. 

An interesting question.  Were the other 48+% of Californians who voted in favor of Prop 8 booed?  Nope.  

The answer to your question is: Scapegoat.  

Apparently so.  Hence the video above.  Hence the ongoing efforts of people like you to publicly defame and vilify the LDS Church.  

Because the LDS Church had an opinion, and because the Church voiced it, and because that opinion varies from yours, the Church must be punished.  For the content of its speech.  By people like you.

As I understand it, "African Americans overwhelmingly supported Yes on 8.  Exit polls show that 70% of Black voters chose Yes on 8."  And yet I don't recall people like you accusing African Americans of "deciding that Prop 8 was their fight," or faulting the African American community for "sticking its nose into politics."  Why is that, do you think?  

It's expressing concern and pointing to the UMA statement.

Right.  And the Jews deserved Kristallnacht.    

A second veiled threat.  

Again, the UMA statement addresses this.

Of course the Church holds sway in the minds of its members.  Nobody disputes that.  Oddly, people like you aren't even complaining about the Church's stance as much as about the fact that the Church dared to voice it.  As if that is . . . wrong.  And then there are the veiled threats and fond reminiscences of the backlash your compatriots spewed against the Church in 2008 are not a way to persuade me to the merits of your views.

Censorship.  It's an ugly thing.

I am grateful for the rule of law in this country. 

-Smac

You had to really work hard to distort and twist what I said on this post didn't you.  I have NEVER said that the church did not have a right to voice it's opinion.  But I have repeatedly said that the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions.  And though you want to now blame the black population, it is the church that financed and provided the manpower to pass prop 8.  So. yeah, there is a reason why funding and manpower often is credited with the passing of a political issue.  If that is not true, they just why does every political issue focus so much on raising money.

Attack me personally all you want.  It is still the church that has the negative image, not only in California but around the world.  You like to blame this all on "you and your compatriots," but it is mainstream America that does not approve of the church actively working to take away the civil rights of others.  It is not "the gays" that are booing from the audience.  It is not the gays that are leaving the church in record numbers.  It is not the gays that are loosing the youth of the church.  It is not the gays that are responsible for falling baptism growth.  As much as you like to make the gays the scape goat for all of the church's problems, perhaps a look in the mirror would be helpful.

I like the clip you posted.  As if those that supported civil rights don't have the right to voice their displeasure at the institute that took that right away from them. And if you think everyone in that protest or honking is gay, you are delusional.

Edited April 11, 2018 by california boy

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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

I think we're in leader roulette territory until the Church speaks clearly on this. I have also counseled members wanting Church sanction (i.e., temple recommend) that marijuana is anathema in my book. 

As Bernard Gui and others have pointed out, the standards for issuing the prescriptions are a joke. People act like M.D.'s in white lab coats are carefully issuing prescriptions, but quite often, this is not the case. Not all "prescriptions" are created equal, and this is one of the things the Brethren are wrestling with, according to Elder Schweizer (an M.D.) and Elder Clayton. 

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Unfortunately, even the testing is still illegal in many states, and not completely safe for an institution on a federal level. 

Surely there have been double blind tests done in other countries.

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here:

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

Some excerpts:

Thanks,

-Smac

So what do you think of the opiate addiction rate? Medical marijuana isn't addictive like opiates and I had two friends commit suicide by combining opiates with other drugs. If it works to relieve pain like opiates without the addictive properties and risk of overdose death, then maybe it should be considered?

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So what do you think of the opiate addiction rate? Medical marijuana isn't addictive like opiates and I had two friends commit suicide by combining opiates with other drugs. If it works to relieve pain like opiates without the addictive properties and risk of overdose death, then maybe it should be considered?

Sure, the Church could also be stronger on opioids. My wife's surgeon got mad at her after she was put back together after her ileostomy and colostomy because she wouldn't take her oxycodone. She was afraid of becoming addicted. We certainly do have too many LDS who are addicted or who take too many opioids for too long. I know people with debilitating pain who manage with ibuprofen. Not saying I begrudge it where really needed, but I think the Church should certainly address the opioid epidemic, too. 

I have marijuana addicts in my ward who get upset at the claim that "marijuans isn't addictive." They sorely want to be free from their addiction, and haven't been able to stop. 

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

You had to really work hard to distort and twist what I said on this post didn't you.  

Nope.  It's hard to distort something I'm quoting verbatim.

Quote

I have NEVER said that the church did not have a right to voice it's opinion.  

Right.  You're just making ominous references to the 2008 backlash against the LDS Church, and saying (hoping?) it will happen again ("consequences," you call it).

Quote

But I have repeatedly said that the church has to live with the consequence of it's political actions.  

Right.  Like the Prop 8 backlash.

Quote

And though you want to now blame the black population,

I don't "blame" anyone for voting in accordance with their moral and political views.  You and your compatriots, on the other hand, have spent more than a decade demonizing the LDS Church and its members for Prop 8.  And yet I haven't seen similar hatreds spewed against the African American community for its overwhelming support of Prop 8.  Now why is that?  Do you go to message boards people by African Americans and make ominous predictions about "consequences" they will face should they ever choose to disagree with people like you?  My sense is . . . no, you don't do this.  You instead restrict your venom for Mormons.  Now why is that?  I think it's because bullying Mormons for their stance on Prop 8 (and other social/cultural/moral issues) is culturally acceptable, whereas bullying African Americans is not.

Bullying.  That's what you are doing.  Own it.

Quote

it is the church that financed and provided the manpower to pass prop 8.  

And 70% of of African Americans in California voted for it.  In 2017, Blacks account for 6.5% of California.  70% of 6.5 percent of California is far more than the Mormons who voted for Prop 8.  And yet where is all the hatred and venom and veiled threats you reserve for them?

Quote

So. yeah, there is a reason why funding and manpower often is credited with the passing of a political issue.  If that is not true, they just why does every political issue focus so much on raising money.

Because cowardly bullies recognize that demonizing Mormons for their support of Prop 8 is socially and culturally acceptable, whereas demonizing African Americans for their support of Prop 8 is not.

Quote

Attack me personally all you want.  It is still the church that has the negative image, not only in California but around the world.  

Huh.  Homosexuals also endure "negative images" throughout the world.  Is that their fault?  Do they deserve such "consequences?"

Or is just when Mormons are in the crosshairs?

Quote

I like the clip you posted.  

I am saddened, but not really surprised, that you like it.  It is an ugly, vile display.  If that mob was screaming in front of a synagogue, or a mosque, would you still "like" it?

Or is it just when Mormons are in the crosshairs?

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2018 by smac97

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have marijuana addicts in my ward who get upset at the claim that "marijuans isn't addictive." They sorely want to be free from their addiction, and haven't been able to stop.

Then they aren't getting real treatment. That is a shame.