The church is opposing medical marijuana in Utah

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Being highly addicted to unhealthy food (like smoothies) is worst than smoking marijuana once a month, so what a double standard. 

I hope the church stops getting involved in politics, especially because the war on drugs creates powerful drug cartels. 

More fuzzy logic.  Smoothies are not, per se, unhealthy, because not all smoothies are created equal. Whether a smoothie is "unhealthy" or not depends entirely upon what's in it.   Do you really want to try to argue that marijuana is healthier than smoothies based on a comparison of ingredients between the former and the latter?  At best, many proponents of marijuana use take what essentially is a "lesser-of-two-evils" approach when defending such use in light of its purported benefits, but do you really want to have a marijuana-is-healthier-than-smoothies debate, particularly in light of the gaping hole in your logic that I've just pointed out to you?

I feel another accusation of, "You're not trying [hard enough] to understand what I'm saying!" coming on!

Edited February 9, 2016 by Kenngo1969

[Tacenda]

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?  We may as well be our own union here in Utah.  Since it's nearly all LDS politicians that represent us, and they get their direction from the church apparently,  not the people, who voted significantly for medical marijuana in the surveys.

But pharmaceuticals are safer, I guess, haha.  Or will the church okay pill form?  

Edited February 10, 2016 by Tacenda

[thesometimesaint]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?  We may as well be our own union here in Utah.  Since it's nearly all LDS politicians that represent us, and they get their direction from the church apparently,  not the people, who voted significantly for medical Marijuana in the surveys.

But pharmaceuticals are safer, I guess, haha.

Survey's are not votes. If you want a change in state government vote like you mean it.

[cacheman]

18 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

A lady is about 120 years  old says her secret is avoiding junk food since she was young. 

It is sad that our church is involved in politics again, why is our church not politically against smoothies? I can see no health benefit in smoothies, smoothies are extremely unhealthy. 

I am not even sure the church is politically against alcohol. alcohol is far worst than marijuana. 

This is all very unsettling.... I am a fruit smoothie addict, and I add fresh cannabis to my smoothies when it's available.  When should I expect my health to start declining?  What symptoms should I be on the outlook for?  Will the cannabis counteract the unhealthiness of the fruit smoothie!? 

[Gray]

It's bizarre that a clinically effective treatment is subject to approval by legislation. This is really a medical issue.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

It's bizarre that a clinically effective treatment is subject to approval by legislation. This is really a medical issue.

And MDs get their license by passing state boards and applying to the state for it. Health issues have always been subject to regulation by the state - that is until the SCOTUS decided to stomp on anti sodomy laws. But other than that, so far health and medical issues are subject to state regulation, as they retained all power not given to the Federal gubbermint by the constitution.

I guess we can go back to the days of the snake oil salesmen. Or we can rely on the value of public opinion in the value of something new to bring change about supporting it. That is our system of government - for better or worse. 

[thesometimesaint]

That is such a disjointed argument I don't know where to begin.

[RevTestament]

5 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

That is such a disjointed argument I don't know where to begin.

Whose? mine? Mine is simply an acknowledgement that our system of government relies on public opinion to bring about change in favor of things shown to have value to the public. If CBD pills have medical value, it may be up to the public to let their state legislatures know they want them to be legal. The legislators aren't charged with reading the minds of their constituents. If you believe the legislators don't properly have power to make any determination as to medical issues, then I guess we can dispense with the medical licensure requirements, and allow back in the snake oil salesmen. If you weren't responding to me, this is a clarification of my "argument" to other readers.

[thesometimesaint]

Medicine really isn't a matter for Ad Populum argument. I don't know if CBD pills have any health benefits or not, but neither does anyone else. Legality is a different issue. IE; At my age it is perfectly legal for me to drink alcohol. Should I drink it is a different issue.

I know it is a tall order for any politician to have much to intelligently say about medicine, but I expect them to use what little they do have to seek the best advice available from doctors before licensing is an issue.

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

And MDs get their license by passing state boards and applying to the state for it. Health issues have always been subject to regulation by the state - that is until the SCOTUS decided to stomp on anti sodomy laws. But other than that, so far health and medical issues are subject to state regulation, as they retained all power not given to the Federal gubbermint by the constitution.

I guess we can go back to the days of the snake oil salesmen. Or we can rely on the value of public opinion in the value of something new to bring change about supporting it. That is our system of government - for better or worse. 

Legislators are far less informed about the value of medical treatments than physicians and medical researchers. We already use a number of harder and more addictive drugs to treat a number of illnesses. We don't have a political problem with that because they're not called "marijuana". It would be great if we could keep politics out of medical science. 

Edited February 10, 2016 by Gray

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Medicine really isn't a matter for Ad Populum argument. I don't know if CBD pills have any health benefits or not, but neither does anyone else. Legality is a different issue. IE; At my age it is perfectly legal for me to drink alcohol. Should I drink it is a different issue.

I know it is a tall order for any politician to have much to intelligently say about medicine, but I expect them to use what little they do have to seek the best advice available from doctors before licensing is an issue.

Ah, so you want the doctors to tell the legislators what should be legal. Isn't that basically why we have an FDA? And who should decide who are the experts?

BTW it is largely believed the FDA will probably approve Epidiolex, a CBD oral form, at least for treatment of seizures. And hey, if it helps those with seizures I am all for it. 

But just letting people buy it and pop it, leads to problems, which is why we have the system we have. Mixing CBD with other anti-seizure meds is believed to have potential complications. CBD also is known to create some side effects. Then there is the issue of optimal dosage, and weaning seizure patients on and off etc. To just make it legal, because it has a beneficial effect for John Doe, is irresponsible, and is not he way our system works. It has to be shown to be beneficial for a group. The benefits have to outweigh the risks, etc. If the FDA approves it, my guess is states may too. But you seem to want to skip that process.....

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

 Or will the church okay pill form?  

Did you read the article?  The Church is not opposing the use of medical extracts of marijuana.

They are wary of what comes along with the legalizing of marijuana itself, they don't have a problem (given their lack of protest) with using marijuana (in extract form) to help those with actual medical problems in ways that will avoid the dangerous side of usage.

[Tacenda]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

Did you read the article?  The Church is not opposing the use of medical extracts of marijuana.

They are wary of what comes along with the legalizing of marijuana itself, they don't have a problem (given their lack of protest) with using marijuana (in extract form) to help those with actual medical problems in ways that will avoid the dangerous side of usage.

I didn't see that and read it twice.  Which page was that on?

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I didn't see that and read it twice.  Which page was that on?

I think she is referring to this article: http://www.sltrib.com/news/3505422-155/mormon-church-opposing-utah-medical-marijuana

Very first sentences: 

Quote

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints opposes a bill sponsored by Sen. Mark Madsen that would make Utah the 24th state to legalize medical marijuana, citing unintended consequences that could come with use of the drug.

The state's predominant faith is not taking a position on another measure, sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, and Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, that would allow extracts from the plant that do not contain the psychoactive chemical THC.

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

Ah, so you want the doctors to tell the legislators what should be legal. Isn't that basically why we have an FDA? And who should decide who are the experts?

BTW it is largely believed the FDA will probably approve Epidiolex, a CBD oral form, at least for treatment of seizures. And hey, if it helps those with seizures I am all for it. 

But just letting people buy it and pop it, leads to problems, which is why we have the system we have. Mixing CBD with other anti-seizure meds is believed to have potential complications. CBD also is known to create some side effects. Then there is the issue of optimal dosage, and weaning seizure patients on and off etc. To just make it legal, because it has a beneficial effect for John Doe, is irresponsible, and is not he way our system works. It has to be shown to be beneficial for a group. The benefits have to outweigh the risks, etc. If the FDA approves it, my guess is states may too. But you seem to want to skip that process.....

I never said that, but we could do far worse. Politicians telling doctors how to practice medicine. The FDA doesn't determine law. What they do is test, or have outside tests, for the safety and efficacy of drugs.

They may, or they may not. We'll have to wait and see. If it is, fine, and if it is not, then more research is needed. Seizure disorder is serious enough to warrant more research in either event.

I've never advocated for unlimited sales. I'm in favor of decriminalization not total legalization. IE; Alcohol has been decriminalized for many years now. Yet there are "Dry" counties where it is legal to drink it, but not buy it.

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Dry%22+counties&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

[VideoGameJunkie]

Looks like marijuana is stronger than it was 20 years ago. http://news.yahoo.com/potent-pot-marijuana-stronger-now-20-years-ago-070725819.html

[sdc999]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Whatever happened to the separation of church and state?  We may as well be our own union here in Utah.  Since it's nearly all LDS politicians that represent us, and they get their direction from the church apparently,  not the people, who voted significantly for medical marijuana in the surveys.

But pharmaceuticals are safer, I guess, haha.  Or will the church okay pill form?  

In all honesty, the separation of church and state alludes to the fact that the US Govt cannot compel or force it's citizens to join a particular religion.  They have the freedom to choose or even the freedom to not choose a religion.  That is all.   

Now a better angle would be to ask why a non profit church is trying to influence or "lobby".  Well, the answer is because they are allowed to.  Yes, there are rules which seem to be ambiguous at best, but churches are allowed to lobby.  

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

Looks like marijuana is stronger than it was 20 years ago. http://news.yahoo.com/potent-pot-marijuana-stronger-now-20-years-ago-070725819.html

And that is one of the problems with it.  Clams that were valid in the past may not be valid now due to its higher potency (that is only growing from what I hear).

[Tacenda]

55 minutes ago, sdc999 said:

In all honesty, the separation of church and state alludes to the fact that the US Govt cannot compel or force it's citizens to join a particular religion.  They have the freedom to choose or even the freedom to not choose a religion.  That is all.   

Now a better angle would be to ask why a non profit church is trying to influence or "lobby".  Well, the answer is because they are allowed to.  Yes, there are rules which seem to be ambiguous at best, but churches are allowed to lobby.  

Thanks, I didn't know that.  But probably should have.

[Tacenda]

53 minutes ago, Calm said:

And that is one of the problems with it.  Clams that were valid in the past may not be valid now due to its higher potency (that is only growing from what I hear).

I wonder if there are companies in the process of producing the pill form speedily.  And it probably has to pass the FDA.  I'll check, maybe it has been approved, I really don't know near enough about this.  

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 2/9/2016 at 2:51 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

 Do you really want to try to argue that marijuana is healthier than smoothies based on a comparison of ingredients between the former and the latter?  

Both are not healthy! I said, "Being highly addicted to unhealthy food (like smoothies) is worst than smoking marijuana once a month, so what a double standard"

Smoking marijuana once a month won't kill you. Drinking a lot of smoothies everyday will probably give you heart disease in the future.  Smoothies usually have a lot of added sugar, they are very unhealthy. 

Please read what I say 

Edited February 12, 2016 by TheSkepticChristian

[TheSkepticChristian]

On 2/6/2016 at 10:43 PM, Calm said:

 because of the impact on our mental, emotional and spiritual health

Many here like to say that correlation is not causation, but only when it is convenient. 

[thesometimesaint]

On 2/11/2016 at 6:41 PM, sdc999 said:

In all honesty, the separation of church and state alludes to the fact that the US Govt cannot compel or force it's citizens to join a particular religion.  They have the freedom to choose or even the freedom to not choose a religion.  That is all.   

Now a better angle would be to ask why a non profit church is trying to influence or "lobby".  Well, the answer is because they are allowed to.  Yes, there are rules which seem to be ambiguous at best, but churches are allowed to lobby.  

Or force citizens to pay for a religious practice.

The laws really aren't ambiguous at all. All of us have the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances.

[smac97]

Tribune Article: Mormon church elaborates on reasons for opposing medical marijuana bill

Quote

For the second time in a week, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is opposing a medical marijuana bill before the Utah Legislature, voicing concerns about control of the drug and urging a cautious approach to the issue of legalization.

While church leaders of the state's predominant religion are "not in a position to evaluate specific medical claims," a statement from the church said, it recognizes some may benefit from some compounds found in the marijuana plant.

The faith draws a clear distinction between SB73, sponsored by Sen. Mark Madsen, R-Saratoga Springs, to which the church reiterated its opposition, and SB89, sponsored by Sen. Evan Vickers, R-Cedar City, and Rep. Brad Daw, R-Orem, which raises no objections.

"These two competing pieces of legislation take very different approaches when it comes to issues like access, distribution, control and the potential harm of the hallucinogenic compound, THC," the church's statement said.

It's a brief article, but a good one.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Kenngo1969]

12 hours ago, TheSkepticChristian said:

Both [marijuana and smoothies] are not healthy! I said, "Being highly addicted to unhealthy food (like smoothies) is worst than smoking marijuana once a month, so what a double standard"

Smoking marijuana once a month won't kill you. Drinking a lot of smoothies everyday will probably give you heart disease in the future.  Smoothies usually have a lot of added sugar, they are very unhealthy. 

Please read what I say 

I've read what you've written on this thread.  It's rife with overgeneralizations and other leaps in logic.  But because I haven't capitulated to your points, you seem to think that I have a problem with reading comprehension.  I don't have any problems with reading comprehension.  I simply don't agree with you.  If that's your standard for measuring comprehension and intelligence, more power to you.  Knock yourself out.

And, while I hesitate to say that you have a problem with reading comprehension, I'll reiterate: While someone may derive enough benefits from smoking marijuana that he concludes that it's the lesser of two evils, smoking marijuana is per se unhealthy, or at least, there are health risks involved in smoking (or otherwise taking in) marijuana that inhere to the substance; whether smoothies are unhealthy or not depends entirely upon what's in them: for example, I have a small store of bottled apricots.  I can make a smoothie by simply pureeing this fruit.  If I had enough of this fruit, could have a large apricot smoothie every single day and would derive health benefits from it (while simultaneously incurring little, if any, detriment from it).  In fact, while I would not opt for this course of action unless, for some reason, it were necessary to keep me alive, I could have nothing but apricot smoothies and would not incur the sort of detriment from it that you envision.

And you're equivocating again: "Smoothies usually ..." et cetera.