Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, how does the average pot head know exactly what he is using?

If they buy it at a dispensary, it is likely labeled.

Plus just the effect.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Calm

[cacheman]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Which specific species do you prefer?

Since I've already mentioned my like of intraspecific marriage, it appears that your question is an effort to determine my species. In the interest of Internet anonymity, I will not divulge my species to the board. 

[cacheman]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So, how does the average pot head know exactly what he is using?

In an environment where Cannabis is illegal,  knowledge and choice regarding the chemical profile is commonly limited to the consumer.  In a legal environment,  consumers are able to select among Cannabis with known cannabinoid ratios. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Since I've already mentioned my like of intraspecific marriage, it appears that your question is an effort to determine my species. In the interest of Internet anonymity, I will not divulge my species to the board. 

Not a selfie than for your avatar?

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

If they buy it at a dispensary, it is likely labeled.

Plus just the effect.

 

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

In an environment where Cannabis is illegal,  knowledge and choice regarding the chemical profile is commonly limited to the consumer.  In a legal environment,  consumers are able to select among Cannabis with known cannabinoid ratios. 

This is my number one reason for legalizing recreational marijuana use. Is it harmless? Probably not. But currently in states where it is still illegal, people do continue to use marijuana. Unfortunately when they purchase a portion of the product, there are zero guarantees about it. It could be one type, another, or a combination. The seller has no obligation to properly represent the product. Most likely he doesn't even know, having simply obtained the product from another seller. Additionally, much illegal marijuana being sold on the streets is not just marijuana. Dealers have an incentive to make their product more addictive. I know several people who having smoked only marijuana also tested positive for opioids, nicotine, meth, and others.  There are several reported cases of street marijuana containing a bunch of crap, including rat poison. 

Making it legal for any adult to purchase a small amount from a dispensary provides a significant degree of safety. Additionally, it allows the State to collect taxes on the product to help offset the societal cost of the product, just like we do with alcohol and tobacco. 

[kllindley]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

So exciting? What do you think of this study by the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists?

https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/problemsanddisorders/cannabis.aspx

It's not a study. It's a summary of existing information. 

The worst part of it it than is uses dozens of studies which measure the impacts of illicit use. Including teens. But here they have no guarantee that what people used was pure marijuana. And given the data about purity in street product, I think we have guarantees that it wasn't. 

[RevTestament]

This fellow about sums up my concerns about legalizing marijuana:

https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-buzz-blog/kevin-sabet-phd-shares-important-lessons-cannabis-legalization?gclid=CjwKCAjwt5DXBRAtEiwAa3vyEv2DKRCH-2Yw5MjhW9JbIGhJuDraKSIJ9Zaho3Jfdz2DGLnFJNVuxBoCib8QAvD_BwE

Like cigarettes the industry will target the group to which its product can do the most harm - adolescents. 

Quote

Science has proven – and all major scientific and medical organizations agree – that marijuana is both addictive and harmful to the human brain, especially when used as an adolescent. One in every six 16-year-olds who try marijuana will become addicted to it. And if an adolescent has a genetic predisposition for schizophrenia or another psychotic disorder, using marijuana as their brain continues to develop can increase the risk of that disorder.

Colorado has legalized marijuana use - except for teenagers - yet undesirable use has not gone down, but up. More teenagers are being arrested for illegal pot use:

Quote

Like Big Tobacco of yesteryear, Big Marijuana knows that it needs lifelong addicted customers to prosper. Addictive industries generate the majority of their profits from those who are addicted, not casual users. This means that facilitating heavy, repeated, and addictive use is the central goal. As every good tobacco executive knows (but won’t tell you) this, in turn,

Using marijuana in public and youth use of marijuana have both increased since Colorado legalized marijuana – and both remain illegal for youth. Colorado now leads the country in past-month marijuana use by youth. This would explain increases in juvenile arrests for marijuana.

This seems to lead to the conclusion that legalizing marijuana will ultimately harm teenagers, and therefore the population at large. If only medical marijuana of high CBD rates or other low THC varieties are legalized, studies suggest that society will avoid the deleterious effects of pot use, but I concede more and better research seems appropriate here. Once we allow the "legal high" though I think we start down the slippery slope like tobacco and alcohol. I think it can be safely concluded that a society high on THC is not going to be a healthy nor productive society.

[california boy]

18 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This fellow about sums up my concerns about legalizing marijuana:

https://www.centeronaddiction.org/the-buzz-blog/kevin-sabet-phd-shares-important-lessons-cannabis-legalization?gclid=CjwKCAjwt5DXBRAtEiwAa3vyEv2DKRCH-2Yw5MjhW9JbIGhJuDraKSIJ9Zaho3Jfdz2DGLnFJNVuxBoCib8QAvD_BwE

Like cigarettes the industry will target the group to which its product can do the most harm - adolescents. 

Colorado has legalized marijuana use - except for teenagers - yet undesirable use has not gone down, but up. More teenagers are being arrested for illegal pot use:

This seems to lead to the conclusion that legalizing marijuana will ultimately harm teenagers, and therefore the population at large. If only medical marijuana of high CBD rates or other low THC varieties are legalized, studies suggest that society will avoid the deleterious effects of pot use, but I concede more and better research seems appropriate here. Once we allow the "legal high" though I think we start down the slippery slope like tobacco and alcohol. I think it can be safely concluded that a society high on THC is not going to be a healthy nor productive society.

You do realize that all of the quotes you pulled from the article are not about legalizing medical marijuana, but an across the board legalization of pot.  This is what your article says about medical marijuana

Quote

 

Can you explain your opinion on medical cannabis?

There are far too many Americans who suffer from life-threatening, debilitating chronic illness. Patients deserve to know that we are doing everything possible to help alleviate their pain in a safe, regulated way. Clearly, there are components of cannabis that provide therapeutic effects

 

 

[RevTestament]

6 minutes ago, california boy said:

You do realize that all of the quotes you pulled from the article are not about legalizing medical marijuana, but an across the board legalization of pot.  This is what your article says about medical marijuana

Yes, that is why I said: "If only medical marijuana of high CBD rates or other low THC varieties are legalized, studies suggest that society will avoid the deleterious effects of pot use, but I concede more and better research seems appropriate here."

I am not against all use of medical marijuana. This would normally be administered orally, or by an oil etc. I think more study is appropriate. However, the studies we do have show that "normal" marijuana use - which is usually by smoking for a THC high - is not beneficial to society at large. That is the point I was trying to make. Sorry you seemed to miss that. 

[california boy]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Yes, that is why I said: "If only medical marijuana of high CBD rates or other low THC varieties are legalized, studies suggest that society will avoid the deleterious effects of pot use, but I concede more and better research seems appropriate here."

I am not against all use of medical marijuana. This would normally be administered orally, or by an oil etc. I think more study is appropriate. However, the studies we do have show that "normal" marijuana use - which is usually by smoking for a THC high - is not beneficial to society at large. That is the point I was trying to make. Sorry you seemed to miss that. 

I did miss it.  Thanks.  The confusion is that this thread is about medical marijuana, not legalizing marijuana across the board.

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, california boy said:

I did miss it.  Thanks.  The confusion is that this thread is about medical marijuana, not legalizing marijuana across the board.

Well, it is a bit confusing, because I think the terminology is becoming blurred. It seems to me that the term "medical marijuana" is coming to also include use of higher THC varieties for relief of chronic pain, esp. Which I think is unfortunate for known beneficial uses of marijuana. It also seems hemp could free up use of vast amounts of land used for growing wood for use as paper pulp. From what little I know it seems hemp would be a vastly more efficient and better use of land used for the purpose of paper production. I am curious as to the reasons for increased paper costs when American society seems to be using less paper. I guess it is is using more cardboard for Amazon shipping  Anyway, that may prove to be another great use for hemp. Growing medical marijuana could use all the plant and be quite profitable - I am also thinking about becoming a Vanilla farmer...

[california boy]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Well, it is a bit confusing, because I think the terminology is becoming blurred. It seems to me that the term "medical marijuana" is coming to also include use of higher THC varieties for relief of chronic pain, esp. Which I think is unfortunate for known beneficial uses of marijuana. It also seems hemp could free up use of vast amounts of land used for growing wood for use as paper pulp. From what little I know it seems hemp would be a vastly more efficient and better use of land used for the purpose of paper production. I am curious as to the reasons for increased paper costs when American society seems to be using less paper. I guess it is is using more cardboard for Amazon shipping  Anyway, that may prove to be another great use for hemp. Growing medical marijuana could use all the plant and be quite profitable - I am also thinking about becoming a Vanilla farmer...

The thing that most people don't realize about Marijuana is that there is a very wide variety of strains.  Each have their strengths and weaknesses.  I mentioned this in a previous post.  As you suggested some illnesses benefit for higher THC.  Others benefit from other attributes.  It is one of the reasons I am much more in support of medical marijuana laws than I am full legalization.

And you are right about hemp being a much better source to make paper.  You might want to read about William Randolph Hearst and his role in making marijuana illegal.  He owned large tracks of forest that he used to make paper.  Hemp was threatening to make that land far less valuable.  So he lead a scare tactic campaign through his newspapers.  It is quite a story how he managed to make this one legal substance to become a Class One drug.  Higher classification than cocaine.  

[Tacenda]

(I tried to post in the newest post about medical marijuana but a message came up that said my post was forbidden, strange.)

Yesterday I received in the mail a letter from what I thought was the Davis County Clerk's office. It was basically saying the same things this article mentions. And the language in the letter wanted me to mail in a form requesting my name to be removed from the petition I signed. When I called the clerk's office they said they had nothing to do with it. So then I called the Utah Medical Association and they fessed up that they were behind it. Then I wrote an email to Senator Stuart Adams, because he and a list of our representatives were listed as being part of this campaign to get people to remove their names. I know Stuart because he built a home for us back in 1993, he was a builder/realtor...maybe still is. He has yet to respond, then I called the state capital and spoke with Chuck Gates who is the Majority Director of Constituent Affairs. He spent some time with me and was very kind. He said he would relay what I told him to Rep. Stewart Barlow. He even admitted that the church heavily influences the legislature. 

The thing that upset me, is the letter asking me to take my name off wasn't really coming from my local town hall, but in actuality the UMA, but made to look like it was a local thing. When I spoke with the Davis County clerk's office a gentleman said it has nothing to do with it, but the letter would be sent there and then I guess they send it on to wherever. He said they had received multiple calls from people being confused about it. 

It so upsets me because the church has a huge influence on voters in this state. I made an effort to find the petition and drive to another town and sign it. No one showed up at my door. And now the church wants to take my right away, or many signers rights away to have it on the ballot. I hope the signers won't give Kirton  McConkie the time of day.  

I bet they've spent zero amount of time researching into medical cannibus. And are just doing what the church and UMA wants. I'm so upset right now that the church is involved like this, so upset I want to cry in frustration.

Edited May 12, 2018 by Tacenda

[Kenngo1969]

On 4/24/2018 at 2:32 PM, cacheman said:

I don't believe that Libertarianism requires what you think it does.  It's possible to have minimal state intervention, but still enforce laws which protect people from being harmed by others.  If 'drugs' were legalized or even decriminalized.... there's no reason why crimes or harm done under the influence or due to 'drug' use couldn't be punished.  If that was the case, then society would need to determine what level of harm or potential harm should incur penalties. ...

If alcohol is used as the model for how we treat crimes committed while the actor is under the influence of other drugs, then we could have people's criminal culpability being reduced (or perhaps even eliminated entirely) because the actor could not form the requisite mental state to commit the crime with which he otherwise would be charged.

That state of affairs is enough of a minefield where alcohol is concerned.  I would prefer not to open up vast new minefields by legalizing other drugs.

[Calm]

Quote

And now the church wants to take my right away, or many signers rights away to have it on the ballot.

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/

Edited May 12, 2018 by Calm

[cacheman]

6 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If alcohol is used as the model for how we treat crimes committed while the actor is under the influence of other drugs, then we could have people's criminal culpability being reduced (or perhaps even eliminated entirely) because the actor could not form the requisite mental state to commit the crime with which he otherwise would be charged.

That state of affairs is enough of a minefield where alcohol is concerned.  I would prefer not to open up vast new minefields by legalizing other drugs.

There's no reason that we have to use alcohol as a model.  We can create any legal framework that society feels is sufficient.  I understand that no system is going to be perfect,  but as I see it,  we have two choices:

1. Restrict the liberty of everyone (including those who use responsibly) due to potential negative consequences of Cannabis use.

2. Allow for individual liberty and put the time and effort into crafting laws that will protect people from the potential harms associated with Cannabis use.

I prefer the latter option, particularly now that we've seen the negative consequences of longterm prohibition, and now that more and more evidence is being found that there are potential medical and life saving applications with this plant. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

There's no reason that we have to use alcohol as a model.  We can create any legal framework that society feels is sufficient.  I understand that no system is going to be perfect,  but as I see it,  we have two choices:

1. Restrict the liberty of everyone (including those who use responsibly) due to potential negative consequences of Cannabis use.

2. Allow for individual liberty and put the time and effort into crafting laws that will protect people from the potential harms associated with Cannabis use.

I prefer the latter option, particularly now that we've seen the negative consequences of longterm prohibition, and now that more and more evidence is being found that there are potential medical and life saving applications with this plant. 

It seems like the very. best option with marijuana is to authorize medical control over the substance rather than leaving it to the streets to become suppliers to otherwise law abiding citizens.  Why make opioids legal?  Maybe those that need pain medications should buy that from street suppliers as well.  

[janderich]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

It seems like the very. best option with marijuana is to authorize medical control over the substance rather than leaving it to the streets to become suppliers to otherwise law abiding citizens.  Why make opioids legal?  Maybe those that need pain medications should buy that from street suppliers as well.  

I agree with authorizing medical control over marijuana in the same regulated way as other medicinal drugs. They're prescription drugs and  marijuana should follow the prescription drug approval and use model. Scientific studies need to be completed and then the risk and benefits need to be weighed by a medical board before receiving FDA approval. Once approved it can be dispensed by doctors through prescription. Somehow the legalize marijuana crowed fails to talk about this path. What's more interesting to me is that the DEA still considers marijuana a schedule I drug the same as heroine, LSD, and ecstasy. Because of this status researchers need a special license to study the drugs effect and this license requirement has restricted investigation into it's benefits. Those who are really concerned with medicinal marijuana should be arguing to change it's status from a schedule I to a schedule II drug, not bypassing the entire system. 

Edited May 12, 2018 by janderich

[cacheman]

13 minutes ago, janderich said:

I agree with authorizing medical control over marijuana in the same regulated way as other medicinal drugs. They're prescription drugs and  marijuana should follow the prescription drug approval and use model. Scientific studies need to be completed and then the risk and benefits need to be weighed by a medical board before receiving FDA approval. Once approved it can be dispensed by doctors through prescription. Somehow the legalize marijuana crowed fails to talk about this path. What's more interesting to me is that the DEA still considers marijuana a schedule I drug the same as heroine, LSD, and ecstasy. Because of this status researchers need a special license to study the drugs effect and this license requirement has restricted investigation into it's benefits. Those who are really concerned with medicinal marijuana should be arguing to change it's status from a schedule I to a schedule II drug, not bypassing the entire system. 

I work in botanical medicine research and am familiar with the fda oversight of these herbal medicines.  I'm not aware any other herbal medicines having to go through the same regulatory process as pharmaceutical medicines. Cannabis would be in a class by itself if made to do that. 

I don't know of any pro-medical Cannabis people that haven't also argued for a scheduling change.  I have been involved in that fight for some time now.  The obstacles being able to conduct Cannabis research are ridiculous and unnecessary.  

[janderich]

14 minutes ago, cacheman said:

I work in botanical medicine research and am familiar with the fda oversight of these herbal medicines.  I'm not aware any other herbal medicines having to go through the same regulatory process as pharmaceutical medicines. Cannabis would be in a class by itself if made to do that. 

I don't know of any pro-medical Cannabis people that haven't also argued for a scheduling change.  I have been involved in that fight for some time now.  The obstacles being able to conduct Cannabis research are ridiculous and unnecessary.  

I don't think it is useful to debate if it's a drug or an herb. Those who want it legalized call it an herb and those who want it band call it a drug. The real issue here is about whether it's safe and whether it is effective in treating certain conditions. 

[cacheman]

11 minutes ago, janderich said:

I don't think it is useful to debate if it's a drug or an herb. Those who want it legalized call it an herb and those who want it band call it a drug. The real issue here is about whether it's safe and whether it is effective in treating certain conditions. 

It is an herb.  That's not debatable.  A drug is anything that effects a physiological change upon ingestion.  I'm saying that no other botanical medicines (also considered drugs) have been required to meet the stringent requirements that you are suggesting.  Because herbal medicines by nature lack standardized amounts and ratios of compounds,  it's virtually impossible for them to make it through the process.  

[california boy]

1 hour ago, janderich said:

I agree with authorizing medical control over marijuana in the same regulated way as other medicinal drugs. They're prescription drugs and  marijuana should follow the prescription drug approval and use model. Scientific studies need to be completed and then the risk and benefits need to be weighed by a medical board before receiving FDA approval. Once approved it can be dispensed by doctors through prescription. Somehow the legalize marijuana crowed fails to talk about this path. What's more interesting to me is that the DEA still considers marijuana a schedule I drug the same as heroine, LSD, and ecstasy. Because of this status researchers need a special license to study the drugs effect and this license requirement has restricted investigation into it's benefits. Those who are really concerned with medicinal marijuana should be arguing to change it's status from a schedule I to a schedule II drug, not bypassing the entire system. 

Just a couple of thoughts.  I can understand your position if marijuana was something new.  But it has been in use for over 100 years.  So the relative safety of this drug is well known.  Do you know how many people have OD on marijuana?  Zero.   I agree that more research needs to be done to learn more exactly what this drug can be used for and how effective it can be.  But without the Feds changing the classification of this drug, that isn't going to happen.  

 

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Tacenda said:

(I tried to post in the newest post about medical marijuana but a message came up that said my post was forbidden, strange.)

Yesterday I received in the mail a letter from what I thought was the Davis County Clerk's office. It was basically saying the same things this article mentions. And the language in the letter wanted me to mail in a form requesting my name to be removed from the petition I signed. When I called the clerk's office they said they had nothing to do with it. So then I called the Utah Medposical Association and they fessed up that they were behind it. Then I wrote an email to Senator Stuart Adams, because he and a list of our representatives were listed as being part of this campaign to get people to remove their names. I know Stuart because he built a home for us back in 1993, he was a builder/realtor...maybe still is. He has yet to respond, then I called the state capital and spoke with Chuck Gates who is the Majority Director of Constituent Affairs. He spent some time with me and was very kind. He said he would relay what I told him to Rep. Stewart Barlow. He even admitted that the church heavily influences the legislature. 

The thing that upset me, is the letter asking me to take my name off wasn't really coming from my local town hall, but in actuality the UMA, but made to look like it was a local thing. When I spoke with the Davis County clerk's office a gentleman said it has nothing to do with it, but the letter would be sent there and then I guess they send it on to wherever. He said they had received multiple calls from people being confused about it. 

It so upsets me because the church has a huge influence on voters in this state. I made an effort to find the petition and drive to another town and sign it. No one showed up at my door. And now the church wants to take my right away, or many signers rights away to have it on the ballot. I hope the signers won't give Kirton  McConkie the time of day.  

I bet they've spent zero amount of time researching into medical cannibus. And are just doing what the church and UMA wants. I'm so upset right now that the church is involved like this, so upset I want to cry in frustration.

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!!

Edited May 12, 2018 by Jeanne

[janderich]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just a couple of thoughts.  I can understand your position if marijuana was something new.  But it has been in use for over 100 years.  So the relative safety of this drug is well known.  Do you know how many people have OD on marijuana?  Zero.   I agree that more research needs to be done to learn more exactly what this drug can be used for and how effective it can be.  But without the Feds changing the classification of this drug, that isn't going to happen.  

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)

 

[janderich]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

It is an herb.  That's not debatable.  A drug is anything that effects a physiological change upon ingestion.  I'm saying that no other botanical medicines (also considered drugs) have been required to meet the stringent requirements that you are suggesting.  Because herbal medicines by nature lack standardized amounts and ratios of compounds,  it's virtually impossible for them to make it through the process.  

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