Church Statement on Medical Marijuana

[rongo]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

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

Inpatient rehab and counseling? Some have had that multiple times. 

[Exiled]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

I think its more of a psychological addiction but can be an addiction nonetheless for some. My understanding is that it doesn't cause the withdrawal symptoms that opiates do. Perhaps under medical supervision, it could be useful.

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, Danzo said:

I wonder if they have Oxycontin brownies as well?

OxyContin would be dang difficult because they are manufactured to be unable to crush/chew (long release over allegedly 12 hours, more like 8-10).  Undoubtedly there are those who figured out how to do it, but hopefully not too many so people aren't wasting a couple of hundred bucks a month on a safety measure that is useless.

oxycodone, which is short acting, ugh...that would be a horrible waste of chocolate.  Not tasty at all.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Quote

Here:

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

So what do you think of the opiate addiction rate?

I am deeply concerned about it.  I voiced my thoughts recently here:

Quote

I am really conflicted about medical marijuana.  

I am also very concerned about the opioid epidemic in our country.  

I am particularly concerned about the susceptibility of Latter-day Saints to opioid abuse because, as Gray points out, "any drug can be abused."  However, Mormons may be more prone to misuse opioids because they are "legal" and prescribed by a doctor.  So we end up using riskier-and-more-addictive-but-still-culturally-acceptable-because-they're-legal opioids to manage pain, but then turn around and oppose less-addictive-but-illegal-and-culturally-repugnant-because-of-its-association-with-recreational-use marijuana.

Hope that helps.

Some years back I spent some time working for a medical malpractice law firm.  This firm took all sorts of cases, but specialized in a few seemingly obscure types of malpractice.  One area was "hip displasia" in infants arising during delivery.  Another emerging area was . . . opioid overdoses.  That is, healthcare providers were creating junkies out of Mormon grandmas who would never touch a joint but who became addicted to prescribed opioids and maintained their habit by finding pliant doctors or by doctor-shopping.

So I have some familiarity with the opiod crisis in our country.  I just question whether a radical, headlong rush into legalization of MJ is the right way to help curb opioid abuse.  The UMA statement advises caution and patience, not wholesale banning or wholesale legalization.  

14 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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?

Maybe it should.  The UMS statement addresses that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

46 minutes ago, rongo said:

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 agree.  I would like the Church to be more direct in addressing misuse/abuse of prescription or "legal" drugs.

Quote

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. 

From DrugAbuse.gov:

Quote

Marijuana use can lead to the development of problem use, known as a marijuana use disorder, which takes the form of addiction in severe cases. Recent data suggest that 30 percent of those who use marijuana may have some degree of marijuana use disorder. 

30% seems like a big number.

Quote

People who begin using marijuana before the age of 18 are four to seven times more likely to develop a marijuana use disorder than adults.

And yet the ballot initiative apparently places no age constraints on MJ use.  Meaning kids under 18 could use it legally, and hence be at a "four to seven times more likely" risk of developing "marijuana use disorder."

This is one of the many reasons the UMA statement urges caution and restraint.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 11, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Danzo said:

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

Here is a site listing peer reviewed studies by disease:

https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000884

This looks useful:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425767/

Conclusion 4-14 says limited potential as only short term effect for glaucoma.

Edited April 11, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Inpatient rehab and counseling? Some have had that multiple times. 

Inpatient for just marijuana? That's not even best practices. No one would pay for that.

Generic counseling or SUD treatment. A DBT or CBI-SA based intensive outpatient program would he the most effective. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

Inpatient for just marijuana? That's not even best practices. No one would pay for that.

Generic counseling or SUD treatment. A DBT or CBI-SA based intensive outpatient program would he the most effective. 

One has had inpatient rehab (self pay; attempt to detox in a controlled environment). All have had counseling and various outpatient counseling programs. 

Many more people I know insist that they aren't addicted, and could quit marijuana any time them want. They just don't want to. Where have we heard that before?  

[Calm]

For those interested in the initiative, this might be useful:

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

Fact-checking UMA claims:

http://www.standard.net/Government/2018/04/10/Fact-checking-Utah-Medical-Association-s-claims-on-medical-marijuana-initiative

Quote

The two-page statement from the UMA board of directors, released April 3, contained several claims worth fact-checking. Here the Standard-Examiner scrutinizes eight, rating them on a sliding scale as gospel truth, some truth, matter of opinion, or pure rubbish (since “pants on fire” was already taken by PolitiFact).

STATEMENT 1: “The Utah Initiative would allow possession of 4 times the amount of marijuana than most other ‘medical’ marijuana states.” 

We rated this as PURE RUBBISH....

STATEMENT 2: “Anyone could avoid prosecution simply by saying (whether true or not) they have some illness that they are using marijuana to treat as an affirmative defense, regardless of whether or not there is any scientific basis for such treatment.”

We rate this MATTER OF OPINION because ultimately, the legal system is already highly variable....

STATEMENT 3: “The initiative language also allows marijuana use by anyone, even children, for whom there is no safe level of THC (the main active ingredient in most cannabis products) for their developing brains.”

This claim starts with a falsehood (no, there won’t be a marijuana free-for-all) and ends with fact, so we’re rating it as SOME TRUTH. An April 2017 publication from the American College of Pediatricians warns of THC’s detrimental impacts on youth: “Marijuana is addicting, has adverse effects upon the adolescent brain, is a risk for both cardio-respiratory disease and testicular cancer, and is associated with both psychiatric illness and negative social outcomes.” ...

STATEMENT 4: “In fact, there are few real restrictions or liability for either possession, distribution or manufacture of cannabis products by anyone.”

We’re rating this as PURE RUBBISH....

STATEMENT 5: “The Libertas Institute has stated, falsely, that Utah’s is the most restrictive initiative out there.”

We’re ranking this statement as MATTER OF OPINION because the UMA has consistently opposed previous efforts by Utah lawmakers to advance similar legislation. Both sides could debate this point ad nauseam....

STATEMENT 6: “People assume that physicians would have some idea of how to prescribe or recommend it safely, for which diagnoses, and understand the contraindications, drug interactions and dosing guidelines for a plant that is wildly diverse and inconsistent in active ingredients. None of this is the case with what is being proposed in the Utah Initiative. Physicians cannot prescribe it at all.”

Since this explanation is another true/false hybrid, we’re ranking it MATTER OF OPINION....

STATEMENT 7: “The initiative also allows various non-physician practitioners to recommend marijuana for clients.”

This statement refers to allowing dispensary staff to describe the products they have on hand. In that context, we’re ranking it as GOSPEL TRUTH. 

But two sentences later, UMA states, “For real patients, this model is fraught with dangerous consequences,” and that portion ranks as MATTER OF OPINION....

STATEMENT 8: “There are other legitimate cannabis-based medicines already available and being developed.”

This statement is true in a one-size-fits-all sense, so we’ll rate it as GOSPEL TRUTH.

 

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

How legitimate, in your minds, is the concern that the ballot initiative is a smokescreen?  That the professed concern for those coping with pain-management issues is a pretext?  That the initiative is intended to be a stepping stone toward legalizing recreational use? 

The UMA statement really hits this hard.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

One has had inpatient rehab (self pay; attempt to detox in a controlled environment). All have had counseling and various outpatient counseling programs. 

Many more people I know insist that they aren't addicted, and could quit marijuana any time them want. They just don't want to. Where have we heard that before?  

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying it can't be addictive. But just like with porn, the addiction is more of an issue of emotional problems and environmental influences than with the substance itself. Withdrawal and tolerance are the two main problems associated with substance addiction and marijuana is pretty light in both of those areas. Many anti-anxiety medications are far worse for both. 

I should have clarified that insurance and state funding will pay for inpatient for certain substance abuse issues, but not for marijuana. Intensive outpatient is 9-13 hours of treatment per week. That includes a combination of one on one therapy and groups. (Group Therapy, not 12 step groups.)

[Tacenda]

deleted

Edited April 11, 2018 by Tacenda

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How legitimate, in your minds, is the concern that the ballot initiative is a smokescreen?  That the professed concern for those coping with pain-management issues is a pretext?  That the initiative is intended to be a stepping stone toward legalizing recreational use? 

The UMA statement really hits this hard.  

Thanks,

-Smac

They do hit that hard. I have very little interaction with that group. Certainly some are hoping for a recreational use option. I don't think that means we refuse to take any action. 

I'm not entirely sure I trust the UMA to be totally fair, though. 

I think any medical professional who opposes legal marijuana use but supports legal alcohol use is too hypocritical to take seriously.

Which is not to say I support the initiative as written either. It just seems like those opposed to the initiative have generally not been willing to suggest or even support alternatives either.  

[smac97]

Just now, kllindley said:

They do hit that hard. I have very little interaction with that group. Certainly some are hoping for a recreational use option. I don't think that means we refuse to take any action. 

I'm not entirely sure I trust the UMA to be totally fair, though. 

I think any medical professional who opposes legal marijuana use but supports legal alcohol use is too hypocritical to take seriously.

Could you expound upon this? I consume neither marijuana nor alcohol. However, I think there is such an entrenchment in terms of alcohol consumption in our social fabric that calling for criminalization of alcohol use is simply impractical. That does not mean the medical community ignores the very real ramifications of the misuse of alcohol.

Just now, kllindley said:

Which is not to say I support the initiative as written either. It just seems like those opposed to the initiative have generally not been willing to suggest or even support alternatives either.  

I'm not sure there's really a practical need to propose Alternatives at this juncture. It's not like those Alternatives could get put on the ballot. The issue is whether the ballot should pass or not pass. According to the U M A, the answer to that question is no. I think that is why they focus on the ballot initiative as is, not on alternative approaches. That said, the UMA statement repeatedly references legitimate use and study of cannabis-derived medicines. In other words, these guys are not puritanical opponents of marijuana. Instead, they seem to be medical professionals who recognized that the type of approach reflected in the ballot initiative is not conducive to healthy or appropriate utilization of marijuana.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

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

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).

Right.  Like the Prop 8 backlash.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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

Did you not want to do your pick one sentence at a time, distort what is being said and then go on to the next sentence on the rest of what I posted?  When you say "Nope.  It's hard to distort something I'm quoting verbatim". and then you edit out half of what I wrote, do you really think you are answering my post with any kind of integrity?  Not only do you distort what I wrote, make suppositions that I never said, but you leave out entire blocks of what I wrote despite stating that you are quoting me verbatim. 

I also want to comment on this little snippet

Quote

You and your compatriots, on the other hand, have spent more than a decade demonizing the LDS Church and its members for Prop 8.

Just what have "me and my compatriots"said about the LDS Church and its members about Prop 8 that wasn't true?  And why would anyone forget ever what the Mormon Church did to gay couples? 

This is what I actually wrote.  Try and read it again without distorting what I actually said.  See the part in bold this time?

Quote

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.

 

You want to continually bash "the gays" and call them the bullies,, but according to the latest Pew poll, the Mormon church ranks at the very bottom of all Christian churches in America.  Only 25% of the American people have warm feelings towards the Mormon church.  At some point, perhaps it is time to start asking why and stop blaming "my compatriots".

Now with this latest foray into politics by the Mormon Church, are you still going to be blaming "my compatriots" when those with severe illness that could greatly benefit from medical marijuana blame the church?  Or are you going to blame the black voters for this vote as well?  Or perhaps a wave of honesty will come over you and you will actually acknowledge honestly the role the Mormon church played in past political campaigns as well as this one.

You will now be removed from every thread you derail because asking you nicely hasn't helped. This thread is about medical marijuana. 

 

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That said, the UMA statement repeatedly references legitimate use and study of cannabis-derived medicines. In other words, these guys are not puritanical opponents of marijuana. Instead, they seem to be medical professionals who recognized that the type of approach reflected in the ballot initiative is not conducive to healthy or appropriate utilization of marijuana.

Then why did they oppose the recent legislation approving cannabidiol? The same legislation they talk about glowingly here? There is a lack of honesty here. See Calm's fact checking post. 

[provoman]

28 minutes ago, Calm said:

For those interested in the initiative, this might be useful:

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

Fact-checking UMA claims:

http://www.standard.net/Government/2018/04/10/Fact-checking-Utah-Medical-Association-s-claims-on-medical-marijuana-initiative

 

LOLs good to see others are call the UMA out.

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, california boy said:

Did you not want to do your pick one sentence at a time, distort what is being said and then go on to the next sentence on the rest of what I posted?  When you say "Nope.  It's hard to distort something I'm quoting verbatim". and then you edit out half of what I wrote, do you really think you are answering my post with any kind of integrity?  Not only do you distort what I wrote, make suppositions that I never said, but you leave out entire blocks of what I wrote despite stating that you are quoting me verbatim.  Here it is again, without your distorting comments.  

You want to continually bash "the gays" and call them the bullies,, but according to the latest Pew poll, the Mormon church ranks at the very bottom of all Christian churches in America.  

And plenty of people dislike homosexuals too. Is that a reflection of the nature and character of homosexuals, then? Do you blame homosexuals for  the dislike that other people have against them? Or is it only when Mormons are in the crosshairs?

Quote

Only 25% of the American people have warm feelings towards the Mormon church.  At some point, perhaps it is time to start asking why and stop blaming "my compatriots".

I'm certainly not blaming all homosexuals for the vitriol against us that people like you so regularly demonstrate.

When I say people like you, what I have in mind is, well, people like you. People who go out of their way to regularly demonize and vilify the LDS church and its members.

Quote

Now with this latest foray into politics by the Mormon Church,

Do you like ways demonize and vilify homosexuals who foray into political issues? Or African Americans? I think not. For some reason you only object when the LDS church and its members do what every other American group and individual gets to do.

The inconsistency in your approach is, I think, attributable to what I have said before. Bullies know that vilifying groups like gays or African Americans for voting according to their conscience is not culturally acceptable. But bullying Mormons for voting according to their conscience, as you do here is just okie dokie.

Quote

are you still going to be blaming "my compatriots" when those with severe illness that could greatly benefit from medical marijuana blame the church?  Or are you going to blame the black voters for this vote as well?  

I don't blame black voters for anything. If you will recall, 70% of them voted for Prop 8, which is the same way I would have voted if I had been in California. You, on the other hand, abstain from vilifying and demonizing black people for doing the same thing that Mormons did regarding Proposition 8.  That's how bullies work.  It's a cowardly thing. That's how censorship works.  It's an ugly thing.

Edited April 11, 2018 by smac97

[poptart]

1 hour ago, Jeanne said:

Well...there's brownies...

Nice

[provoman]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

How legitimate, in your minds, is the concern that the ballot initiative is a smokescreen?  That the professed concern for those coping with pain-management issues is a pretext?  That the initiative is intended to be a stepping stone toward legalizing recreational use? 

The UMA statement really hits this hard.  

Thanks,

-Smac

UMA is medical, let them stick to medical things. Considering the unfounded/unsourced non-medical claims the UMA needs to provide evidence rather than hide behind medical degrees

Edited April 11, 2018 by provoman

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

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.  

Agree, this makes me so upset. I can't believe it. I was very happy that Orrin Hatch came out with a statement and was on board with medical cannibus. But this just stinks. So many people can benefit and yet they go do a thing like this. This probably think of marijuana as a doobie. They think like Governer Herbert, IMO.

http://fox13now.com/2016/01/21/medical-marijuana-gov-herbert-doesnt-want-dr-feelgood-to-hand-out-doobies/

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

It should be legal and regulated. Colorado seems to be doing alright.

But you don't address my question. Is the ballot initiative just a smokescreen? A pretext? A stepping stone toward recreational use?

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Then why did they oppose the recent legislation approving cannabidiol? The same legislation they talk about glowingly here? There is a lack of honesty here. See Calm's fact checking post. 

I don't know why they opposed it. Did they put out a statement? Where is that statement? What is their stated basis for opposing that prior initiative?

[Calm]

Terminally ill patients apparently have access:

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/utah-oks-limited-medical-marijuana-law-for-terminally-ill

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — Utah Gov. Gary Herbert has signed a bill allowing terminally ill people to use certain forms of marijuana.

Herbert’s office announced Wednesday that he signed the measure allowing people to use the drug if a doctor has determined they have six months or less to live. Doctors would not be allowed to recommend the treatment to more than 25 patients at a time, something legislators said would prevent doctors from casually and frequently handing out prescriptions.

Also:

https://www.leafly.com/news/politics/new-marijuana-laws-in-utah-wont-stop-ballot-initiative

Quote

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — It will be legal next year in Utah for approved farmers to grow medical marijuana for researchers and dying patients under one of several new legislative measures signed by Gov. Gary Herbert this month.

The state will also monitor the safety of marijuana extract oils being sold in stores as part of a package of legislation that Rep. Brad Daw, the Republican who sponsored four of the five measures, said Monday moves the state forward at the right pace.

Advocates of broader marijuana legislation disagree.

 

Edited April 11, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

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.

Well the church's backlash, I've read, actually helped legalize gay marriage, so here's hoping for it to do the same for medical cannibus! I use the oil and put a few drops under my tongue on a nightly basis. I say let the cops come and get me, I don't care! I'm taking my health in my own hands by hopefully preventing Alzheimer's and treating my Thyroid and Post Menopausal symptoms.