"LDS Church: Legal analysis raises concerns about Utah medical marijuana initiative"

[pogi]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Because they think they can control the vote with so many Mormons willing to follow the prophet on any issue.  Even if they have to use misinformation to do it.  

But then, I think you knew that.

Wouldn't the right move be to declassify marijuana as a schedule I drug instead of jumping through ridiculous legal hoops which only make a mess of things?

I don't think the church is against legalizing medical marijuana, I think they only have an issue with how it is being done in this case, which can lead negative ramifications.

Declassify marijuana...that is my vote.  That is the right way forward. That is where we should be putting our political pressure.  Unfortunately, if we jump through these legal hoops, there will be no political motivation to make the RIGHT move, and we will end up with a mess of things.  

[RevTestament]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

That is a nasty stereotype. My drug dealer is a person of excellent character and utmost integrity.

Why thank you Nehor  

[california boy]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Wouldn't the right move be to declassify marijuana as a schedule I drug instead of jumping through ridiculous legal hoops which only make a mess of things?

I don't think the church is against legalizing medical marijuana, I think they only have an issue with how it is being done in this case, which can lead negative ramifications.

Declassify marijuana...that is my vote.  That is the right way forward. That is where we should be putting our political pressure.  Unfortunately, if we jump through these legal hoops, there will be no political motivation to make the RIGHT move, and we will end up with a mess of things.  

If you think that is what the church wanted to happen, then why don’t they say that instead of issuing these misleading evaluations through their lawyers. Now that would show leadership on this issue and I think get a lot better response. The way the church has handled this issue only erodes trust and confidence in the organization 

[Marginal Gains]

I wonder how much a year the Church pays over to lawyers and law firms. I’m guessing it’s more than the $40 million a year (in combined cash, materials and time valuation) spent on humanitarian projects.

Or put another way, why do the First Presidency need lawyers to speak for them on moral matters?

Edited May 20, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[Tacenda]

http://fox13now.com/2018/05/18/opponents-sue-to-block-medical-marijuana-from-going-on-the-november-ballot/  Great!😣

[Jeanne]

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I wonder how much a year the Church pays over to lawyers and law firms. I’m guessing it’s more than the $40 million a year (in combined cash, materials and time valuation) spent on humanitarian projects.

Or put another way, why do the Forst Presidency need lawyers to speak for them on moral matters?

I don't want them speaking for me..or for the choice I have to help my elder family.  Why don't they just stay out of things?? 

[Exiled]

14 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

http://fox13now.com/2018/05/18/opponents-sue-to-block-medical-marijuana-from-going-on-the-november-ballot/  Great!😣

I wonder if the church supports Drug Safe Utah, directly or indirectly?

[Exiled]

There is definitely a problem with opioid misuse https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-05-18-opioids-becoming-drug-of-choice-at-raves-and-electronic-dance-clubs.html

Can medical marijuana stem the tide? I think it is worth a try. https://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2016/05/study-links-medical-marijuana-dispensaries-to-reduced-mortality-opioid-overdose

[california boy]

14 hours ago, Tacenda said:

http://fox13now.com/2018/05/18/opponents-sue-to-block-medical-marijuana-from-going-on-the-november-ballot/  Great!😣

When I see quotes like this that are so blatantly false then I know that group is willing to do anything to try and get its way no matter what they have to do   They know that fear is a very powerful weapon to use even if it is used to deceive 

 

“Marijuana is a Schedule I drug that has a higher frequency of addiction than opioids and can lead to severe consequences such a permanent brain damage and psychosis. The Drug Enforcement Agency has determined that there are no reliable studies showing that marijuana has any accepted medical uses,” attorney Blake Ostler wrote in the injunction request.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

When I see quotes like this that are so blatantly false then I know that group is willing to do anything to try and get its way no matter what they have to do   They know that fear is a very powerful weapon to use even if it is used to deceive 

 

“Marijuana is a Schedule I drug that has a higher frequency of addiction than opioids and can lead to severe consequences such a permanent brain damage and psychosis. The Drug Enforcement Agency has determined that there are no reliable studies showing that marijuana has any accepted medical uses,” attorney Blake Ostler wrote in the injunction request.

I saw that and was quite shocked at the stupidity in saying this. They haven't done their homework and seem to be in a strange denial or something.

Edited May 20, 2018 by Tacenda

[cacheman]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I saw that and was quite shocked at the stupidity in saying this. They haven't done their homework and seem to be in a strange denial or something.

It's clear that this was a document put together very quickly.  Blake Ostler is a professional writer,  but there are misspellings even in a section heading.  The section that CB posted cites the drugabuse.gov site to support the statement on addiction.  I hope that those tasked to review this by the Lt. Governor check their references and read the research that the website references.  He also includes an unsupported statement at the end regarding traffic accidents.  I hope they review the research on that as well. 

Some of the concerns about Cannabis that he mentions have some validity, but the concern is not proportional to the risk in my opinion. His concerns about the legal consequences appear to be heavily influenced by the Kirton and McConkie memo.

This was a rushed attempt to prevent putting this issue before the people.  Drug Safe Utah had been clear in their belief that the people aren't wise enough to make their own decisions about their health.  Therefore,  the government needs to step in once again and save us from ourselves. 

Edited May 20, 2018 by cacheman

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, cacheman said:

It's clear that this was a document put together very quickly.  Blake Ostler is a professional writer,  but there are misspellings even in a section heading.  The section that CB posted cites the drugabuse.gov site to support the statement on addiction.  I hope that those tasked to review this by the Lt. Governor check their references and read the research that the website references.  He also includes an unsupported statement at the end regarding traffic accidents.  I hope they review the research on that as well. 

Some of the concerns about Cannabis that he mentions have some validity, but the concern is not proportional to the risk in my opinion. His concerns about the legal consequences appear to be heavily influenced by the Kirton and McConkie memo.

This was a rushed attempt to prevent putting this issue before the people.  Safe Access Utah had been clear in their belief that the people aren't wise enough to make their own decisions about their health.  Therefore,  the government needs to step in once again and save us from ourselves. 

Fear-mongering for sure.  Medical marijuana has been legal in many states for years. If there are so many problems associated with medical marijuana as Drug Safe Utah claims, why no evidence of the horrible outcomes from the other states? It's because there aren't any. Are there significant problems in Colorado or other states where it is legal? I just don't see it.

[ksfisher]

8 hours ago, Exiled said:

Fear-mongering for sure.  Medical marijuana has been legal in many states for years. If there are so many problems associated with medical marijuana as Drug Safe Utah claims, why no evidence of the horrible outcomes from the other states? It's because there aren't any. Are there significant problems in Colorado or other states where it is legal? I just don't see it.

Adolescents who view more advertising for medical marijuana are more likely to use marijuana, express intentions to use the drug and have more-positive expectations about the substance, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/05/180517081845.htm

[Marginal Gains]

On 5/20/2018 at 8:45 AM, california boy said:

When I see quotes like this that are so blatantly false then I know that group is willing to do anything to try and get its way no matter what they have to do   They know that fear is a very powerful weapon to use even if it is used to deceive 

 

“Marijuana is a Schedule I drug that has a higher frequency of addiction than opioids and can lead to severe consequences such a permanent brain damage and psychosis. The Drug Enforcement Agency has determined that there are no reliable studies showing that marijuana has any accepted medical uses,” attorney Blake Ostler wrote in the injunction request.

Did Blake Ostler comment on the efficacy of Priesthood Blessings?

[Tacenda]

Just want to share this Dateline that aired yesterday. https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/growing-promise/3724415

Funnily, at the 32.00 ish mark it mentions that the NIH, our government, actually has a patent on cannibus! They researched the use of it and that research was full of astounding evidence for using cannibus as medicine. Treatments for Alzheimer's, Epilepsy, Down's Syndrome, many brain disorders. It actually protects the brain from getting harmed, such as football players and concucussions. 

Just watch if you have the time, or when you do have time. 

Edited May 21, 2018 by Tacenda

[RevTestament]

On 5/18/2018 at 3:46 PM, pogi said:

Wouldn't the right move be to declassify marijuana as a schedule I drug instead of jumping through ridiculous legal hoops which only make a mess of things?

I don't think the church is against legalizing medical marijuana, I think they only have an issue with how it is being done in this case, which can lead negative ramifications.

Declassify marijuana...that is my vote.  That is the right way forward. That is where we should be putting our political pressure.  Unfortunately, if we jump through these legal hoops, there will be no political motivation to make the RIGHT move, and we will end up with a mess of things.  

I am somewhat on the fence about declassifying marijuana. I think it should probably be at least a schedule 2 or 3 substance. That is technically a name for Cannabis Indica. This is the same genus but different species than what is sometimes called medical marijuana or Cannabis Sativa. I think to avoid confusion, it should be called medical hemp to help it get away from the stigma of marijuana. Unfortunately, Cannabis Sativa or CBD is also listed as a schedule I substance, and there is really no evidence that it belongs there. It has about zero evidence of addiction and abuse, which are the main criteria for scheduling drugs in federal law. So, to be clear, I believe Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis ruderalis  and CBD ought to be declassified in all probability, unless there arises evidence that it belongs there. 

On 5/19/2018 at 9:49 AM, Tacenda said:

http://fox13now.com/2018/05/18/opponents-sue-to-block-medical-marijuana-from-going-on-the-november-ballot/  Great!😣

The main reason I am reluctant to support this measure is that it does seek to legalize marijuana as a medical substance. I am not presently supportive of that except in cases of terminal medical conditions, because I feel it does have a high potential for abuse. I am not in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use at all. 

If the measure were seeking to legalize only the use of hemp or Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis ruderalis or products with <1% THC, I would probably support it in its present form. I doubt anyone on the official Church side will jump on the bandwagon though and propose such a measure, so it will become up to private industry or some legislator to propose an acceptable bill. I know there are now many hybrids of Cannabis Sativa with Cannabis Idica,, so the bill could address this by either disallowing all hybrids or anything with a higher percentage than 1%THC or some other measure which will disallow enough THC for a "high." IMHO it could make an exception for terminal patients until further studies can convince the state to change its mind.

I think the bill can potentially avoid federal issues altogether if it addresses and allows only in state production and usage. That is because the main ability of the federal law to gain authority on this issue is with interstate commerce. Without interstate commerce going on, the federal government may run into issues with unconstitutionality. 

Those are my main two suggestions for whoever may propose a bill on this subject.

 

Edited May 21, 2018 by RevTestament

[RevTestament]

I should add that Florida passed referendum 2 in 2016, and it is pretty stringent. Medical hemp is an expensive option there because insurance won't pay for it. Right now it is basically a big money industry. I think Florida is trying to avoid Federal involvement by requiring everything in state. It has to be grown, produced in state, and sold in state. And you have to have a license. Very few have been approved so far. So, probably no mom and pop farmers. 

Further, medicinal marijuana treatment is limited to a few conditions, specifically ALS, anxiety, anorexia, arthritis, cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, HIV/AIDS, PTSD, Crohn’s disease, Parkinson’s, and multiple sclerosis (MS). The law also allows for “other debilitating medical conditions of the same kind or class,” meaning, for example, if you have an autoimmune condition similar to MS, like lupus, a doctor could prescribe marijuana for that. So if someone thinks they are going to walk into the Pot Doc and get a card by claiming they are in chronic pain, they are going to be out of luck. A medical card also basically will only be prescribed after other forms of treatment have proven inefficacious. It lasts for 30 weeks, and then another expensive doctor visit is required.

Utah should pay close attention to what has worked in other states to help people in need, while avoiding what I believe to be undesirable recreational use of Indica strains and hybrids.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Just want to share this Dateline that aired yesterday. https://www.nbc.com/dateline/video/growing-promise/3724415

Funnily, at the 32.00 ish mark it mentions that the NIH, our government, actually has a patent on cannibus! ...

Cannibus?  Is this it?

Passenger: "Driver, is it OK if I smoke a little Mary-Jane on this bus!"

Driver: "Sure!  This is the Cannibus!"

Sorry. 

Don't mind me.

[pogi]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am somewhat on the fence about declassifying marijuana.

Not me.  I agree with the sentiment in this article, the fact that marijuana is schedule I "really is a national embarrassment." 

They didn't just make marijuana schedule I, they made all Cannabis schedule I, including hemp - which cannot get you high. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think to avoid confusion, it should be called medical hemp to help it get away from the stigma of marijuana.

Hemp is a totally different plant and doesn't have the same medicinal properties.  It is mostly used for fabric, cosmetics, and dietary supplements. 

 

 

[cacheman]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am somewhat on the fence about declassifying marijuana. I think it should probably be at least a schedule 2 or 3 substance. That is technically a name for Cannabis Indica. This is the same genus but different species than what is sometimes called medical marijuana or Cannabis Sativa. I think to avoid confusion, it should be called medical hemp to help it get away from the stigma of marijuana. Unfortunately, Cannabis Sativa or CBD is also listed as a schedule I substance, and there is really no evidence that it belongs there. It has about zero evidence of addiction and abuse, which are the main criteria for scheduling drugs in federal law. So, to be clear, I believe Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis ruderalis  and CBD ought to be declassified in all probability, unless there arises evidence that it belongs there. 

 

Cannabis taxonomy can be confusing,  especially due to thousands of years of cultivation and usage.  All three 'species' (we could debate whether or not they are separate species) can have high or low levels of the different cannabinoids.  It's true that C. ruderalis typically had low levels of THC, but it's not always the case. Cannabis sativa commonly has high levels of THC.  In fact,  it is often preferred by recreational users due to its more euphoric qualities.  Cannabis indica is also commonly high in THC, and typically has more CBN which provides a more sedating effect.  The difference between 'marijuana' and 'hemp' is simply the THC content.  There are C. sativa hemp cultivars and C. indica cultivars,  as well as many hybrid hemp cultivars. Many C. ruderalis ecotypes would also be considered hemp due to their low THC content.  However,  the only commercial applications that I'm aware of for C. ruderalis is in breeding for high THC non photoperiodic hybrid cultivars.

Medicinal hemp cultivars (mostly those high in CBD) are almost all hybrids, and are often close to the 0.3% THC threshold. Since the only way to tell the difference between 'hemp' and 'marijuana' is by chemical analysis of the THC levels,  it can be challenging for growers to finish a crop with full confidence that they are still growing 'hemp', and that the THC levels didn't bump up to 0.31% over the last week.  There is no way to control the levels except for reliance on the genetics. I know growers that had to harvest early or destroy valuable crops due to the fear of their crop getting hot (>0.3%).

Technically,  according to US policy,  anyone growing 'recreational' Cannabis is growing 'hemp' until the the last 6 - 8 weeks of the flowering cycle.

If the government wants to continue making the arbitrary distinction between 'hemp' and 'marijuana' I would love to see that 0.3 threshold moved up to 1.0%. That would let more farmers sleep at night without worrying about the legality of their crop, and allow for a wider breeding germplasm pool.

Edited May 21, 2018 by cacheman

[cacheman]

52 minutes ago, pogi said:

Hemp is a totally different plant and doesn't have the same medicinal properties.  It is mostly used for fabric, cosmetics, and dietary supplements. 

'Hemp' and 'marijuana' only differ in their levels of THC.  There are a number of medicinal hemp cultivars grown for flowers high in CBD, CBG, or other cannabinoids.   

[RevTestament]

9 minutes ago, pogi said:

Not me.  I agree with the sentiment in this article, the fact that marijuana is schedule I "really is a national embarrassment." 

They didn't just make marijuana schedule I, they made all Cannabis schedule I, including hemp - which cannot get you high. 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-science-behind-the-dea-s-long-war-on-marijuana/

Hemp is a totally different plant and doesn't have the same medicinal properties.  It is mostly used for fabric, cosmetics, and dietary supplements. 

As I pointed out hemp is a different species of Cannabis, and there are strains with upwards of 20% CBDs. So it (Cannabis Sativa) and Cannabis ruderalis are definitely a main source of medicinal Cannabis products. Almost all strains or hybrids with more than 2% THC have significant Cannabis indica (marijuana) heritage. To avoid THC, just avoid indica heritage - or as much as possible. The problem is the high resin plants tend to be the best medical plants. You are right that "industrial hemp" is generally not considered useful for medical purposes, but that is not a straight correlation to Cannabis sativa, and the lines have become blurred with hundreds of years of cultivation. The other problem is that basically federal law ends up defining anything with more than .3% THC as marijuana, and anything below as hemp, which is a very arbitrary definition having nothing to do with the species or heritage. Potentially a crop with predominantly indica heritage could get approved as "hemp" by being harvested before its THC percentage rises above 0.3%. So that is how hemp can be classified as Schedule I. I guess the problem is if you see a crop growing how do you know how much indica heritage it has? Sativa and indica species do look different, but there are so many hybrids to meet medical needs and to try to avoid problems with federal laws that my one suggestion to simply legalize Cannabis sativa probably wont be feasible. It will probably need to be a limit of THC like the federal law - but just a little more lenient. Nevertheless, most medical varieties do have significant hemp heritage, like Charlotte's Web. https://www.projectcbd.org/about/cannabis-facts/sourcing-cbd-marijuana-industrial-hemp-vagaries-federal-law

ACDC is an even higher CBD containing strain that is supposed to be a sativa-dominant phenotype of the high-CBD cannabis strain Cannatonic. So is it "hemp" or is it "marijuana." I guess the answer is both genetically, but it has <1% THC by weight. I'm sure it is the result of hundreds of years of inter-breeding low THC indica strains and high CBD Sativa strains. I can't say I'm knowledgeable or in the biz, but it does seem most medical strains are hybrids with significant sativa/hemp heritage. Of course promoters are going to call it hemp.

I continue to feel CBD should not be listed. But there is evidence to support THC as a schedule 2-4 substance under the federal guidelines. Further, the .3% rule came about in an arbitrary fashion and needs to get canned so that medical hemp varieties containing slightly more THC, but not enough to be psychoactive, are not affected by Federal law.. Since the hemp name has been traditionally connected with the sativa species and marijuana to the indica species and its psychoactive THC, I am willing to go along with the industry PR and call medical varieties with low THC, medical hemp. I think that will help alleviate the stigma of marijuana and its psychoactive use.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

Cannabis taxonomy can be confusing,  especially due to thousands of years of cultivation and usage.  All three 'species' (we could debate whether or not they are separate species) can have high or low levels of the different cannabinoids.  It's true that C. ruderalis typically had low levels of THC, but it's not always the case. Cannabis sativa commonly has high levels of THC.  In fact,  it is often preferred by recreational users due to its more euphoric qualities.  Cannabis indica is also commonly high in THC, and typically has more CBN which provides a more sedating effect.  The difference between 'marijuana' and 'hemp' is simply the THC content.  There are C. sativa hemp cultivars and C. indica cultivars,  as well as many hybrid hemp cultivars. Many C. ruderalis ecotypes would also be considered hemp due to their low THC content.  However,  the only commercial applications that I'm aware of for C. ruderalis is in breeding for high THC non photoperiodic hybrid cultivars.

Medicinal hemp cultivars (mostly those high in CBD) are almost all hybrids, and are often close to the 0.3% THC threshold. Since the only way to tell the difference between 'hemp' and 'marijuana' is by chemical analysis of the THC levels,  it can be challenging for growers to finish a crop with full confidence that they are still growing 'hemp', and that the THC levels didn't bump up to 0.31% over the last week.  There is no way to control the levels except for reliance on the genetics. I know growers that had to harvest early or destroy valuable crops due to the fear of their crop getting hot (>0.3%).

Technically,  according to US policy,  anyone growing 'recreational' Cannabis is growing 'hemp' until the the last 6 - 8 weeks of the flowering cycle.

If the government wants to continue making the arbitrary distinction between 'hemp' and 'marijuana' I would love to see that 0.3 threshold moved up to 1.0%. That would let more farmers sleep at night without worrying about the legality of their crop, and allow for a wider breeding germplasm pool.

 

1 hour ago, cacheman said:

'Hemp' and 'marijuana' only differ in their levels of THC.  There are a number of medicinal hemp cultivars grown for flowers high in CBD, CBG, or other cannabinoids.   

Researching this subject led me to conclude there are two definitions of hemp. There is a traditional cultural definition of the use of primarily Cannabis sativa for plant fiber because it grew tall and straight as opposed to Cannabis indica which is a much shorter, bushier plant. So the name hemp came to be associated with Cannabis sativa. A typical dictionary defines it like this:

the cannabis plant, especially when grown for its fiber; the fiber of the cannabis plant, extracted from the stem and used to make rope, stout fabrics, fiberboard, and paper.

However, marijuana can also be referred to or defined as cannabis, but particularly when smoked.

The feds first tried to limit anything with high resin content because that was associated with high THC. They ended up later following a scientist's mention of 0.3% THC as "the magic limit" to demarcate what was illegal marijuana and what below was legal "hemp." So that became the federal definition. But as you note, sativa varieties with more than 0.3% THC might get called marijuana under federal law, while being used culturally as hemp. 

My main concern is not in semantics but in helping some people who desperately need help with a substance that has no business being effectively prohibited under Federal law, CBD. There are epileptics and other people who really desperately need CBDs, which have not been shown to have much downsides - certainly nothing warranting being ousted as a Schedule I substance. At the same time I do not wish to promote THC usage, except in very limited circumstances. I understand it may help people deal with chronic pain, but apparently CBD can too. So, that is where I fall on the subject. I don't care if a cannabis oil has 0.75% THC, I don't think it should be called marijuana. That is a name which culturally was applied to smoking THC varieties. Not only does THC have its own health risks, but smoking cannabis introduces dozens of carcinogens, and other health risks. It's a cultural name and stigma I do not wish to apply to medical use of CBD. So, I think it time that the federal definition get rejected. 

[jpv]

5 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I am somewhat on the fence about declassifying marijuana. I think it should probably be at least a schedule 2 or 3 substance. That is technically a name for Cannabis Indica. This is the same genus but different species than what is sometimes called medical marijuana or Cannabis Sativa. I think to avoid confusion, it should be called medical hemp to help it get away from the stigma of marijuana. Unfortunately, Cannabis Sativa or CBD is also listed as a schedule I substance, and there is really no evidence that it belongs there. It has about zero evidence of addiction and abuse, which are the main criteria for scheduling drugs in federal law. So, to be clear, I believe Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis ruderalis  and CBD ought to be declassified in all probability, unless there arises evidence that it belongs there. 

The main reason I am reluctant to support this measure is that it does seek to legalize marijuana as a medical substance. I am not presently supportive of that except in cases of terminal medical conditions, because I feel it does have a high potential for abuse. I am not in favor of legalizing marijuana for recreational use at all. 

If the measure were seeking to legalize only the use of hemp or Cannabis Sativa, Cannabis ruderalis or products with <1% THC, I would probably support it in its present form. I doubt anyone on the official Church side will jump on the bandwagon though and propose such a measure, so it will become up to private industry or some legislator to propose an acceptable bill. I know there are now many hybrids of Cannabis Sativa with Cannabis Idica,, so the bill could address this by either disallowing all hybrids or anything with a higher percentage than 1%THC or some other measure which will disallow enough THC for a "high." IMHO it could make an exception for terminal patients until further studies can convince the state to change its mind.

I think the bill can potentially avoid federal issues altogether if it addresses and allows only in state production and usage. That is because the main ability of the federal law to gain authority on this issue is with interstate commerce. Without interstate commerce going on, the federal government may run into issues with unconstitutionality. 

Those are my main two suggestions for whoever may propose a bill on this subject.

 

I don't see how someone being intellectually honest can be against legalization of medical cannabis, and not be in favor of banning alcohol, especially with all the restrictions in this proposition.

[jpv]

I do agree with your thoughts on descheduling.

Ridiculous that it's against the law in Utah for my daughter's neurologist to even advise us about dosage, etc. for CBD oil that's recommended for her condition.

Edited May 22, 2018 by jpv