LDS Church gets beat on medical marijuana

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Bumping for Kenngo

It isn't fully legal. Those actions are still prohibited by Federal Law. The advantage is that in some jurisdictions, local law enforcement can't prosecute those crimes because state or local laws do not apply.  However, at any time, the Federal government could still prosecute those actions as crimes. 

[poptart]

22 minutes ago, Duncan said:

fair enough!

When I lived in WA, i heard that ammo was cheaper up there.  I cry when i see the price of .338.  More i think about Canada it's like a fairytale land where ammo grows on trees, the streets are paved with gold, it rains glitter and happy elves high on sugar run around all day singing.  *sarcasm.

[RevTestament]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

It isn't fully legal. Those actions are still prohibited by Federal Law. The advantage is that in some jurisdictions, local law enforcement can't prosecute those crimes because state or local laws do not apply.  However, at any time, the Federal government could still prosecute those actions as crimes. 

While I'm sure liberal judges may find a way to apply them, I think federal laws and jurisdiction on this matter are technically constitutionally limited. They can bust you where they have jurisdiction and some power to police... on federal lands, and in the District of Columbia. The police power really should reside in the states. The Federal government does have the power to regulate interstate commerce - so things sent through the mail, maybe things on federal roads ie interstates, and things crossing borders or into the United States. However, if I feel like growing a poppy plant or cannabis plant, I really don't believe the feds should have the power to bust me, unless I am selling it and it is entering the stream of commerce - that is how they have extended their power under these laws. i really don't know what liberal judges would do here. Maybe they would feel that a personal grow is outside the realm of the feds to regulate. But if they get a whiff of you selling it, watch out.

[poptart]

Had to post this, guess the churches argument just went up in smoke....

 

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

Bumping for Kenngo

This is probably what he will say. Selling, and distribution in the stream of interstate commerce causes Federal law to become applicable, and MJ is illegal under Federal law. Therefore, being illegal any MJ in the interstate stream is fully and legally black market or illegal. 

[Bernard Gui]

12 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

If they are simply growing, transporting, distributing and selling it legally, how is it Black Market trade?

The black market continues to thrive in Washington. All you have to do is undercut the legal prices. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

While I'm sure liberal judges may find a way to apply them, I think federal laws and jurisdiction on this matter are technically constitutionally limited. They can bust you where they have jurisdiction and some power to police... on federal lands, and in the District of Columbia. The police power really should reside in the states. The Federal government does have the power to regulate interstate commerce - so things sent through the mail, maybe things on federal roads ie interstates, and things crossing borders or into the United States. However, if I feel like growing a poppy plant or cannabis plant, I really don't believe the feds should have the power to bust me, unless I am selling it and it is entering the stream of commerce - that is how they have extended their power under these laws. i really don't know what liberal judges would do here. Maybe they would feel that a personal grow is outside the realm of the feds to regulate. But if they get a whiff of you selling it, watch out.

A plant or two would probably not even get a cursory glance. A hundred or a thousand might get some scrutiny.

If pot is a good medical treatment, then treat it like all other prescribed medicines. Period. It should no be given a free pass for any reason. The Church is well within its rights and duties to oppose.

In WA, medical was used as a steppingstone to the real goal...recreational use. 

More on the blessings of legalization and the black market....

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/16/610579599/despite-legalization-marijuana-black-market-hides-in-plain-sight

“Given the low wholesale prices in Washington, investigators believe the illegal grows are producing for other states where prices are higher, and are here simply to use the local legal pot industry as cover.”

Edited May 31, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Kenngo1969]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

This is probably what he will say. Selling, and distribution in the stream of interstate commerce causes Federal law to become applicable, and MJ is illegal under Federal law. Therefore, being illegal any MJ in the interstate stream is fully and legally black market or illegal. 

I'm perfectly capable of speaking for myself if-and-when I am inclined to do so, and, with all due respect, I need neither you nor anyone else to speak for me.  Thanks.

[toon]

14 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

By the way, it should be noted that those who trade in black market marijuana now are taking advantage of legalization trends here in the United States:  "Why should we risk growing it outside the U.S. and potentially getting caught for possession with intent to distribute in states in which it is still illegal (at least on the state level; it should also be remembered that possession, distribution, and use violate federal law nationwide) when we can simply grow, transport, distribute, and sell it IN the U.S. legally?"

The fact that it is stll illegal federally ... nationwide ... Is likely to play a role in the stance of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints concerning it.

I suspect that very few businesses in the "legal" manufacture, distribution, and sale of marijuana under state and local laws will be tempted to also trade in the black market. So long as the feds hold off, they will have too much to lose (basically their entire legal business plus jail time) if the branch out into the black market. Those who want to remain legal have a very strong incentive to operate legally.

Kind of like how restaurants and stores have become increasingly strict about checking IDs when selling alcohol to someone who may even be remotely close to underage. Selling to a minor comes with huge penalties, including the potential loss of a liquor license, which in many cases can be a death sentence. Depending on the nature of the establishment, if you can't sell alcohol, you're out of business. Also like how manufacturers of alcohol (brewers, wineries, distilleries, etc.) strictly adhere to the manufacture and distribution laws.

I have a friend whose son was hired as a checker in a grocery store. On his first or second day on the job, he made an innocent mistake of not analyzing closely someone's ID and misread the birth date. It was a sting. He was immediately fired. The matter was referred to the DA for misdemeanor prosecution (eventually dismissed). And the store was fined with a warning that a second violation in the next year would result in revocation of their license.

Edited May 31, 2018 by toon

[Kenngo1969]

4 minutes ago, toon said:

I suspect that very few businesses in the "legal" manufacture, distribution, and sale of marijuana under state and local laws will be tempted to also trade in the black market. ...

That wasn't what I was referring to.  Thanks.

[RevTestament]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

If pot is a good medical treatment, then treat like all other prescribed medicines. Period. The Church is well within its rights and duties to oppose.

The point of medicines being prescribed is that they have the potential to damage you, become addictive, or have undesirable side effects. Does CBD cannabis really have any of these things? I have seen almost zilch. Do I really need a prescription to grow some tobacco and slap it on my wound? Or to pour alcohol on my wound? Or to drink sleepy time tea to calm myself and go to sleep? Most prescribed pain killers have serious side effects. CBD doesn't seem to have hardly any - the anecdotal evidence is quite positive for it, but studies have been somewhat limited due to the legal status of MJ. The initiative doesn't seek to avoid the prescription process. It is just not through the usual distribution channels. I think trying to turn medical cannabis into a prescription pill would make it much more expensive, and defeat the purpose of medical cannabis as a medical option. I know someone with somewhat intractable seizures. The seizure medications that work best caused her to gain a lot of weight. She also doesn't have spare money for a $50 pill a couple of times every day. I am confident CBD cannabis could be a huge benefit to her, but it needs to be legal and affordable.

Quote

In WA, medical was used as a steppingstone to the real goal...recreational use. 

More on the blessings of legalization and the black market....

https://www.npr.org/2018/05/16/610579599/despite-legalization-marijuana-black-market-hides-in-plain-sight

“Given the low wholesale prices in Washington, investigators believe the illegal grows are producing for other states where prices are higher, and are here simply to use the local legal pot industry as cover.”

I do believe the current initiative is looking to make THC strains available in UT as a stepping stone to later wide-spread use, which is why I oppose it. I do not believe recreational use of MJ is healthy, wise nor desirable for society at large. The main problem I see is that it will be difficult to visually discern high THC strains from legal medical CBD strains which will probably encourage the growth of the high THC strains. Admitted problem. I don't see a way around that - maybe a way to to quickly test samples for their THC? That is beyond my expertise. However, I think the threat of legal growers losing their license should dissuade them from growing the illegal stuff (assuming high THC varieties are illegal), and that law enforcement should have a way of quickly checking who has a legal license to grow and who does not. If only low THC(ie non psychoactive) was legal and licensed, I think Utah could avoid the Washington problem.

[Bernard Gui]

16 minutes ago, toon said:

I suspect that very few businesses in the "legal" manufacture, distribution, and sale of marijuana under state and local laws will be tempted to also trade in the black market. So long as the feds hold off, they will have too much to lose (basically their entire legal business plus jail time) if the branch out into the black market. Those who want to remain legal have a very strong incentive to operate legally.

Check out the NPR link I posted above. 

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

The point of medicines being prescribed is that they have the potential to damage you, become addictive, or have undesirable side effects. Does CBD cannabis really have any of these things? I have seen almost zilch. Do I really need a prescription to grow some tobacco and slap it on my wound? Or to pour alcohol on my wound? Or to drink sleepy time tea to calm myself and go to sleep? Most prescribed pain killers have serious side effects. CBD doesn't seem to have hardly any - the anecdotal evidence is quite positive for it, but studies have been somewhat limited due to the legal status of MJ. The initiative doesn't seek to avoid the prescription process. It is just not through the usual distribution channels. I think trying to turn medical cannabis into a prescription pill would make it much more expensive, and defeat the purpose of medical cannabis as a medical option. I know someone with somewhat intractable seizures. The seizure medications that work best caused her to gain a lot of weight. She also doesn't have spare money for a $50 pill a couple of times every day. I am confident CBD cannabis could be a huge benefit to her, but it needs to be legal and affordable.

I do believe the current initiative is looking to make THC strains available in UT as a stepping stone to later wide-spread use, which is why I oppose it. I do not believe recreational use of MJ is healthy, wise nor desirable for society at large. The main problem I see is that it will be difficult to visually discern high THC strains from legal medical CBD strains which will probably encourage the growth of the high THC strains. Admitted problem. I don't see a way around that - maybe a way to to quickly test samples for their THC? That is beyond my expertise. However, I think the threat of legal growers losing their license should dissuade them from growing the illegal stuff (assuming high THC varieties are illegal), and that law enforcement should have a way of quickly checking who has a legal license to grow and who does not. If only low THC(ie non psychoactive) was legal and licensed, I think Utah could avoid the Washington problem.

I understand what you are saying, but “I have seens, I know someone’s, Ifs, and seems” do not give me any assurance. Here’s my if...

if pot is indeed a legitimate treatment that should be prescribed, then treat it like all other prescribed medicines. I’m not aware of any other prescribed medicines that have not been studied, standardized, regulated, and dispensed by trained and certified pharmacists in licensed pharmacies, rather than by Jimmy and Yolanda in a strip mall herb shop. I have visited local pot shops to observe for myself what goes on.

Why does “medical” marijuana get a pass? Please provide convincing evidence that  this is wrong. 

Edited June 1, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand what you are saying, but “I have seens, I know someone’s, Ifs, and seems” do not give me any assurance. Here’s my if...

if pot is indeed a legitimate treatment that should be prescribed, then treat it like all other prescribed medicines. I’m not aware of any other prescribed medicines that have not been studied, standardized, regulated, and dispensed by trained and certified pharmacists in licensed pharmacies, rather than by Jimmy and Yolanda in a strip mall herb shop. I have visited local pot shops to observe for myself what goes on.

Why does “medical” marijuana get a pass? Please provide convincing evidrnce that  this is wrong. 

I think the burden is on the scientific and medical establishment to show something is dangerous enough to require a prescription. Otherwise they could literally require you to have a prescription to drink herb tea. If there is no discernible danger, why require a prescription? or to be made into some type of standardized expensive drug?  I don't think they have done this analysis with CBD cannabis strains - at least not any that has shown a danger worthy of requiring a prescription or some kind of prescription drug. Maybe some danger of overdose will show up, but it doesn't seem even this is a real danger. I think states are requiring a prescription because medical CBD strains do have a little THC, and they are exhibiting a willingness to test this product in the market. Most (I haven't counted) are also allowing the higher THC strains to be sold for medical use. OTOH, I believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to show THC marijuana - esp smoking it - does have detrimental and long term effects. I do not oppose making it some kind of prescription drug available to only terminal patients, but as a matter of practicality, here in Utah it may be best just to stay away from THC strains altogether, and call it medical cannabis or hemp.

There are a good number of MDs who now favor use of CBD strains for various treatments. Why? Because the evidence is convincing.

I feel Utah should abandon the MM name and ditch any effort to legalize anything but low THC/non-psychoactive strains, and call it medical cannabis. Maybe after awhile it won't even require a prescription. However, I think a watchful eye for the higher THC strains will always be necessary unless Utah were to ever decide to legalize it.

[Calm]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

I'm in Utah and haven't heard that.

I never got notified...

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I think the burden is on the scientific and medical establishment to show something is dangerous enough to require a prescription. Otherwise they could literally require you to have a prescription to drink herb tea. If there is no discernible danger, why require a prescription? or to be made into some type of standardized expensive drug?  I don't think they have done this analysis with CBD cannabis strains - at least not any that has shown a danger worthy of requiring a prescription or some kind of prescription drug. Maybe some danger of overdose will show up, but it doesn't seem even this is a real danger. I think states are requiring a prescription because medical CBD strains do have a little THC, and they are exhibiting a willingness to test this product in the market. Most (I haven't counted) are also allowing the higher THC strains to be sold for medical use. OTOH, I believe there is sufficient scientific evidence to show THC marijuana - esp smoking it - does have detrimental and long term effects. I do not oppose making it some kind of prescription drug available to only terminal patients, but as a matter of practicality, here in Utah it may be best just to stay away from THC strains altogether, and call it medical cannabis or hemp.

There are a good number of MDs who now favor use of CBD strains for various treatments. Why? Because the evidence is convincing.

I feel Utah should abandon the MM name and ditch any effort to legalize anything but low THC/non-psychoactive strains, and call it medical cannabis. Maybe after awhile it won't even require a prescription. However, I think a watchful eye for the higher THC strains will always be necessary unless Utah were to ever decide to legalize it.

I understand you to be saying that it doesn't need to be treated like medicine because it is harmless. Is this correct?

All the anecdotal evidence in the world does not qualify a drug to be marketed as a medicine. If herbal tea were being promoted as a legitimate medicine requiring a note from a doctor but were distributed from strip malls, I would say the same thing for herbal tea. Does the FDA regulate and certify the purity of the pot and percentages of CBC and THC in these shops? I saw no evidence of that. That's certainly the case with other prescription drugs.

It wasn't the doctors who pushed "medical" marijuana on the Washington voters. In the end, it was just a sham and a ploy to legalize recreational marijuana. Follow the money. 

And then there's the study published today that shows increased deaths caused by driving under the influence of pot in states where it has been legalized. Duh. It's the pits.

I'm very strongly opinionated about pot. As a retired school teacher (42 years) who taught the same students from 4th through 12th grade and got to know them pretty well, I could tell by the change in their behavior when they started smoking pot. It was never a change for the better. This and 13 years experience with the LDS addiction recovery program and with two of my own children have rendered me an adamant opponent against its use. If certain parts of the chemical makeup can be proven to have true scientific medical merit, of course, make it a legitimate medicine. In the meantime, I can't go for a possible scam. It would take a heap of convincing to change my mind about it as a recreational drug. Probably won't ever happen.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

I understand you to be saying that it doesn't need to be treated like medicine because it is harmless. Is this correct?

All the anecdotal evidence in the world does not qualify a drug to be marketed as a medicine. If herbal tea were being promoted as a legitimate medicine requiring a note from a doctor but were distributed from strip malls, I would say the same thing for herbal tea. Does the FDA regulate and certify the purity of the pot and percentages of CBC and THC in these shops? I saw no evidence of that. That's certainly the case with other prescription drugs.

It wasn't the doctors who pushed "medical" marijuana on the Washington voters. In the end, it was just a sham and a ploy to legalize recreational marijuana. Follow the money. 

I agree there is a certain element of a "sham" going on in this Utah initiative. That is why I have said repeatedly I do not support it, and I won't vote for it as is. I do not favor loosey-goosey approval of "pot." Washington allowed in medical marijuana ie high THC strains, and you can even buy THC purified. That is what I would like to avoid in favor of true medical use of CBD strains. Perhaps it is safer for someone to sponsor a real bill rather than to keep trying to defend against a bad initiative like Utah faces. People may just get tired of it, and not really understand what's at stake. If the state licenses it, and oversees it, it can collect enough money to ensure that the shops are not selling imported THC strains or THC products. The main reason I think this has to be done in the medical category is not because I think there is significant evidence that CBD may be unsafe, but because of the potential for THC products to work their way in. Regulating that would seek to prevent the usage for THC highs. 

Quote

And then there's the study published today that shows increased deaths caused by driving under the influence of pot in states where it has been legalized. Duh. It's the pits.

I'm very strongly opinionated about pot. As a retired school teacher (42 years) who taught the same students from 4th through 12th grade and got to know them pretty well, I could tell by the change in their behavior when they started smoking pot. It was never a change for the better. This and 13 years experience with the LDS addiction recovery program and with two of my own children have rendered me an adamant opponent against its use. If certain parts of the chemical makeup can be proven to have true scientific medical merit, of course, make it a legitimate medicine. In the meantime, I can't go for a possible scam. It would take a heap of convincing to change my mind about it as a recreational drug. Probably won't ever happen.

Again you keep talking like I am trying to get medical marijuana approved. I have repeatedly said I do not support the use of THC strains with psychoactive THC levels - recreational or medical(except possibly in the case of terminal conditions as a palliative treatment). I think it best for Utah if it just avoid the THC strains altogether. If I were in Washington, I would not like what is going on either. Perhaps that is all the more reason to propose an alternate and safe plan. I think the current Utah Initiative is trying to push a repeat of what happened in Washington. Instead,  one suggestion I have is to steal their thunder and approve true medical cannabis rather than allowing all the THC stuff.  Otherwise the voters might just slap you. Which is worse? Further, I don't feel it is right to continue to deny a safe and effective treatment for conditions which affect a significant portion of our population based on fears that illegal use will go up. I'll leave it at that. I don't use cannabis, and have never bought the stuff. i do not favor recreational use or really any use of THC strains. But if I had someone with intractable seizures in my family, I sure would want CBD strains to be available. Sometimes there is just no known effective substitute according to numerous medical professionals.  

[Meerkat]

I know a fellow who uses CBD cream for his arthritis.  He says Capsacian cream turns uncomfortably hot, so he doesn't use that and lives with his pain.  He is concerned that naproxin and other pills are hard on the kidneys, so doesn't take them.  Then he found CBD cream.  He says relief is almost immediate with no apparent mind altering side effects, and is long lasting.  If studies show similar results, I would be surprised if the Church opposes it.    The "Let them govern themselves" clause takes obedience to commandments and suggestions out of the hands of well meaning micromanagers, and places them with the individual.  God knows when we are abusing anything.  Hence the necessity to "Govern ourselves"

Edited June 1, 2018 by Meerkat

[Exiled]

5 hours ago, Meerkat said:

I know a fellow who uses CBD cream for his arthritis.  He says Capsacian cream turns uncomfortably hot, so he doesn't use that and lives with his pain.  He is concerned that naproxin and other pills are hard on the kidneys, so doesn't take them.  Then he found CBD cream.  He says relief is almost immediate with no apparent mind altering side effects, and is long lasting.  If studies show similar results, I would be surprised if the Church opposes it.    The "Let them govern themselves" clause takes obedience to commandments and suggestions out of the hands of well meaning micromanagers, and places them with the individual.  God knows when we are abusing anything.  Hence the necessity to "Govern ourselves"

My mother, temple recommend holder, uses medical marijuana for her knee pain. The dose she takes is similar to taking hydrocodone as far as pain relieving strength goes yet without an addiction risk. It works for her and does for many others too. Let the people govern themselves, yes.

[cacheman]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

And then there's the study published today that shows increased deaths caused by driving under the influence of pot in states where it has been legalized. Duh. It's the pits.

CFR.  I'm familiar with the GHSA report that just came out.  But, it doesn't show 'increased deaths caused by driving under the influence of pot in states where it has been legalized'.  Could you please share this study you're referencing or let us know if you just misinterpreted the alcohol industry funded GHSA report?

[Meerkat]

13 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

All the anecdotal evidence in the world does not qualify a drug to be marketed as a medicine. If herbal tea were being promoted as a legitimate medicine requiring a note from a doctor but were distributed from strip malls, I would say the same thing for herbal tea. Does the FDA regulate and certify the purity of the pot and percentages of CBC and THC in these shops? I saw no evidence of that. That's certainly the case with other prescription drugs.

It wasn't the doctors who pushed "medical" marijuana on the Washington voters. In the end, it was just a sham and a ploy to legalize recreational marijuana. Follow the money. 

And then there's the study published today that shows increased deaths caused by driving under the influence of pot in states where it has been legalized. Duh. It's the pits.

You make some good points here.  In a perfect world I would agree.  But I have to agree with Rev Testament's last comment on this subject.  Naproxen used to be a prescription drug.  Now it's over the counter.  Alcohol is a component of over the counter medications and products sold in stores.  There are inappropriate ways to use Pam and other products found in a store.  If I'm not mistaken, some of the drugs manufactured and destroying our youth are made from readily available over the counter ingredients. Amateur chemists can and do create new mind altering drugs all the time.   That's the problem with agency.  People can figure things out and do things for money.  

I'm not advocating for anarchy.  It just doesn't make sense to me that more derivatives of mj haven't been approved for medical use by the FDA when the anecdotal evidence is so overwhelming.  The FDA.gov website acknowledges that the THC chemical structure can help relieve seizures and other afflictions.  There are conspiracy theories out there why approval hasn't happened.  

Here is a quote from the FDA.gov website: "The FDA is aware that marijuana or marijuana-derived products are being used for a number of medical conditions including, for example, AIDS wasting, epilepsy, neuropathic pain, treatment of spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, and cancer and chemotherapy-induced nausea. To date, the FDA has not approved a marketing application for a drug product containing or derived from botanical marijuana and has not found any such product to be safe and effective for any indication."

I believe that is one reason why voters are generally unhappy with government stonewalling and have approved medical marijuana in 29 states.  I am opposed to recreational use.  That is why I wish there was a less expensive and less political FDA approval process.  Unfortunately, just as the majority accepts legalized recreational alcohol, there is a significant constituency for legalized recreational marijuana. 

Alcohol is a pathway drug.  Marijuana is a pathway drug.  Some say tobacco is also a pathway drug.  Notwithstanding those abuses, there are legitimate therapeutic uses for each of them that should not be prevented.  I believe that is one of the reasons President Trump signed "right to try" legislation within the past two days, with popular support, bypassing the FDA (and pharma lobbyists who can slow down the approval process for money,) for certain groups of patients.

Edited June 1, 2018 by Meerkat

[Regor]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

The United States Department of Agriculture has nothing to do with the regulation of marijuana in the United States.  The wisdom of allowing medicinal use of marijuana or of whether such use is consistent with obeying the Word of Wisdom certainly can be debated.  However, I don't think there's much dispute that the psychoactive component(s) in marijuana mean that it is a drug, and as such is not regulated by the Food and Drug Administration or by the Department of Agriculture.

Sorry, I did intended to say the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). And I don't think they can regulate it, because it occurs naturally, not made synthetically. The Gadiantons in the government can't make money on it. Oh, wait, yes they can, they pass legislation not allowing it to be use for medical need so they can receive campaign contributions from the pharmaceutical companies.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, Meerkat said:

You make some good points here.  In a perfect world I would agree.  But I have to agree with Rev Testament's last comment on this subject.  Naproxen used to be a prescription drug.  Now it's over the counter.  Alcohol is a component of over the counter medications and products sold in stores.  There are inappropriate ways to use Pam and other products found in a store.  If I'm not mistaken, some of the drugs manufactured and destroying our youth are made from readily available over the counter ingredients. Amateur chemists can and do create new mind altering drugs all the time.   That's the problem with agency.  People can figure things out and do things for money.  

I'm not advocating for anarchy.  It just doesn't make sense to me that more derivatives of mj haven't been approved for medical use by the FDA when the anecdotal evidence is so overwhelming.  The FDA.gov website acknowledges that the THC chemical structure can help relieve seizures and other afflictions.  There are conspiracy theories out there why approval hasn't happened.  

Here is a quote from the FDA.gov website: "The FDA is aware that marijuana or marijuana-derived products are being used for a number of medical conditions including, for example, AIDS wasting, epilepsy, neuropathic pain, treatment of spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, and cancer and chemotherapy-induced nausea. To date, the FDA has not approved a marketing application for a drug product containing or derived from botanical marijuana and has not found any such product to be safe and effective for any indication."

I believe that is one reason why voters are generally unhappy with government stonewalling and have approved medical marijuana in 29 states.  I am opposed to recreational use.  That is why I wish there was a less expensive and less political FDA approval process.  Unfortunately, just as the majority accepts legalized recreational alcohol, there is a significant demand for legalized recreational marijuana. 

Alcohol is a pathway drug.  Marijuana is a pathway drug.  Some say tobacco is also a pathway drug.  Notwithstanding those abuses, there are legitimate therapeutic uses for each of them that should not be prevented.  I believe that is one of the reasons President Trump signed "right to try" legislation within the past two days, with popular support, bypassing the FDA (and pharma lobbyists who can slow down the approval process for money,) for certain groups of patients.

Actually, the Feds have a patent on the stuff while essentially keeping it illegal! U.S. Patent No. 6,630,507 was granted in 2003 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the potential use of non-psychoactive cannabinoids to protect the brain from damage or degeneration caused by certain diseases, such as cirrhosis. I believe the trick with cannabis is keeping out the mostly undesirable use of THC strains, which have proven medical drawbacks and negative societal implications while allowing use for beneficial CBDs which so far seem to have few to no drawbacks. I seek to legislate a rational and beneficial use of the latter while avoiding the former. I believe the former is why we need legislation on the issue or else I'm not sure there is much point in legislating it as I think eventually THC strains will work themselves into the public through the gateway of legal medical use, unfortunately.

[cacheman]

12 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Actually, the Feds have a patent on the stuff while essentially keeping it illegal! U.S. Patent No. 6,630,507 was granted in 2003 to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for the potential use of non-psychoactive cannabinoids to protect the brain from damage or degeneration caused by certain diseases, such as cirrhosis. I believe the trick with cannabis is keeping out the mostly undesirable use of THC strains, which have proven medical drawbacks and negative societal implications while allowing use for beneficial CBDs which so far seem to have few to no drawbacks. I seek to legislate a rational and beneficial use of the latter while avoiding the former. I believe the former is why we need legislation on the issue or else I'm not sure there is much point in legislating it as I think eventually THC strains will work themselves into the public through the gateway of legal medical use, unfortunately.

All you seem to be suggesting is to move the arbitrary 0.3% to an arbitrary 1.0%.  Or, is there more? Do you have a scientific rationale behind your 1.0% THC cutoff?  Since THC, THCA, and THCV all have medical potential based on published research, what is your rationale for keeping them illegal while at the same time supporting the legality of alcohol? 

[2BizE]

I'm glad this issue passed and is going to the voters. There are many good things marijuana can help with medically.   In states and countries where mm is legal, the world still continues to spin.  Two things grind me the wrong way with the church's involvement.  1) Too often the church uses its position to take away the agency of its members by opposing or supporting issues.  Members should be able to review issues on their own and come to their own conclusions.  2) in my profession, it is expected that conflicts of  interest be made transparent. If an obvious conflict of interest conflicts with a decision, I should remove myself from voting as to maintain integrity of the decision.  It has been revealed, not by the church, the church's financial interests in big Pharma, which have been in conflict with mm.  (ie continued involvement in opioid epedemic). For the church to use its vast resources to develop opposition documents seems a conflict of interest.  I would hope the church would always take the higher road.