LDS Church gets beat on medical marijuana

[Bernard Gui]

29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that I believed Jesus used cannabis.  The speculation that I posted about is that Jesus used this oil that evidently was used by Jews at the time that contained cannabis.  The link to the scriptures of what this oil contained was already posted.  Since I never wanted to imply that I believed Jesus used cannabis, I easily withdraw the statement.  We good?

Sure, no worries,  but just to be clear, there is no scriptural reference to Jesus healing a blind man with any kind of oil so the link to healing glaucoma is bogus, and it is not clear that the oil used by his disciples was the same temple mixture described in Exodus nor that it was used to anoint the sick.

Quote

30 “Anoint Aaron and his sons and consecrate them so they may serve me as priests. 31 Say to the Israelites, ‘This is to be my sacred anointing oil for the generations to come. 32 Do not pour it on anyone else’s body and do not make any other oil using the same formula. It is sacred, and you are to consider it sacred. 33 Whoever makes perfume like it and puts it on anyone other than a priest must be cut off from their people.’”

 

Edited June 2, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Seems to me that if pot were really this fantastic medical cure-all, Big Pharma would be the first in line to capitalize on it and corner the market. Who has all the resources in place to make it Big Pot? There’s a ton of money to be made...already being made in the little strip mall pot pharmacies. Big Pharma could co-opt the co-ops and run them out of business, sucking up all the pot trade. If their objective is to make lots and lots of money, wouldn’t they want this miracle drug cash cow all for their own? Thus the Church should be all in for that because Big Pot would make its investments in Big Pharma even more lucrative. Only a fool would oppose something that could exponentially increase the value of his portfolio. Seriously.

This is actually my biggest reason for not legalizing pot for general use.  Not sure what the Utah law requires, but I know that the medical marijuana California law made it very difficult for corporations to control the product.  Large scale harvesting was prohibited for that very reason.  I think that there are still extremely tight regulations on how large of production is allowed.  And part of the problem is patenting marijuana products.  Without patents, Big Pharma has a much more difficult time controlling their drugs.  That is why generics have become an important part of drug pricing.  But make no mistake.  I clearly believe if Big Pharm or Big Tobacco could capitalize on marijuana, they would be the first to the money trough.

I might add, I don't think the church opposes medical marijuana because of their stock portfolio.  That seems pretty far fetched.  Honestly from what the church has put out about this issue, I think they believe all of the demonization of pot and don't think the medical benefits are significant enough to warrant legalizing it.

Edited June 2, 2018 by california boy

[Exiled]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

Any mind altering effects?

Mom has mild dementia, mainly memory stuff...I don't think .I would feel comfortable her living on her own if there was any loopiness with it, but she is in a lot of pain that ibuprofen just takes the edge off of.  I don't feel comfortable with asking her doctor for an opiod because of the dementia.

No mind altering affects. Medical marijuana can be modified to eliminate the parts associated with getting "high." My mother has never tasted alcohol as far as I know and wouldn't stand for anything other than pain relief. She seems happy using it. 

I don't feel comfortable with the addictive properties in opioids either and the mind altering affects they have as well. Personally, I hated taking them when I had a car accident years ago. The opioids made me axious and angry.

[cacheman]

11 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Cannabis?  [Ken searches for picture of bus].

Oh.  Wait.  You spelled it correctly!  Congratulations!  

The trick is that it's fairly easy to determine who is impaired by alcohol, how much they are impaired,  and what level of intoxication will result from the consumption of a particular quantity of alcohol within a given period of time. Not so with marijuana.  How do we deal with that?  Do we ban people from driving who have any measurable amount of THC in their blood?

These are good questions.  Currently,  there is a lot of variance among states regarding blood or saliva levels of THC.  The research on this is more developed in Europe, and in my opinionwe have enough info now to establish some initial guidelines.  I'm not opposed to states setting their own limits,  but some are ridiculous.  In Utah, for example simply the presence of metabolites is sufficient for a DUI conviction.  That means that someone who smoked a joint a week or two ago (possibly up to a month) is subject to prosecution.  Colorado,  on the other hand allows a much wider latitude and even their 5ng threshold is not set in stone and can be argued in court as not impairing.  

In my opinion,  the 5ng threshold seems about right based on our  current levels of knowledge.  Many would argue that 5ng is too low or too high, but I think it's a good starting point that errs on the side of caution.    I would support laws that set concrete thresholds at 5ng, but also allow prosecutors the flexibility to argue for impairment at lower levels based on standard field sobriety tests or evidence of unsafe driving.  As more research comes,  we should adjust testing procedures in light of better information. 

I am not supportive of the alcohol industry effort to differentiate alcohol from other drugs by using the DUID terminology (as seen in the sources that Bernard used).  This effort is a ploy to maintain the public perception that alcohol is not a drug. 

FYI - When I was in Costa Rica last year I saw a Canabus on the road in front of me!  

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Thanks for this post, you explained it beautifully. And about the oil Jesus may have used to heal the blind man and the quote with actual cannabis being a sacred oil, wow!

I actually think a lot of the crazy prophesies in the bible may be from ingesting too much of the stuff. Finding these things out, gets crazier and crazier, realizing that half the bible is probably stories from those that have ingested too many mushrooms and cannabis..

One good thing about being limited is that I can't down vote you.

[2PairsofCletes]

On 5/30/2018 at 4:44 PM, Tacenda said:

If MM was in a pill, I'm pretty sure it'd be ok. The church is about the looks of a person smoking a joint. All about the looks, I believe.

It is. It's also in edible forms like crackers and chocolate bites

[jpv]

On 5/30/2018 at 1:11 PM, bluebell said:

Medical Marijuana ballot initiative passes

This should be interesting.  I wonder how firm the church is willing to get with medical marijuana?  For instance, if it passes in November, will they then specify what is allowable use for members?  I realize that this is old news in other states but I don't think that means the church is guaranteed to stay silent on it.

I'm in favor of the initiative, but this headline is ridiculous.

[Tacenda]

On 6/2/2018 at 8:42 AM, RevTestament said:

One good thing about being limited is that I can't down vote you.

Do you believe God would command these prophets to do these things, or were some of these prophets ingesting something? I believe the latter. 

https://listverse.com/2016/01/17/10-strange-and-controversial-biblical-prophets/

http://entheology.com/peoples/revelation-a-psychdelic-vision/

Edited June 3, 2018 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

On 6/2/2018 at 10:12 AM, 2PairsofCletes said:

It is. It's also in edible forms like crackers and chocolate bites

I'm looking into the nasal spray, I don't want to smoke a joint, or a puff a day in the words of Dr. Wenk. https://cannabis.net/blog/medical/cannabis-researcher-says-a-puff-a-day-can-prevent-alzheimers

In his Ted talk he mentions it can be done by using a patch or nasal spray as well. I just emailed him to see. I don't want to get high, hate that feeling. 

[Calm]

You should be careful with nasal sprays unless they have been tested.  I know a couple of people who lost their sense of smell through using them.  I don't know how rare that side effect is or if it would occur with this type of drug, but you should research beforehand if that would bother you a lot.

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You should be careful with nasal sprays unless they have been tested.  I know a couple of people who lost their sense of smell through using them.  I don't know how rare that side effect is or if it would occur with this type of drug, but you should research beforehand if that would bother you a lot.

I'm already losing my sense of smell, sign of Alzheimer's. 😩

[cacheman]

5 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm looking into the nasal spray, I don't want to smoke a joint, or a puff a day in the words of Dr. Wenk. https://cannabis.net/blog/medical/cannabis-researcher-says-a-puff-a-day-can-prevent-alzheimers

In his Ted talk he mentions it can be done by using a patch or nasal spray as well. I just emailed him to see. I don't want to get high, hate that feeling. 

I believe that the research on alzheimers has focused on THC's effects.  Nasal sprays containing THC will get you high, but you might be able to find sprays with THCA (the acidic precursor to THC). THCA is non-psychoactive, but effective for inflammation.  The patches might be something for you to consider, as they won't get you high.  

Another option if you have access, is to eat raw Cannabis flowers.  You can throw them in smoothies or pestos. In raw Cannabis.  The THCA will only convert to THC if heated. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, Calm said:

You should be careful with nasal sprays unless they have been tested.  I know a couple of people who lost their sense of smell through using them.  I don't know how rare that side effect is or if it would occur with this type of drug, but you should research beforehand if that would bother you a lot.

This is a major problem with pot medical lore. Tons of armchair experts with anecdotal stories about its miraculous properties, and widespread mythology that it is harmless and has no side effects. That’s how it was sold to us voters in Washington.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[california boy]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is a major problem with pot medical lore. Tons of armchair experts with anecdotal stories about its miraculous properties, and widespread mythology that it is harmless and has no side effects. That’s how it was sold to us voters in Washington.

Were their claims proven wrong?

[cacheman]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This is a major problem with pot medical lore. Tons of armchair experts with anecdotal stories about its miraculous properties, and widespread mythology that it is harmless and has no side effects. That’s how it was sold to us voters in Washington.

To be fair,  in this instance Tacenda refrrenced a popular press article about some research and then contacted the researcher herself for further information.  I wouldn't call Dr. Gary Wenk an armchair expert.   Here's some info about him: https://news.osu.edu/faculty-experts/n–z/wenk-gary.html

In response,  Calm added a word of caution and suggested more research which is always a good thing. 

Contrast this with your misreports of research (and your stated wish not to debate or discuss them).  Add the multiple posts of your anecdotal and personal stories which underlie your strong negative opinions.  

There is no doubt a lot of exaggerated or misleading information out there on the medicinal value of Cannabis,  but the armchair experts abound on all sides. 

Edited June 4, 2018 by cacheman

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, cacheman said:

To be fair,  in this instance Tacenda refrrenced a popular press article about some research and then contacted the researcher herself for further information.  I wouldn't call Dr. Gary Wenk an armchair expert.   Here's some info about him: https://news.osu.edu/faculty-experts/n–z/wenk-gary.html

In response,  Calm added a word of caution and suggested more research which is always a good thing. 

Contrast this with your misreports of research (and your stated wish not to debate or discuss them).  Add the multiple posts of your anecdotal and personal stories which underlie your strong negative opinions.  

There is no doubt a lot of exaggerated or misleading information out there on the medicinal value of Cannabis,  but the armchair experts abound on all sides. 

Yep, I have strong personal opinions (and 13 years of armchair experiences) and an unalterably closed mind about pot. No apologies from me. I fly that freak flag proudly. There is no point in wasting time debating about sources. It always turns out the same...pro sources are invariably objective, unbiased, authoritative, and definitive and anti sources are always biased, misreported, flawed, and bogus. Been there, done that with the extended and bitter debate about the legalization of pot in Washington. Tired of it. I am not interested in that debate anymore. It is pointless. 

Nothing good comes from recreational pot, but my attitude towards “medical” usage has been clear, consistent, and reasonable. I have stated it many times. Perhaps you have missed it. I’ll say it once again.If some components of marijuana have true scientific medicinal value, then treat it like all other legitimate prescribed medicines....studied, standardized, approved, regulated, prescribed by licensed physicians, and dispensed by licensed professional pharmacists, not Melissa and Jerome selling strains, oils, and brownies in their strip mall hole with the guy spinning the green cross sign out on the street. More power to the Dr. Wenks of the world, less power to the armchair experts and their anecdotal evidence. I just listened to one as he made his case in front of the county council to build a pot growing, processing, and distribution facility in our residential neighborhood. He got approval. 

You get the last word.

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

9 hours ago, california boy said:

Were their claims proven wrong?

Depends on what you mean by claims. That the black market would disappear? Wrong. That pot related crime would decrease? Wrong. That underage usage would not increase? Wrong. That it wouldn’t be exported to other states? Wrong. That addiction or gateway drug usage wouldn’t increase? Wrong. That youth wouldn’t be targeted by advertising? Wrong. Etc.

That everyone would be more relaxed and complacent? 

Edited June 4, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[cacheman]

29 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

.... It always turns out the same...pro sources are invariably objective, unbiased, authoritative, and definitive and anti sources are always biased, misreported, flawed, and bogus.

That's why I prefer peer-reviewed studies compared to reports from non-scientific bodies that are simply compiling and interpreting data.  While peer-reviewed papers can still retain a certain level of bias depending on the authors, funding sources, and reviewers.... there is typically significant effort to ensure that the research is valid and up to standard, and they are clear regarding their methodology.

I do have a problem with you misrepresenting research or reports as you've done on this thread and on others.  You've made it clear that you aren't willing to correct your misrepresentations, but I will continue to do so when I see them. 

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

More power to the Dr. Wenks of the world, less power to the armchair experts and their anecdotal evidence.

I agree with this. 

[Bernard Gui]

 One last last word...I do not misrepresent  sources. I cite and quote them and share my understanding. It’s fine if you disagree or think they are biased or I’m out to lunch or whatever objection you wish to harbor, but then we get into the never-ending debate with dueling sources to which I have referred above. Which is where this very discussion is leading if it continues. It’s interesting that you have not acknowledged or commented on my positions regarding recreational and medical pot but continue to go after imputed misrepresentation. In any case, this is my last word. 

[Tacenda]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 One last last word...I do not misrepresent  sources. I cite and quote them and share my understanding. It’s fine if you disagree or think they are biased or I’m out to lunch or whatever objection you wish to harbor, but then we get into the never-ending debate with dueling sources to which I have referred above. Which is where this very discussion is leading if it continues. It’s interesting that you have not acknowledged or commented on my positions regarding recreational and medical pot but continue to go after imputed misrepresentation. In any case, this is my last word. 

Bernard, if it's any consolation, I agree about the recreational pot. I have seen in person the way people act while stoned. But I don't believe it will kill them like some prescription meds or like alcohol or cigarettes. It could kill them if they are driving impaired, or it might kill their motivation in life. But I feel like it's an herb that has a use that is undeniable when I read personal stories of it happening. These aren't weed sellers but people that at the first, were afraid to try it. But it was their last hope or they couldn't stand the meds they were currently using, or the meds didn't help or were actually more harmful, too many to list. 

But like I said I agree with you for the most part about recreational. I just think we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water. I guess it's like all things, if you know someone or are an individual at the end of their rope you will be more openminded about something, I'm thinking. So if there came a day that your only hope is CBD oil or even if you had to smoke it, would you want someone denying you it because it wasn't sold in a pharmacy requiring a dr's okay? What about supplements? There are many that are harmful and possibly deadly that are sold on the market. 

If we wait for big pharm it will be too late for many people out there. Or it will prolong their suffering. And if we let big pharm get involved it will probably be unaffordable or have to go through a stringent insurance company. 

[cacheman]

23 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

 One last last word...I do not misrepresent  sources. I cite and quote them and share my understanding.....

Bernard,

Your quote below from this thread is one example.

"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."

The study that you referred to (as well as the other report you found) simply did not show what you said it did.  If your understanding of the report is incorrect, then it's a misinterpretation.

31 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It’s interesting that you have not acknowledged or commented on my positions regarding recreational and medical pot.

I've discussed my opinions on the legality of Cannabis a number of times over the last month on this board.  FYI - Here's what I said a couple of weeks ago:

"I would like to see Cannabis flowers treated like other herbs or botanical medicines. The FDA would still have some regulatory power,  but it wouldn't be expected to comply with the stringent treating that pharmaceuticals would.  I would be fine with concentrates and commercial isolates and extracts being subjected to more rigorous clinical trials,  but not whole plant material.  I believe that home cultivation needs to be a part of any legalization efforts. 

We could still criminally penalize harms to others due to abuse or irresponsible use of the plant.  The penalties should be severe enough to dissuade folks from irresponsible use"

As someone involved in medicinal Cannabis research, I see the value of this plant, and I would like people to have the individual freedom to choose to use it without fearing the heavy hand of the state.  In addition, I've discussed a few times in the last couple of weeks the severe lasting negative effects of the failed drug war.  It has not been effective and it's created more problems.  With these things in mind, I believe it's time for a radical change in our drug policy.

-cacheman

 

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, cacheman said:

Bernard,

Your quote below from this thread is one example.

"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."

The study that you referred to (as well as the other report you found) simply did not show what you said it did.  If your understanding of the report is incorrect, then it's a misinterpretation.

I've discussed my opinions on the legality of Cannabis a number of times over the last month on this board.  FYI - Here's what I said a couple of weeks ago:

"I would like to see Cannabis flowers treated like other herbs or botanical medicines. The FDA would still have some regulatory power,  but it wouldn't be expected to comply with the stringent treating that pharmaceuticals would.  I would be fine with concentrates and commercial isolates and extracts being subjected to more rigorous clinical trials,  but not whole plant material.  I believe that home cultivation needs to be a part of any legalization efforts. 

We could still criminally penalize harms to others due to abuse or irresponsible use of the plant.  The penalties should be severe enough to dissuade folks from irresponsible use"

As someone involved in medicinal Cannabis research, I see the value of this plant, and I would like people to have the individual freedom to choose to use it without fearing the heavy hand of the state.  In addition, I've discussed a few times in the last couple of weeks the severe lasting negative effects of the failed drug war.  It has not been effective and it's created more problems.  With these things in mind, I believe it's time for a radical change in our drug policy.

-cacheman

 

The bold in your statement would sure be helpful to me. Instead I'd have to pack my van and drive and live in Oregon or Colorado in order to have a plant of cannabis. How would it be to just grow my own and eat it fresh and treat my pre-Alzheimer's. Since reading either from you or someone else that it would be very beneficial and no high! 

[cacheman]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The bold in your statement would sure be helpful to me. Instead I'd have to pack my van and drive and live in Oregon or Colorado in order to have a plant of cannabis. How would it be to just grow my own and eat it fresh and treat my pre-Alzheimer's. Since reading either from you or someone else that it would be very beneficial and no high! 

I hope you are able to communicate with Dr. Wenk.  He has a lot of knowledge in this area.  I believe there's also some good relevant research coming out of Israel.

We don't do any work with Alzheimer's or other cognitive issues here.  Our focus lately has been on auto-immune disorders; primarily rheumatoid arthritis.  This is meaningful work for me as my mother suffers from RA, and my best friend was also recently diagnosed. 

I wish you the best as you search for remedies.

-cacheman

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Depends on what you mean by claims. That the black market would disappear? Wrong. That pot related crime would decrease? Wrong. That underage usage would not increase? Wrong. That it wouldn’t be exported to other states? Wrong. That addiction or gateway drug usage wouldn’t increase? Wrong. That youth wouldn’t be targeted by advertising? Wrong. Etc.

That everyone would be more relaxed and complacent? 

Well there are two issues I have about your post.  This is what you actually posted

Quote

This is a major problem with pot medical lore. Tons of armchair experts with anecdotal stories about its miraculous properties, and widespread mythology that it is harmless and has no side effects. That’s how it was sold to us voters in Washington.

And THAT is what I was asking if THOSE claims have been proven wrong.

You ducked that question and gave us a whole new list of claims.

Quote

 

Depends on what you mean by claims. That the black market would disappear? Wrong. That pot related crime would decrease? Wrong. That underage usage would not increase? Wrong. That it wouldn’t be exported to other states? Wrong. That addiction or gateway drug usage wouldn’t increase? Wrong. That youth wouldn’t be targeted by advertising? Wrong. Etc.

That everyone would be more relaxed and complacent? 

 

As far as this new list of claims, are you suggesting that none of these new claims wouldn't have happened if medical marijuana had NOT passed?

I hope you will consider answering what I actually posted instead of bringing up an entirely different set of claims as an answer to what I first asked. Otherwise, why answer at all?

[Bernard Gui]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

Well there are two issues I have about your post.  This is what you actually posted

And THAT is what I was asking if THOSE claims have been proven wrong.

You ducked that question and gave us a whole new list of claims.

As far as this new list of claims, are you suggesting that none of these new claims wouldn't have happened if medical marijuana had NOT passed?

I hope you will consider answering what I actually posted instead of bringing up an entirely different set of claims as an answer to what I first asked. Otherwise, why answer at all?

OK. With this attitude, I don’t feel much of a desire to answer at all. But if we can get past what you think my shortcomings are, the claims that I was referring to were like those relating to glaucoma, Jesus healing blind men with pot oil, nose sprays, and the myriad of ills pot is claimed to cure. THOSE are the claims I was referring to. Rather than question my integrity, why not simply ask for clarification?

As for your second question, those, among others, are things the pro-pot side promised when we in Washington were debating legalization. Their promises have not been kept.