SWK Quote re Marijuana

[LoudmouthMormon]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

Please explain what is wrong?

Did you actually read why the bad stuff in CO is the way it is?  CO law protects these illegal grow ops with a network of ill-thought out legislation and a stupid state constitutional amendment.  If we had been smarter about it, it wouldn't take 4-5 months to move through a legal process to stop an illegal grow op.  Yes, criminals will be criminals.  But they'll also flock to where it's easy to do crime.  I'm advocating that Utah learn from CO's mistakes, so they don't flock to your state too.

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Did you actually read why the bad stuff in CO is the way it is?  CO law protects these illegal grow ops with a network of ill-thought out legislation and a stupid state constitutional amendment.  If we had been smarter about it, it wouldn't take 4-5 months to move through a legal process to stop an illegal grow op.  Yes, criminals will be criminals.  But they'll also flock to where it's easy to do crime.  I'm advocating that Utah learn from CO's mistakes, so they don't flock to your state too.

Yes I read your post, and I find it not relevant to a discussion about medical marijuana in Utah.

 

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

Did you actually read why the bad stuff in CO is the way it is?  CO law protects these illegal grow ops with a network of ill-thought out legislation and a stupid state constitutional amendment.  If we had been smarter about it, it wouldn't take 4-5 months to move through a legal process to stop an illegal grow op.  Yes, criminals will be criminals.  But they'll also flock to where it's easy to do crime.  I'm advocating that Utah learn from CO's mistakes, so they don't flock to your state too.

Is there anything in the current proposals that sets up Utah on this path?

[RevTestament]

7 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

But the question is not really whether there is actual, provable medical benefit from this or that use of THC.  That is a good and worthwhile question for investigation, but largely irrelevant.  Why?  Because people (lots of people) love their recreational drugs, and it is foolish to attempt to engage in an anti-drug war -- which only makes the situation much worse.  What we need is regulated and taxed recreational drug use, just as we do with cigarettes and booze.  We make the best of a bad situation.  That is all we can rationally expect to do.

Creating a nanny state or society doesn't make for a strong society, but weakens us and our free institutions significantly.  Too many of us give only grudging lip service to the principle of free agency, free choice.  Legislating morality in the form of Blue Laws is a crutch for those who don't really like a free and open society.

You have fallen prey to a common modern argument that governments are not in the business of legislating morality. Of course that is wrong. They are. Traditional constitutional law has recognized this - the states reserved all power not expressly granted to the Federal gubbermint - in case law it is called the power of the states to regulate the health and welfare of their residents. Hence, the states have laws establishing legal marriage, and prohibiting all kinds of immoral behavior such as murder, rape, adultery, sodomy, etc, although I believe the SCOTUS has been nibbling away at those state rights. However clearly, homosexual acts involve various activities which affect health, and have served to spread diseases such as AIDs - an area clearly involving the traditional areas of regulation by states in the interest of their public health. 

What you are arguing could be used to make all drugs freely available without the nanny requirement of going to a doctor and getting a prescription. However, there are reasons for those laws - doctors are charged with learning all the complications of side effects and ill advised combinations. I don't see any reason a free society should allow free use of a substance known to involve brain damage in minors. We do many things which are designed to protect people from themselves - and others. Minors also aren't allowed to freely drive. They aren't allowed to purchase alcohol. We regulate gun purchases. Etc, etc. I see no problem with Utah avoiding a path which has been shown to have an overall detrimental effect on societies. Hoping that allowing everything will turn out for the best is just irresponsible. In fact there is a show on TV right now called The Purge which is about that very subject - where society enters a state of lawlessness. I don't favor that approach. Instead we need to take a position on what is overall best for our society and teach why that is, and legally encourage people to promote that. If it ends up being incorrect, the beauty of democracies is that we can then change the law. As I think I have pointed out there is no society which can be shown to have benefited by recreational use of MJ. Just because people want to do it, doesn't mean we should allow it nor that it will end up causing an insufferable nanny state. MJ has been illegal my whole life, and I don't feel my freedoms have been nannied in any undesirable way. However, if I had epilepsy, I may feel differently. Governing people is really a cost-benefit analysis imho. I want to promote a society which gets the most benefits for the least cost. That is why our capitalist society has prospered. However, to get that point regulation is required. The majority agrees on what the most benefit is. If the majority agrees that recreational MJ is not a desirable benefit, then there is no "nanny state." It's just democracy as usual....  

[pogi]

1 hour ago, oremites said:

He was talking about the morality of smoking pot.  The Time article he quoted was about that, not about legalization.  Though there were people pushing for legalization at that time, it was not a big issue.  Why would he be talking about "a vote for legalization" when it wasn't even a voting issue back then?

I think we're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one.  That is, you're welcome to the last word because I'm out for the day.  Thanks for the discussion.

I just read his whole talk.  You are right. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Me too.  I still stand by what I said though.  A vote for legalization of marijuana is not the same as encouraging the defilement of men... 

I have met WAY more people who have been defiled by alcohol...and it is also true that a vote for the legalization of alcohol is not the same as encouraging the defilement of men.

We shall see how that holds up as pot becomes legalized and more accessible....like available in Walmart and 7/11, bars and restaurants. 

Groundbreaking article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/sunday/marijuana-addiction.html

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

Wisdom and order in all things. A person close to me has been defiled by all manner of legal substances; but that does not mean I need to take a prohibition stance on ever legal substance that was part of the abuse.

So, what we need is more stuff that defiles people? Nope. 

Edited October 24, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

4 hours ago, pogi said:

Before that there were actually spittoons installed in the Salt Lake Tabernacle.  

Which was common in public places. Do you mean to suggest the Church was encouraging just a pinch between cheek and gum?

Edited October 24, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

We shall see how that holds up as pot becomes legalized and more accessible....like available in Walmart and 7/11, bars and restaurants. 

Groundbreaking article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/06/opinion/sunday/marijuana-addiction.html

 

From a few commenters on that article:

"What this has led to is an entire community of people who may not be physically at risk but who wander around in what is definitely a compromised state mentally. Everyone wants to put things off until tomorrow; it is a sort of a cultural conspiracy of perpetual adolescence that nobody really wants to talk about. Those of us who don't smoke pot are often frustrated by the degree to which it has sedated our environment. And while people talk about legality as though it is a libertarian birthright, it's actually about a license to get high and lie around. Pot now is so engineered to give you an intense high that it's more like acid than a simple plant."

"While I believe in legalization, it has only led to a massive increase in consumption. Prior to legalization I would have to stretch out my weed. I could stretch out a bowl for days. But with such easy access and no scarcity issues, I'm smoking far too much and it's obvious even to me. Many of my pot smoking friends have the same issues as well."

Recreational use is not leading anywhere good. Rather than learning to deal with life, people are just using pot to deal. It is obvious, and even users admit it. 

[pogi]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You have fallen prey to a common modern argument that governments are not in the business of legislating morality. Of course that is wrong. They are. Traditional constitutional law has recognized this - the states reserved all power not expressly granted to the Federal gubbermint - in case law it is called the power of the states to regulate the health and welfare of their residents. Hence, the states have laws establishing legal marriage, and prohibiting all kinds of immoral behavior such as murder, rape, adultery, sodomy, etc, although I believe the SCOTUS has been nibbling away at those state rights. However clearly, homosexual acts involve various activities which affect health, and have served to spread diseases such as AIDs - an area clearly involving the traditional areas of regulation by states in the interest of their public health. 

What you are arguing could be used to make all drugs freely available without the nanny requirement of going to a doctor and getting a prescription. However, there are reasons for those laws - doctors are charged with learning all the complications of side effects and ill advised combinations. I don't see any reason a free society should allow free use of a substance known to involve brain damage in minors. We do many things which are designed to protect people from themselves - and others. Minors also aren't allowed to freely drive. They aren't allowed to purchase alcohol. We regulate gun purchases. Etc, etc. I see no problem with Utah avoiding a path which has been shown to have an overall detrimental effect on societies. Hoping that allowing everything will turn out for the best is just irresponsible. In fact there is a show on TV right now called The Purge which is about that very subject - where society enters a state of lawlessness. I don't favor that approach. Instead we need to take a position on what is overall best for our society and teach why that is, and legally encourage people to promote that. If it ends up being incorrect, the beauty of democracies is that we can then change the law. As I think I have pointed out there is no society which can be shown to have benefited by recreational use of MJ. Just because people want to do it, doesn't mean we should allow it nor that it will end up causing an insufferable nanny state. MJ has been illegal my whole life, and I don't feel my freedoms have been nannied in any undesirable way. However, if I had epilepsy, I may feel differently. Governing people is really a cost-benefit analysis imho. I want to promote a society which gets the most benefits for the least cost. That is why our capitalist society has prospered. However, to get that point regulation is required. The majority agrees on what the most benefit is. If the majority agrees that recreational MJ is not a desirable benefit, then there is no "nanny state." It's just democracy as usual....  

I am one of those weird ducks who is in favor of regulating the medicinal use of marijuana while at the same time being in favor of legalizing recreational use.    Some people may wonder why I care so much about regulating medicinal use if it becomes available for recreational use.  It is simple, non-recreational users for medical conditions need to be confident that it actually treats their condition, and that they are getting the proper dosage and frequency for their specific condition.  They also need to be confident that they are actually getting what they pay for - uncontaminated.  Recreational use should be regulated as well, just like alcohol or cigarettes. 

It is not a matter of "hoping that allowing everything will turn out for the best", it is about stopping a failed and immoral war on drugs. It doesn't work.  It creates more problems than it solves.  You talk about weighing cost vs. benefit - it is actually that analysis which has lead many informed people to be opposed to the war on drugs.  The cost way outweighs the benefit.  

We would do better to legalize it and regulate it.

 

[provoman]

2 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

From a few commenters on that article:

"What this has led to is an entire community of people who may not be physically at risk but who wander around in what is definitely a compromised state mentally. Everyone wants to put things off until tomorrow; it is a sort of a cultural conspiracy of perpetual adolescence that nobody really wants to talk about. Those of us who don't smoke pot are often frustrated by the degree to which it has sedated our environment. And while people talk about legality as though it is a libertarian birthright, it's actually about a license to get high and lie around. Pot now is so engineered to give you an intense high that it's more like acid than a simple plant."

"While I believe in legalization, it has only led to a massive increase in consumption. Prior to legalization I would have to stretch out my weed. I could stretch out a bowl for days. But with such easy access and no scarcity issues, I'm smoking far too much and it's obvious even to me. Many of my pot smoking friends have the same issues as well."

Recreational use is not leading anywhere good. Rather than learning to deal with life, people are just using pot to deal. It is obvious, and even users admit it. 

recreational use has no bearing on a discussion about medical use. 

[RevTestament]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am one of those weird ducks who is in favor of regulating the medicinal use of marijuana while at the same time being in favor of legalizing recreational use.    Some people may wonder why I care so much about regulating medicinal use if it becomes available for recreational use.  It is simple, non-recreational users for medical conditions need to be confident that it actually treats their condition, and that they are getting the proper dosage and frequency for their specific condition.  They also need to be confident that they are actually getting what they pay for - uncontaminated.  Recreational use should be regulated as well, just like alcohol or cigarettes. 

It is not a matter of "hoping that allowing everything will turn out for the best", it is about stopping a failed and immoral war on drugs. It doesn't work.  It creates more problems than it solves.  You talk about weighing cost vs. benefit - it is actually that analysis which has lead many informed people to be opposed to the war on drugs.  The cost way outweighs the benefit.  

We would do better to legalize it and regulate it.

You are arguing from the position not that recreational use is best for society,  but that keeping it illegal is just hopeless and expensive. However, there are many hidden costs to legalizing recreational use - a slower work force, more injuries on the road,  etc - which are probably in the end more weighty than the police costs of prohibition. I have no doubt in my mind that recreational use is going to have a long-term negative impact on society, and that is what I will continue to argue. Hopefully, in Utah a majority will see the wisdom of my position. My main concern is striking the proper balance between efficacious medical use and what I perceive to be undesirable recreational use. I strike that balance by proposing that psychoactive THC strains continue to be banned, while allowing use of high CBD medical strains of cannabis. I don't perceive any overt public pressure in Utah for recreational use. I believe most are against that - and in my opinion - for good reasons. Neither Prop 2 nor the proposed bill allow recreational use. However, I still don't really like the balance they try to strike.

The residents of other states apparently disagree - and have to deal with the consequences of that decision. China once experimented with the poppy - that opium epidemic didn't lead anywhere good for them either.

Edited October 24, 2018 by RevTestament

[pogi]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You are arguing from the position not that recreational use is best for society,  but that keeping it illegal is just hopeless and expensive. However, there are many hidden costs to legalizing recreational use - a slower work force, more injuries on the road,  etc - which are probably in the end more weighty than the police costs of prohibition. I have no doubt in my mind that recreational use is going to have a long-term negative impact on society, and that is what I will continue to argue. Hopefully, in Utah a majority will see the wisdom of my position. My main concern is striking the proper balance between efficacious medical use and what I perceive to be undesirable recreational use. I strike that balance by proposing that psychoactive THC strains continue to be banned, while allowing use of high CBD medical strains of cannabis. I don't perceive any overt public pressure in Utah for recreational use. I believe most are against that - and in my opinion - for good reasons. Neither Prop 2 nor the proposed bill allow recreational use. However, I still don't really like the balance they try to strike.

The residents of other states apparently disagree - and have to deal with the consequences of that decision. China once experimented with the poppy - that didn't lead anywhere good for them either.

"Slower work force" 

Or, if you are a glass half full kind of guy - a happier work force, less stressed, all is good, peace, love and good will toward men type of work force... Joking of course. 

Really, I think we both want the same thing for society but have different ideas on how best approach that goal.  

The war on drugs is failed.  Sending non-violent drug users and small time dealers to prison where they learn how to become hardened criminals is NOT the best way to deal with this!  Sometimes, dealers are incarcerated longer than violent rapists and even murderers.  That is immoral!

The whole problem with the current war on drugs started with the idea that, because drugs are bad for people, they should be difficult to obtain.  Seems to be logical!  So, the war on drugs became a war on supply and strict punishment for users. Unfortunately that failed. It just doesn't work. 

Instead we should focus our attention on demand rather than supply.  That is the better way forward in my opinion.  If we shift the money we spend on fighting supply (around 51 BILLION!!! annually) to supporting prevention and treatment campaigns, I think we would see much much better results.  Not only could we spend that 51 billion/year on prevention, but we could add to that the income from taxes of legal sales.  

We need to invest our efforts, our energy, time, and resources to preventing demand rather than stopping supply. Coercion doesn't work. 

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

"Slower work force" 

Or, if you are a glass half full kind of guy - a happier work force, less stressed, all is good, peace, love and good will toward men type of work force... Joking of course. 

Really, I think we both want the same thing for society but have different ideas on how best approach that goal.  

The war on drugs is failed.  Sending non-violent drug users and small time dealers to prison where they learn how to become hardened criminals is NOT the best way to deal with this!  Sometimes, dealers are incarcerated longer than violent rapists and even murderers.  That is immoral!

I agree with much of what you have to say here. The current program is not working, and giving drug dealers long prison sentences is counter-productive. Instead we can probably be more effective with hefty fines and work programs designed to give offenders job skills. Let them work at animal shelters, or in maintenance of public lands. Some may even get hired permanently at these kinds of jobs. Throwing them in jail, and us paying for them to become hardened is a bad idea, and time has shown that.

Quote

The whole problem with the current war on drugs started with the idea that, because drugs are bad for people, they should be difficult to obtain.  Seems to be logical!  So, the war on drugs became a war on supply and strict punishment for users. Unfortunately that failed. It just doesn't work. 

Instead we should focus our attention on demand rather than supply.  That is the better way forward in my opinion.  If we shift the money we spend on fighting supply (around 51 BILLION!!! annually) to supporting prevention and treatment campaigns, I think we would see much much better results.  Not only could we spend that 51 billion/year on prevention, but we could add to that the income from taxes of legal sales.  

We need to invest our efforts, our energy, time, and resources to preventing demand rather than stopping supply. Coercion doesn't work. 

Well, it just seems to me legalization hasn't worked either. Someone please prove me wrong. Being illegal is still a deterrent to a large segment of the population, which may/will start playing around with MJ if it is legal. Indeed, I may try CBD for someone who is anxious, depressed, etc, the second I can get it legally. I think making all MJ legal will have the same result - use goes up - more people are affected. I think your education campaign is just not going to work in that scenario. Instead, perhaps a class in high school on scientific studies and the like would be effective - teaching minors why these substances are harmful and illegal seems prudent. It could be part of a science curriculum on health - less s-x ed and more drug ed - and no for you lurkers - that is not more drugged. Get your mind out of the pill box.

In sum we need new tactics. Different tactics on the supply side and new tactics on the demand side, because economics teaches when price goes down, demand goes up. 

[Veggie juicer]

Go ahead and use your oxy for your pain.  I won't feel bad using the legal cbd or if needed thc for mine.  

I don't even take Tylenol if can just do without.  But when the time comes I'm not at all concerned about using mj to control my pain....not as long as pain medication is temple worthy. 

[Tacenda]

10 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Tacenda, I never said I support pharma only. In fact I said I felt the proposed Utah bill would discourage use of true CBD medical strains. What I mean is that pharma only channels would be costly and therefore serve to make CBD strains less available. Perhaps you should read what I said closer. 

If high THC strains show actual statistically significant cancer cures, they can always be legalized. However, a couple of anecdotal cases just are not statistically significant when we know cases of spontaneous remission occur - when people find out they have cancer they change their habits - they begin to eat healthier, they do all sorts of things which may cause the cancer to go into remission. Point me to a controlled study, and I may become more sympathetic.

If I didn't think the high THC strains would get abused, I would say fine, but there is credible evidence of societal harm they cause, while there is little credible evidence of their benefit. We have been through this conversation before where I asked you to show a society which has benefited by recreational use. You had no response.

I'm sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion, I got you mixed up with others, my bad.  And to the bold in your post, I don't recall you asking me this. I'm not for recreational weed, as far as someone that wants to party on, nope! But sometimes I wonder if the medicinal cannabis only, will exclude many from using it for things such as prevention or whole body care, but w/o the high. 

I doubt you'll believe these testimonials, but this is what I have, take it or leave it. I believe it, because I speak with people everyday on a closed FB group called "Cannabis Oil Success Stories", not fake people, people that are even bigger skeptics then some on here, but they are getting results! Below is a link that have people that needed the higher amts of THC, for without it there can't be a cure. 

http://www.cannabisoilsuccessstories.com/portfolio.html?fbclid=IwAR0jLcdgSHGgXdAB8YWp9D8-2il0Tkq_zIEdMwPAnP_jGwQQEmtN71sR7OY 

ETA: An article with Jon Hunstman Sr. saying he'd wished he could have used marijuana.https://thefreshtoast.com/cannabis/jon-huntsman-sr-advocates-for-medical-marijuana-in-utah/

Edited October 25, 2018 by Tacenda

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You have fallen prey to a common modern argument that governments are not in the business of legislating morality. Of course that is wrong. They are. Traditional constitutional law has recognized this - the states reserved all power not expressly granted to the Federal gubbermint - in case law it is called the power of the states to regulate the health and welfare of their residents. Hence, the states have laws establishing legal marriage, and prohibiting all kinds of immoral behavior such as murder, rape, adultery, sodomy, etc, although I believe the SCOTUS has been nibbling away at those state rights. However clearly, homosexual acts involve various activities which affect health, and have served to spread diseases such as AIDs - an area clearly involving the traditional areas of regulation by states in the interest of their public health. 

I specifically directed your attention to Blue Laws, and you entirely missed the point.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of necessary laws and legislation -- not vexatious and childish modes of totalitarian control techniques, for which we always hear insubstantial reasons and justifications.  We gain nothing by confusing murder laws with Blue Laws (adultery, Sunday closing laws, sodomy, micegenation, etc.).  Temperance and good order are fine ideas, but they must be preached and must be regulated.  Prohibition was one of the dumbest laws ever enacted, and had exactly the opposite affect intended.  That is why we now tax and regulate booze.

You also miss the Constitutional provision that those rights not specifically enumerated are reserved to the people or to the states (1791 Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 & 10)..  You left out the crucial citizens' rights.  Moreover, this is not at all a states' rights issue in which the state has all power in heaven and earth to regulate the health and welfare of their residents.  Once again we apparently see in your view the state being superior to the servile and inferior citizenry.  To the contrary, the state is secondary to the citizens, from whom the state derives its powers.  The govt is the people, who govern themselves, but you have the state as the "other" dictating terms to the hapless residents (something dear to authoritarians like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao).

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

What you are arguing could be used to make all drugs freely available without the nanny requirement of going to a doctor and getting a prescription. However, there are reasons for those laws - doctors are charged with learning all the complications of side effects and ill advised combinations. I don't see any reason a free society should allow free use of a substance known to involve brain damage in minors. We do many things which are designed to protect people from themselves - and others. Minors also aren't allowed to freely drive. They aren't allowed to purchase alcohol. We regulate gun purchases. Etc, etc. I see no problem with Utah avoiding a path which has been shown to have an overall detrimental effect on societies. Hoping that allowing everything will turn out for the best is just irresponsible. In fact there is a show on TV right now called The Purge which is about that very subject - where society enters a state of lawlessness. I don't favor that approach. Instead we need to take a position on what is overall best for our society and teach why that is, and legally encourage people to promote that. If it ends up being incorrect, the beauty of democracies is that we can then change the law. As I think I have pointed out there is no society which can be shown to have benefited by recreational use of MJ. Just because people want to do it, doesn't mean we should allow it nor that it will end up causing an insufferable nanny state. MJ has been illegal my whole life, and I don't feel my freedoms have been nannied in any undesirable way. However, if I had epilepsy, I may feel differently. Governing people is really a cost-benefit analysis imho. I want to promote a society which gets the most benefits for the least cost. That is why our capitalist society has prospered. However, to get that point regulation is required. The majority agrees on what the most benefit is. If the majority agrees that recreational MJ is not a desirable benefit, then there is no "nanny state." It's just democracy as usual....  

Yes, of course, democracy.  However, what we have today is govt by a minority of control freaks -- who use voter suppression, gerrymandering, cyber warfare, and money from the oligarchs to control the outcome, which leaves the hoi-polloi with nothing but fear along with "bread & circuses" to keep them occupied.  We have now spent many decades in a failed war on drugs (I myself caught many drug users and testified against them in court, which was a complete waste of time).  We have spent a lot of money and have only  managed to incarcerate huge numbers of people (more per capita than any country in the world), and the result is that drugs are as available now as they always were, huge numbers of people have been unnecessarily criminalized, and billion dollar cartels have been created in several countries.

The late editor of National Review, William F. Buckley, took a hard look and advised us all that we needed to legalize drugs and regulate and tax them.  Ideological fools rejected that idea, as they have always done, preferring instead corruption on a vast scale -- so as not to own up to their moral failure -- thus condemning countless young lives to end in the use of fentanyl contaminated opioides (which began by being prescribed by their well-meaning doctors).

Perhaps you'd like us to go back to the wonderful days of Prohibition.  News flash:  We tried that and it didn't work.  Well, maybe we could outlaw Nicotine cigarettes and jail the perps who use them.  Would that make you happy?

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, RevTestament said:

From a few commenters on that article:

"What this has led to is an entire community of people who may not be physically at risk but who wander around in what is definitely a compromised state mentally. Everyone wants to put things off until tomorrow; it is a sort of a cultural conspiracy of perpetual adolescence that nobody really wants to talk about. Those of us who don't smoke pot are often frustrated by the degree to which it has sedated our environment. And while people talk about legality as though it is a libertarian birthright, it's actually about a license to get high and lie around. Pot now is so engineered to give you an intense high that it's more like acid than a simple plant."

"While I believe in legalization, it has only led to a massive increase in consumption. Prior to legalization I would have to stretch out my weed. I could stretch out a bowl for days. But with such easy access and no scarcity issues, I'm smoking far too much and it's obvious even to me. Many of my pot smoking friends have the same issues as well."

Recreational use is not leading anywhere good. Rather than learning to deal with life, people are just using pot to deal. It is obvious, and even users admit it. 

This is exactly what I have observed with those I know who have been defiled by pot. Living dead.

[Bernard Gui]

11 hours ago, provoman said:

recreational use has no bearing on a discussion about medical use. 

Yes, it does. They cannot be separated. “Medical” legalization is simply a stepping stone(d) to establish recreational use. To be ”medical” it must be studied, standardized, produced, regulated, prescribed, and dispensed like all other medications.

[provoman]

5 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes, it does. They cannot be separated. “Medical” legalization is simply a stepping stone(d) to establish recreational use. To be ”medical” it must be studied, standardized, produced, regulated, prescribed, and dispensed like all other medications.

How many many Stataes have legalized recreational use of marijuana? 9 

How many States have legal medical marijuana?  30

When did the State of Arizona - 6% LDS population - legalize recreational use of Marijuana?  NEVER. The State of Arizona with a 6% LDS population has not legalized recreational use despite having legal medical use.

Discussions about recreational have no bearing on Utah's debate of legal medical use

Edited October 25, 2018 by provoman

[Walden]

18 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You have fallen prey to a common modern argument that governments are not in the business of legislating morality. Of course that is wrong. They are. Traditional constitutional law has recognized this - the states reserved all power not expressly granted to the Federal gubbermint - in case law it is called the power of the states to regulate the health and welfare of their residents. Hence, the states have laws establishing legal marriage, and prohibiting all kinds of immoral behavior such as murder, rape, adultery, sodomy, etc, although I believe the SCOTUS has been nibbling away at those state rights. However clearly, homosexual acts involve various activities which affect health, and have served to spread diseases such as AIDs - an area clearly involving the traditional areas of regulation by states in the interest of their public health. 

What you are arguing could be used to make all drugs freely available without the nanny requirement of going to a doctor and getting a prescription. However, there are reasons for those laws - doctors are charged with learning all the complications of side effects and ill advised combinations. I don't see any reason a free society should allow free use of a substance known to involve brain damage in minors. We do many things which are designed to protect people from themselves - and others. Minors also aren't allowed to freely drive. They aren't allowed to purchase alcohol. We regulate gun purchases. Etc, etc. I see no problem with Utah avoiding a path which has been shown to have an overall detrimental effect on societies. Hoping that allowing everything will turn out for the best is just irresponsible. In fact there is a show on TV right now called The Purge which is about that very subject - where society enters a state of lawlessness. I don't favor that approach. Instead we need to take a position on what is overall best for our society and teach why that is, and legally encourage people to promote that. If it ends up being incorrect, the beauty of democracies is that we can then change the law. As I think I have pointed out there is no society which can be shown to have benefited by recreational use of MJ. Just because people want to do it, doesn't mean we should allow it nor that it will end up causing an insufferable nanny state. MJ has been illegal my whole life, and I don't feel my freedoms have been nannied in any undesirable way. However, if I had epilepsy, I may feel differently. Governing people is really a cost-benefit analysis imho. I want to promote a society which gets the most benefits for the least cost. That is why our capitalist society has prospered. However, to get that point regulation is required. The majority agrees on what the most benefit is. If the majority agrees that recreational MJ is not a desirable benefit, then there is no "nanny state." It's just democracy as usual....  

Seeing as alcohol is much more deadly than marijuana, and that you support increased government efforts in legislating the health and welfare of citizens, I take from your argument above that you support the prohibition of alcohol as well? 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

How many many Stataes have legalized recreational use of marijuana? 9 

How many States have legal medical marijuana?  30

When did the State of Arizona - 6% LDS population - legalize recreational use of Marijuana?  NEVER. The State of Arizona with a 6% LDS population has not legalized recreational use despite having legal medical use.

Discussions about recreational have no bearing on Utah's debate of legal medical use

Just wait. It is inevitable, just like opening Pandora’s box. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Walden said:

Seeing as alcohol is much more deadly than marijuana, and that you support increased government efforts in legislating the health and welfare of citizens, I take from your argument above that you support the prohibition of alcohol as well? 

I don’t buy the argument that we need more intoxicants. If it is medicine, treat it like medicine.

[RevTestament]

50 minutes ago, Walden said:

Seeing as alcohol is much more deadly than marijuana, and that you support increased government efforts in legislating the health and welfare of citizens, I take from your argument above that you support the prohibition of alcohol as well? 

Whether I personally do, I believe is irrelevant. It is a matter for each individual state to decide, unless citizens can prove such regulation is unconstitutional - who knows the way SCOTUS is going. And no, I didn't say I support increased government efforts to regulate health and welfare. What I am saying is that it is in the rights of the states to do so, and that each must decide what is best for their residents. It is a democratic process. I do believe the prohibition states would be better served by changing their laws so that non-violent users and dealers are not jailed for years on end. Rather, either a relatively short jail sentence, or a substantial fine or work program would I think provide more sensible results. In other words if a dealer can't pay the fine, they do the time or work program.

Do I personally believe society would be better off without any alcoholic beverages? Yes. I think the evidence on that is finally in. Any amount is damaging to our bodies. The glass of wine a day is good for the heart motif has been overridden by evidence that any alcohol whatsoever is physically damaging. However, we have reached a state where probably 90% of our non-LDS population has drank at some point in their lives. They are simply not going to allow prohibition again. However, if they desired it, I believe it would be of the most benefit to society. And guess what, Yeshua told us so almost 200 years ago in the word of wisdom - hate to tell people we told you so - OK maybe hate is too strong a word. The safety reasons for using alcoholic beverages like beer no longer apply to most societies. Here in the states all our water is treated, and we have water filters, etc.

All that being said, I have said I do not believe having a beer or a glass of wine is a sin. Indeed, I don't believe beer is proscribed at all by the word of wisdom. Nevertheless, it is clear that they are not healthy overall. Beer is over-drunk by way too much of the population. But we are a long way off from a majority of the population deciding that abstinence is the most beneficial path to take.

Lastly I do not favor prohibition of cannabis. I favor prohibiting recreational use of THC strains, and allowing relatively free use of truly so called medical strains with high CBD and non-psychoactive levels of THC. If education convinces the public that is the most benefit to society, I believe that is a legal, rational, and fair path to take. 

[RevTestament]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I specifically directed your attention to Blue Laws, and you entirely missed the point.  Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of necessary laws and legislation -- not vexatious and childish modes of totalitarian control techniques, for which we always hear insubstantial reasons and justifications.  We gain nothing by confusing murder laws with Blue Laws (adultery, Sunday closing laws, sodomy, micegenation, etc.).  Temperance and good order are fine ideas, but they must be preached and must be regulated.  Prohibition was one of the dumbest laws ever enacted, and had exactly the opposite affect intended.  That is why we now tax and regulate booze.

You also miss the Constitutional provision that those rights not specifically enumerated are reserved to the people or to the states (1791 Bill of Rights, Amendments 9 & 10)..  You left out the crucial citizens' rights.  Moreover, this is not at all a states' rights issue in which the state has all power in heaven and earth to regulate the health and welfare of their residents.  Once again we apparently see in your view the state being superior to the servile and inferior citizenry.  To the contrary, the state is secondary to the citizens, from whom the state derives its powers.  The govt is the people, who govern themselves, but you have the state as the "other" dictating terms to the hapless residents (something dear to authoritarians like Stalin, Hitler, and Mao).

Hello Robert. I always welcome your thoughtful arguments. However, comparing the democratic governments of the United States to Stalin and Hitler is silly, and you know it. The reason we are having this discussion is because THE people have put Prop 2 up for a vote in Utah - hardly the result of a state government controlled by some Hitler-type fascism. Come now. The people control their own regulation through their state democratic bodies. That is far from changing to some type of totalitarian-controlled government.

Quote

Yes, of course, democracy.  However, what we have today is govt by a minority of control freaks -- who use voter suppression, gerrymandering, cyber warfare, and money from the oligarchs to control the outcome, which leaves the hoi-polloi with nothing but fear along with "bread & circuses" to keep them occupied.  We have now spent many decades in a failed war on drugs (I myself caught many drug users and testified against them in court, which was a complete waste of time).  We have spent a lot of money and have only  managed to incarcerate huge numbers of people (more per capita than any country in the world), and the result is that drugs are as available now as they always were, huge numbers of people have been unnecessarily criminalized, and billion dollar cartels have been created in several countries.

The late editor of National Review, William F. Buckley, took a hard look and advised us all that we needed to legalize drugs and regulate and tax them.  Ideological fools rejected that idea, as they have always done, preferring instead corruption on a vast scale -- so as not to own up to their moral failure -- thus condemning countless young lives to end in the use of fentanyl contaminated opioides (which began by being prescribed by their well-meaning doctors).

Perhaps you'd like us to go back to the wonderful days of Prohibition.  News flash:  We tried that and it didn't work.  Well, maybe we could outlaw Nicotine cigarettes and jail the perps who use them.  Would that make you happy?

Many states have now legalized medical use of Cannabis and some have legalized recreational use. That is hardly the result one would find in the totalitarian fear-mongering world you say exists.

However, I do agree with you and Pogi that states which keep recreational use illegal are facing an uphill battle. They need to change their tactics. Throwing non-violent MJ dealers in jail for 10 years is counter-productive, and further harms their employability. States need a new approach. I propose changing their laws so that non-violent users and dealers are not jailed for years on end. Rather, either a relatively short jail sentence, or a substantial fine based on the amount they are dealing or work program would I think provide more sensible results. In other words if a dealer can't pay the fine, they do the time or work program. Most will pay the fine probably, but at least that will get some of the money in the coffers, and make dealing less profitable. I welcome any debate about this and better ideas than mine I'm sure states can come up with.

Cigarette use has fallen dramatically in the states because of regulation and education efforts teaching of its very real ill health effects. I believe all such substances should be taught about in high school with pictures of cancer cases - the works. Just making recreational MJ legal and throwing it to the wind is ill advised for any society based on all currently available evidence.