Medical Marijuana and the Church

I don’t think there is anything the church could do to really satisfy some of the individuals on Mars’s side of things. Even if they came out and took your exact stance, I would imagine their being criticized about being so “late” to the party and not having the foresight to arrive at the conclusion sooner and also not arriving at the conclusion in the right way. In the eyes of critics on some of these hot button issues, it seems to me to always be a lose lose situation.

hawkwing wrote:

One thing I disagree with the Democrat's official statement the idea of passing knowingly flawed legislation and then fixing it once it's law has never worked out.



See: Patriot Act, Obamacare.

oh man. I think republicans can shoulder a lot of blame for the pat act.

Being in colorado and someone who regularly prescribes opioids, ive seen the good and bad of the legal marijuana debate. The next town over sells weed like it's candy. Ive had a few patients who nearly kill themselves doing stupid stuff after smoking it (getting on a bike with no brakes and not realizing it until they are going 40 mph down a ateep grade comes to mind). Also have some patients who use the hash and love it for pain. Traffic accidents have risen pretty dramatically here in CO since it was lagalized. There's no mistake that there are some negative consequences with legalization as outlined in utah prop 2. But, lets be honest, no legislation is perfect.



I get both arguments. Im overall open minded to MJ. But can certainly appreciate the churches approach to this. Mars, perhaps the reason the church is cautious about MJ is BECAUSE so many utah youth are dying due to opioids. I honestly dont think those kids are doing opioids because they are dying of cancer. MJ will be overprescribed and used recreationally just as opioids currently are among youth. Id love to see it moved to schedule ii where it COULD be legally prescribed and we could better understand it and its effectiveness.

BroncoBot wrote:

One thing I disagree with the Democrat's official statement the idea of passing knowingly flawed legislation and then fixing it once it's law has never worked out.



See: Patriot Act, Obamacare.

oh man. I think republicans can shoulder a lot of blame for the pat act.

I'd say the repubs for the Patriot Act, for sure. But the Utah dems statement they released said to the effect that we should pass the bill even though they know it's flawed and fix it later.

hawkwing wrote:

hawkwing wrote:

One thing I disagree with the Democrat's official statement the idea of passing knowingly flawed legislation and then fixing it once it's law has never worked out.



See: Patriot Act, Obamacare.

oh man. I think republicans can shoulder a lot of blame for the pat act.

I'd say the repubs for the Patriot Act, for sure. But the Utah dems statement they released said to the effect that we should pass the bill even though they know it's flawed and fix it later.

Challenge: Name a set of laws in this country that aren't flawed. Such as taxes. Or immigration. Or voting. Let's start with something easy that we can all agree on.

Mars wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

One thing I disagree with the Democrat's official statement the idea of passing knowingly flawed legislation and then fixing it once it's law has never worked out.



See: Patriot Act, Obamacare.

oh man. I think republicans can shoulder a lot of blame for the pat act.

I'd say the repubs for the Patriot Act, for sure. But the Utah dems statement they released said to the effect that we should pass the bill even though they know it's flawed and fix it later.

Challenge: Name a set of laws in this country that aren't flawed. Such as taxes. Or immigration. Or voting. Let's start with something easy that we can all agree on.

Just because nothing is perfect doesn't mean anything should go.

And the proposition being imperfect isn't an argument against it either. Does it do more harm than good? People disagree. Just not, you know, educated people. :D

Mars wrote:

And the proposition being imperfect isn't an argument against it either. Does it do more harm than good? People disagree. Just not, you know, educated people. :D

I'd actually consider that no legislation is perfect to be a very good argument against enacting any legislation without a great deal of study and reflection.



But I'm looking forward to when Connor starts publishing all of the educated, science based arguments in favor of the proposition. So far I've only seem poorly written emotional calls and hearsay comments about how someone who is against it had an awkward pause when talking about it. And how Churches shouldn't be allowed to speak out on moral issues to their members.



I want to be able to vote for it. So far though they are doing an extremely poor job of giving any compelling reason to do so.

snoscythe wrote:

I don't read the church's position as requiring Physicians to manage dosages. They just said physician-prescribed and they also said in dosage form.



I think physician-prescribed was to make sure that it was done under prescription, and I think the dosage form was meant to distinguish it from the recreational product to facilitate enforcement.

I wonder what the position on growing your own willow trees in your back yard is.



But let's back up a second. All I see on the church website is the memorandum from a third party outlining possible outcomes of the legislation (for all of which I just shrug my shoulders and say "that's no different from any other medication") that we are invited to read and "make our own judgement."



Where is the opposition in the first place?



NVM I found it, man the church newsroom is hard to do a good search with. I finally found the link in a tribune story.

jvquarterback wrote:

I don't read the church's position as requiring Physicians to manage dosages. They just said physician-prescribed and they also said in dosage form.



I think physician-prescribed was to make sure that it was done under prescription, and I think the dosage form was meant to distinguish it from the recreational product to facilitate enforcement.

I wonder what the position on growing your own willow trees in your back yard is.

https://itdoesnthavetoberight.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/comparing_apples_to_oranges.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Mars wrote:

And the proposition being imperfect isn't an argument against it either.

:bug:

Jarhead wrote:

And the proposition being imperfect isn't an argument against it either.

:bug:

If you missed the point made earlier, it was that America has few if any perfect laws. We can't even agree on some of our most basic concepts, such as how much taxes citiens should pay, or how to best elect a President.

Mars wrote:

Mars wrote:

And the proposition being imperfect isn't an argument against it either.

:bug:

If you missed the point made earlier, it was that America has few if any perfect laws. We can't even agree on some of our most basic concepts, such as how much taxes citiens should pay, or how to best elect a President.

Every law is imperfect.



But some laws are more imperfect than others.

snoscythe wrote:

Jarhead wrote:

And the proposition being imperfect isn't an argument against it either.

:bug:

If you missed the point made earlier, it was that America has few if any perfect laws. We can't even agree on some of our most basic concepts, such as how much taxes citiens should pay, or how to best elect a President.

Every law is imperfect.



But some laws are more imperfect than others.

Depends on who is defining perfection.

Prop 2 seems to be a perfect stepstone to get marijuana into the state of Utah. For those who want pot in utah, this would be a huge success.

snoscythe wrote:

I wonder what the position on growing your own willow trees in your back yard is.

https://itdoesnthavetoberight.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/comparing_apples_to_oranges.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

The point is the licensed pharmacy requirement. People have been chewing willow bark, cocaine leaves, and using cannabis forever. It's hubris again to believe that a licensed pharmacy (or a physician prescription) makes any of these medications any safer. People can and have safely self dosed medications for thousands of years without a prescription or a licensed pharmacy. It just seems like a cop out.



If the church is going to have a position on the matter they should just say that cannabis strains that alter mental status remove individuals from the spirit. Don't do that. We also think that should be illegal because of damage the use of those products cause to individuals.

The Church's stance is correct. The argument that started and drove this thread to 6 friggin' pages is beyond stupid. Get out of here with your "medical marijuana."

KingCoug wrote:

The Church's stance is correct. The argument that started and drove this thread to 6 friggin' pages is beyond stupid. Get out of here with your "medical marijuana."

The church's position is “We support medicinal use of marijuana with safeguards,” according to Elder Jack Gerard.



They also ask us to review a certain memorandum and "make our own decision."



I've got no problem's with those positions. You seem to have some problems with it though.

Press conference today to disclose an agreement between the pro-Prop 2 folks, the anti-Prop 2 folks, and the legislature:



https://www.ksl.com/article/46400634/announcement-over-medical-marijuana-initiative-expected-thursday

I broke up with my religion almost 15 years ago. I just received my state card a couple of weeks ago. Medical Marijuana is legal in my state. I am strictly going for pain relief. I am taking the CBD capsule at night. It's just like a regular pill. I didn't notice pain relief right away, but it did allow me to sleep the whole night. That is VERY rare for me. Now I sleep the whole night through. That alone is amazing. I also started using THC in patch form. I only use a quarter of the https://www.gyo.green/cannabis-seedbanks/crockett-family-farms-cannabis-seeds patch during the day. The consultants referred to it as "micro doses" which give slow and steady relief during the day. If I use half a patch, it really boosts my mood. I tried an edible once. I only had an eighth of a bar, but it was awful. It tasted like a dry handful of oregano wrapped in chocolate. I had horrible dreams and didn't like the way I felt. The low doses are bringing a steady relief. Combined with better sleep, it makes the morning easier.

rentemailad742 wrote:

I broke up with my religion almost 15 years ago. I just received my state card a couple of weeks ago. Medical Marijuana is legal in my state. I am strictly going for pain relief. I am taking the CBD capsule at night. It's just like a regular pill. I didn't notice pain relief right away, but it did allow me to sleep the whole night. That is VERY rare for me. Now I sleep the whole night through. That alone is amazing. I also started using THC in patch form. I only use a quarter of the https://www.gyo.green/cannabis-seedbanks/crockett-family-farms-cannabis-seeds patch during the day. The consultants referred to it as "micro doses" which give slow and steady relief during the day. If I use half a patch, it really boosts my mood. I tried an edible once. I only had an eighth of a bar, but it was awful. It tasted like a dry handful of oregano wrapped in chocolate. I had horrible dreams and didn't like the way I felt. The low doses are bringing a steady relief. Combined with better sleep, it makes the morning easier.

Glad you're feeling better. The problem with marijuana products really is the federal government. If they removed it from schedule 1 and allowed easier access for research it could be produced in a much safer manner. I get the church's hesitation when the federal government still says they can arrest people for using it though. It's plenty safe now but it could be even safer if the federal government would just get out of the way.