Medical Marijuana and the Church

[Mars]

Marijuana is a Schedule I drug nationally, meaning no physician can prescribe it anywhere, and no pharmacy can provide it. And that no studies can be done on its safety.

And they are in support of changing those restrictions. Don't you?

I think the stupider approach is Prop 2

I think you're reading what you want to see here. They never said they supported changing those restrictions, and I doubt they do. Though I would agree if they did.

From Elder Gerard's public statement:

The Church does not object to the medicinal use of marijuana, if doctor-prescribed, in dosage form, through a licensed pharmacy

From the email to members in Utah:

We also urge lawmakers, patients, and community stakeholders to work together to find a solution that works for all Utahns.

Am I misconstruing something?

Yes.

At no point do they mention changing marijuana from its federal schedule 1 classification.

Utah isn't even able to change that if they wanted to. The press release is purposefully disingenuous. Which makes is worthless, badly thought out, ignorant, and ill-advised.

[Jarhead]

Marijuana is a Schedule I drug nationally, meaning no physician can prescribe it anywhere, and no pharmacy can provide it. And that no studies can be done on its safety.

And they are in support of changing those restrictions. Don't you?

I think the stupider approach is Prop 2

I think you're reading what you want to see here. They never said they supported changing those restrictions, and I doubt they do. Though I would agree if they did.

From Elder Gerard's public statement:

The Church does not object to the medicinal use of marijuana, if doctor-prescribed, in dosage form, through a licensed pharmacy

From the email to members in Utah:

We also urge lawmakers, patients, and community stakeholders to work together to find a solution that works for all Utahns.

Am I misconstruing something?

Yes.

At no point do they mention changing marijuana from its federal schedule 1 classification.

Utah isn't even able to change that if they wanted to. The press release is purposefully disingenuous. Which makes is worthless, badly thought out, ignorant, and ill-advised.

I disagree with your final two sentences. The more organizations that come out with stances like this (especially socially conservative ones), the more likely we can change the medical marijuana discussion to what it should really be about. What stance would you prefer the church to take besides the one they just took? Do nothing? Go against federal law?

[Mars]

I'd prefer their official stance being something along the lines of: "In an imperfect world, we seek to improve the lives of our members and our communities. We seek to find and do that which brings true joy and happiness, to share our time and talents to help those in need, to bring light to places of darkness, to bring hope to the hopeless, protection to those in danger and healing to those in pain. We seek to love all of our brothers and sisters out there in the world without harsh judgement, to understand them, to befriend them and care for them, to celebrate their achievements and to mourn with them when they suffer loss. We strive to improve ourselves, to work hard and provide for our families, to be honest, to be good citizens, and to be of service to those around us. We desire to reach out to the individual in need, to comfort those in pain, to bless the lives of all that we can, in every way that we can. In short, we seek to walk the path walked by our Savior and Redeemer, and to emulate our prime example, even Jesus Christ, the son of the Living God. May we always seek to do so."

[snoscythe]

Marijuana is a Schedule I drug nationally, meaning no physician can prescribe it anywhere, and no pharmacy can provide it. And that no studies can be done on its safety.

And they are in support of changing those restrictions. Don't you?

I think the stupider approach is Prop 2

I think you're reading what you want to see here. They never said they supported changing those restrictions, and I doubt they do. Though I would agree if they did.

From Elder Gerard's public statement:

The Church does not object to the medicinal use of marijuana, if doctor-prescribed, in dosage form, through a licensed pharmacy

From the email to members in Utah:

We also urge lawmakers, patients, and community stakeholders to work together to find a solution that works for all Utahns.

Am I misconstruing something?

Yes.

At no point do they mention changing marijuana from its federal schedule 1 classification.

Utah isn't even able to change that if they wanted to. The press release is purposefully disingenuous. Which makes is worthless, badly thought out, ignorant, and ill-advised.

Oh, geez! They left out specifics! That must mean they aren't serious.

I also don't read them to only be looking at Utah politics. Yes, they reference Utahns, but that's probably because that's who the proposed Proposition affects. I don't see their urging for people to work together to find a solution for Utahns to preclude looking at federal-level changes in legislation or DEA scheduling.

To quote someone I generally find intelligent and reasonable: "I think you're reading what you want to see here. They never said they [don't support] changing those restrictions, and I doubt they do."

[Jarhead]

I'd prefer their official stance being something along the lines of: "In an imperfect world, we seek to improve the lives of our members and our communities. We seek to find and do that which brings true joy and happiness, to share our time and talents to help those in need, to bring light to places of darkness, to bring hope to the hopeless, protection to those in danger and healing to those in pain. We seek to love all of our brothers and sisters out there in the world without harsh judgement, to understand them, to befriend them and care for them, to celebrate their achievements and to mourn with them when they suffer loss. We strive to improve ourselves, to work hard and provide for our families, to be honest, to be good citizens, and to be of service to those around us. We desire to reach out to the individual in need, to comfort those in pain, to bless the lives of all that we can, in every way that we can. In short, we seek to walk the path walked by our Savior and Redeemer, and to emulate our prime example, even Jesus Christ, the son of the Living God. May we always seek to do so."

The church would get heavily criticized for this statement as well.

[ABYUFAN]

Fixed it for you

I'd prefer their official stance being something along the lines of: "In an imperfect world, we seek to improve the lives of our members and our communities. We seek to find and do that which brings true joy and happiness, to share our time and talents to help those in need, to bring light to places of darkness, to bring hope to the hopeless, protection to those in danger and healing to those in pain. We seek to love all of our brothers and sisters out there in the world without harsh judgement, to understand them, to befriend them and care for them, to celebrate their achievements and to mourn with them when they suffer loss. We strive to improve ourselves, to work hard and provide for our families, to be honest, to be good citizens, and to be of service to those around us. We desire to reach out to the individual in need, to comfort those in pain, to bless the lives of all that we can, in every way that we can. In short, we seek to walk the path walked by our Savior and Redeemer, and to emulate our prime example, even Jesus Christ, the son of the Living God. May we always seek to do so."

And P.S. ignore that whole 12th article of faith thing....

[Mars]

For anyone seeking to educate themselves on the topic:

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-do ... #more-3458

[ABYUFAN]

For anyone seeking to educate themselves on the topic:

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-do ... #more-3458

Very interesting read. I was hoping that he could address the 12th article of faith issue with federal law. Instead he ignores that problem entirely (mostly because he has to) I agree - I see nothing in the word of wisdom that would prohibit marijuana at least not more than would prohibit bacon cheeseburgers. The problem is that church should not support legislation that is directly contrary to the federal law of the land. The Church may or may not support changing Federal law, but until that is changed, I would be disappointed in the church saying we are going to advocate for ignoring some laws because some people need help but most want it just to get high.

[Mars]

For anyone seeking to educate themselves on the topic:

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-do ... #more-3458

Very interesting read. I was hoping that he could address the 12th article of faith issue with federal law. Instead he ignores that problem entirely (mostly because he has to) I agree - I see nothing in the word of wisdom that would prohibit marijuana at least not more than would prohibit bacon cheeseburgers. The problem is that church should not support legislation that is directly contrary to the federal law of the land. The Church may or may not support changing Federal law, but until that is changed, I would be disappointed in the church saying we are going to advocate for ignoring some laws because some people need help but most want it just to get high.

It's interesting because the Church has ignored medical marijuana laws in every other state. Utah is late to the game, but only now do they speak out? While refusing to hear from medical experts? While refusing to discuss reasons for their opposition?

I don't expect the Church to do something proactively good here, I expect them to not do something reactively bad. I mean, you can smoke weed in Colorado for your cancer or take CBD oil and THC for seizures in California and still go to the Temple, so it's not like the 12th article of faith is a concern there.

[ABYUFAN]

For anyone seeking to educate themselves on the topic:

http://www.connorboyack.com/blog/why-do ... #more-3458

Very interesting read. I was hoping that he could address the 12th article of faith issue with federal law. Instead he ignores that problem entirely (mostly because he has to) I agree - I see nothing in the word of wisdom that would prohibit marijuana at least not more than would prohibit bacon cheeseburgers. The problem is that church should not support legislation that is directly contrary to the federal law of the land. The Church may or may not support changing Federal law, but until that is changed, I would be disappointed in the church saying we are going to advocate for ignoring some laws because some people need help but most want it just to get high.

It's interesting because the Church has ignored medical marijuana laws in every other state. Utah is late to the game, but only now do they speak out? While refusing to hear from medical experts? While refusing to discuss reasons for their opposition?

I don't expect the Church to do something proactively good here, I expect them to not do something reactively bad. I mean, you can smoke weed in Colorado for your cancer or take CBD oil and THC for seizures in California and still go to the Temple, so it's not like the 12th article of faith is a concern there.

"relatively bad" is a term open for discussion. My state loves its marijuana. My kids have been in class next to backpacks full of the stuff and the offender not so much as receive one day of suspension. My community buried a firefighter who was killed by someone driving stoned. I have a close friend who is using medical marijuana for her cancer. I see both sides of this issue. People love to talk about it helping the sufferer without any thought whatsoever as to the suffering that it will (and I mean "WILL") cause to others. Any so-called "honest" discussion on the topic should be at a minimum honest enough to acknowledge that it WILL with absolute certainty cause others to suffer - but that suffering is worth it.