Medical Marijuana and the Church

[hawkwing]

It's hard to take seriously someone else's description of a conversation when everything they did and said was filled with righteous anger and great points and the other side had nothing but awkward pauses and confused glances.

[snoscythe]

For anyone seeking to educate themselves on the topic:

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

I read it, and I disagree with his conclusions.

He starts by insinuating that the Church had no good basis to oppose the bill he was supporting in 2016 because their lobbyists didn't give any specific criticism or offer any revisions that would make it palatable. I don't think they had any obligation to give him those answers -- at least they were kind enough to show up and privately convey the opposition prior to making it public. The entire first half where he tries to read the tea leaves to understand why the Church did what it did is just supposition on his part. The blog title itself is false and misleading -- the Church opposed the bill he supported in 2106, but even back then did not suppose other legislation in Utah at the time advancing medical marijuana -- when it publically opposed Boyack's bill in 2016, it did so with this statement:

"While we are not in a position to evaluate specific medical claims, the Church understands that there are some individuals who may benefit from the medical use of compounds found in marijuana. For that reason, although the Church opposes SB 73, it has raised no objection to SB 89. These two competing pieces of legislation take very different approaches when it comes to issues like access, distribution, control and the potential harm of the hallucinogenic compound, THC."

The title of his blog post "Why Does My Church Oppose Medical Marijuana" is disingenuous. It doesn't. It opposes specific bills that are too lax in how they go about trying to bring it into Utah.

Then he moves onto the Word of Wisdom argument. First he focuses on the legal/illegal dichotomy. It's a distinction without a difference in this case -- under federal law, marijuana use, medical, recreational, or otherwise is not legal in any state at this time, so that's a non-starter issue. None of these proposals truly make med marijuana "legal".

Next is the "wholesome herb" argument. Yeah, marijuana can be viewed as a "wholesome herb", but so can the opium poppy. Are we comfortable with adding the opium poppy to Prop 2? It's wholesome, right? The rub is that the next verse says we're supposed to use them with prudence, which is consistent in my mind with the Church's current position favoring regulated medical use. I think the friction point would be defining what is prudent more than whether or not it is wholesome.

The idea that no bishop has ever initiated a disciplinary counsel for opiods because they are legal when used in accordance with the law use is laughable as well. How many disciplinary councils are called for coffee? Tea? Alcohol? Medical marijuana? I don't know of any. The Word of Wisdom generally is not the basis for disciplinary councils, so there's not a point to be made there.

Bishops interpreting things differently in regards to temple attendance is not an issue unique to medical pot--I know a Relief Society President who was threatened with having her temple recommend revoked because she was out of town for a number of weeks for reunions, family visits, and vacations, and the bishop thought she was not striving to attend her priesthood meetings (but interestingly said she would not be released from her calling even if he took her recommend). Does that mean the Church needs to set a worldwide standard for how often you need to attend your meetings so that everything is consistent? No.

And the balance of the blog is his opinion that the Church is not always right, and is subject to error, and should stay out of politics (especially when he disagrees with their position). Whatever -- you can use that line of logic to argue that anyone with a perceived authoritative position should keep their mouth shut.

So yeah, I get that the guy was disappointed. But the blog came across as more whimpering than robust analytical argument.

[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.

"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.

It's kind of like gun laws. Does making a handgun illegal keep a criminal from owning and using it? No. But it keeps a law abiding citizen from it.

Does making medicinal marijuana illegal keep recreational users from buying and using weed illegally? No. But it does hurt law-abiding citizens with seizures, cancer, pain, and other issues.

And again, this argument is about making the substance legal to treat medical problems, not just to make brownies for a rockin' sweet party.

[Mars]

He starts by insinuating that the Church had no good basis to oppose the bill he was supporting in 2016 because their lobbyists didn't give any specific criticism or offer any revisions that would make it palatable. I don't think they had any obligation to give him those answers -- at least they were kind enough to show up and privately convey the opposition prior to making it public.

This meeting took place after the lawyers had already gone out telling politicians to vote No.

And Christ didn't owe us anything, and yet he went about doing good, and even gave his life for us. People can do whatever they want as individuals, but to say "I represent the Church of Jesus Christ" and then to feel no shame in treating others in a disrespectful, un-Christlike manner... Well, that's upsetting.

Of course, it was upsetting when BYU kicked a girl out of school when she became pregnant due to rape. But good people can make terrible decisions. That's why it's up to us to educate ourselves and to make the best decisions we can based on our knowledge, instead of allowing others to make our political decisions for us.

[snoscythe]

this argument is about making the substance legal to treat medical problems, not just to make brownies for a rockin' sweet party.

The other side of the argument is "the manner in which you want to make the substance 'legal' to treat medical problems doesn't do enough to keep the substance out of brownies."

[snoscythe]

He starts by insinuating that the Church had no good basis to oppose the bill he was supporting in 2016 because their lobbyists didn't give any specific criticism or offer any revisions that would make it palatable. I don't think they had any obligation to give him those answers -- at least they were kind enough to show up and privately convey the opposition prior to making it public.

This meeting took place after the lawyers had already gone out telling politicians to vote No.

And your point is? They still sat down with the guy and the sponsoring Senator before they went public.

[Mars]

this argument is about making the substance legal to treat medical problems, not just to make brownies for a rockin' sweet party.

The other side of the argument is "the manner in which you want to make the substance 'legal' to treat medical problems doesn't do enough to keep the substance out of brownies."

And yet almost 300 Utahns don't die of eating brownies each year. Children in Utah don't have life-long seizures caused by brownies.

These arguments seem silly. Be grateful you never saw President Monson when he was in horrible pain, and his deep Opiod addiction wasn't enough to help him. It wasn't pretty. He couldn't act as a prophet then, nor did he act like a good person. The Church should be on the opposite side of this argument based on his life experiences alone. And yet...

[snoscythe]

this argument is about making the substance legal to treat medical problems, not just to make brownies for a rockin' sweet party.

The other side of the argument is "the manner in which you want to make the substance 'legal' to treat medical problems doesn't do enough to keep the substance out of brownies."

And yet almost 300 Utahns don't die of eating brownies each year. Children in Utah don't have life-long seizures caused by brownies.

But they do die from abuse and neglect at time when the adults they rely upon use marijuana or when the experiment with it.

These arguments seem silly.

Am I supposed to just let your oversimplifications and misrepresentations of the debate stand?

Be grateful you never saw President Monson when he was in horrible pain, and his deep Opiod addiction wasn't enough to help him. It wasn't pretty. He couldn't act as a prophet then, nor did he act like a good person. The Church should be on the opposite side of this argument based on his life experiences alone. And yet...

Hard cases make bad law.

I'll counter with the 19-year old who accidentally ate his mom's pot brownie and ended up falling off the balcony: https://denver.cbslocal.com/2015/04/23/ ... ird-story/

Or how about the mom whose 14 year old son won't be coming home after he had a bad reaction to his first try at Mary Jane with his friends and ended up drowned? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatche ... -1.3392179

There are very sad stories on both sides--the pro-medical folks don't have a monopoly on avoiding suffering.

[jvquarterback]

Late to the debate. I write letters to our county regularly so my cancer patients can obtain a medical marijuana card here in California (they get out of having to pay exorbitant taxes that way and you all know how I feel about that. I can't prescribe marijuana though I can some cannaboid derivative drugs.

While I don't think cannaboids are great drugs,I can say that about a lot of drugs and I usually try alternatives first.

My biggest issue with the position in which cannaboids are ok if prescribed in a certain dosage by a physician and delivered by a licensed pharmacy because a physician does not no the proper dose for cannaboids (or opiods). There is excellent evidence that physcians are terrible at titrating opioid doses. And patients are better at this, certainly in the inpatient setting, and generally in the outpatient setting.

Let me give you an example. I saw a patient today who is on a fentanyl patch with percocet (which I hate) prescribed (by another physician) for breakthrough pain after fracturing her femur due to metastatic cancer. She's getting immunotherapy and radiation to help her with her pain. I have no idea what the proper percocet dose is for her pain. The best I can say is to take as much as she needs within certain limits based on the tylenol dose so she doesn't develop liver failure (which is why i never prescribe percocet). Her pain may get better or worse so if I were prescribing the dose I'd tell her to titrate it herself.

I'd like to know the reason the church suggests the necessity of a physcian to prescribe the actual dose. It is hubris for a physician to think they are better than a patient at titrating pain medications.

[snoscythe]

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.