If cannabis does not have medical value, why did my dad's doctor prescribe him medical cannabis in the 70's for his asthma and uncontrollable high blood pressure. The joints came rolled in a tin with a federal stamp on the exterior. His doctor told him it was medicated cigarettes, and he smoked the "joints" at work in the Unites States Postal Service when he needed to. He said the joints helped him with multiple medical issues (migraines, high blood pressure extreme swings, asthma, kidney stone pain relief, anxiety)

The government at that time were using a supply of marijuana with very low THC values; however, it may have had good medical properties. Based on what my dad said about the effect on his high blood pressure leads me to believe the particular strain the government has does contain some level of CBD and also some terpene profiles.

IMHO the government knows the benefit of medical marijuana, but also knows people can abuse it like alcohol and didn't want another issue to deal with.

The more we legalize, the more research proves the medical benefits are real, and greater than we had previously imagined.
Yes, people can get high with it. Most learn moderation and safety, as is the case with adult alcohol consumption overall.

People can also use marijuana as a medicine. CBD is a great natural product worth investigating and it doesn't get a person high. THC-A (thc prior to heating. Without heat, consuming it will not get you high,) has medical properties in its non-heated state. Terpenes (associated with the unique smell. ie. pine, citrus,) also have medical benefits so flavor does matter in the medical arena as well.

The PARANOIA concerning the addictive properties and detrimental health consequences surrounding this herb is silly at this stage. People just need to become educated to real evidence now that some research has finally been allowed.

If one accepts the idea that big pharma has nearly unlimited governmental power, and they do not wish to compete with a plant people can grow at home, it is easy to see why this is still frowned on.

For decades, both overt and covert discouragement of marijuana has been publicized with little actual scientific backing.

Racial tension has been exploited in this discouragement.

The pursuit of pharma’s profits has a huge human cost as demonstrated through the current oxycontin/heroin crisis.

The one good thing that can be considered in this process is that more people are actually questioning authority, whether it is from the government, the pharma industry via our health care system, and religious organizations.

Gheco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The one good thing that can be considered in this
> process is that more people are actually
> questioning authority, whether it is from the
> government, the pharma industry via our health
> care system, and religious organizations.

Not in Utah. The Mormon Church is crafting the bill.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/09/26/gehrke-mormon-church/

And getting women mobilized.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/09/21/mormon-church-takes/

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gheco Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The one good thing that can be considered in
> this
> > process is that more people are actually
> > questioning authority, whether it is from the
> > government, the pharma industry via our health
> > care system, and religious organizations.
>
> Not in Utah. The Mormon Church is crafting the
> bill.
>
> https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/09/26/gehrke-morm
> on-church/
>
> And getting women mobilized.
>
> https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/09/21/mormon-
> church-takes/

Fortunately the rest of the country, outside of Utah, is not a theocracy.

Gheco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fortunately the rest of the country, outside of
> Utah, is not a theocracy.

Right? How many Utahans like that LDS Corp is "helping" with legislation and polling female only bloggers? Nuckin' Futz.

Now that white people need it, look how fast the law changed.

Did white people not need it before?

What do you mean?

MJ prohibition back in the day was entirely class based. It wasn’t enough to separate a brother from his homeland, they had to take away his herb. It took white man to invent true cruelty.

Although I wouldn’t be quick to take up ritual eating of my enemies. Not even if the Q15 were guests of honor. Picky eater, I guess.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/23/2018 10:24PM by babyloncansuckit.

You've made several assertions here:

1. Marijuana prohibition was class-based. Are you saying that there were laws that allowed white people to consume cannabis, but not non-white people? Can you point to any? If not, then you've disproved your entire premise, since the laws wouldn't need to change for white people who needed it.

2. When you say separate a brother from his homeland, do you mean the enslavement of africans? Just not sure what you mean here. When you say take away his herb, do you mean cannabis was consumed at large in africa? Again, your statement is vague and unclear.

3. It took a white man to invent true cruelty. Interesting. Was it not cruel of africans to kidnap members of neighboring tribes and sell them as slaves to the "evil white people?" Are africans held to a different standard? Africans had been enslaving each other long before europeans arrived on the continent. Was that not true cruelty? Please explain.

♡

I think babylonCSI is trying to be profound and cryptic. He is succeeding at being obscure and incomprehensible. Not quite the same thing.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/24/2018 07:44PM by Brother Of Jerry.

Any chance to materially promote white and delightsome while berbally denying it, we can count on LDS inc to be there.

Medical weed is allowed in my State. You have to pay a fee and shuffle some papers every so often to obtain the State-issued card. The card allows you to make purchases in stores that offer cannabis in just about every form you can imagine, and a few you never thought of.

I tried edibles (got pretty well looped with a single peppermint patty, whose powerful taste hid any hint of that give-away MJ flavor,) but other than that, I wasn't impressed. I didn't use any of the smokeable forms (I don't smoke anything, if I can help it). The topical painkillers had some soothing qualities for the skin, but didn't do anything for pain. There is clear stuff that you measure out of a dropper, but it tastes foul, and again, didn't do anything for me. I remember some little Gummi Bears that tasted OK and gave me a mini-buzz, but they seemed kind of pointless.

All in all, I did better with regular prescription meds, so I let my card expire. A couple of my kids were disappointed, as they had apparently enjoyed the high-quality stuff I had access to, but they have survived. (Yes, I shared; they were adults who used the stuff regularly anyway.) My son was fond of something called "White Widow."

Having given the stuff a fair try, in several forms, I decided it wasn't worth the hype, and have gotten relief that is equal to or better than you get from Mary Jane, and you don't have to do a whiz quiz every time you see your regular doc. (THAT was an unexpected nuisance. I let them know right away when I quit taking the legal stuff.) It wasn't worth the hassle.

So: been there, done that, and not impressed. Moved on.

For pain, I use opiates. (I hate the word "opioids." It just sounds slimy, somehow.) Yes, I realize that they can be lethal. But if you take them as prescribed, (and I keep a notebook for recording the date, time, and dosage of every opiate that goes down my throat, so there is NO opportunity for fouling up a dosage) - you get good pain relief and very little danger to your personal well-being. I am VERY careful about this.

Every time I see my primary care doctor, my little notebook goes with me, so there is written proof of what I took and when I took it.

That’s because you’re treating it like it’s medicine. I mean it is, but it’s consciousness-based. It’s a transductional pathway to an underlying proto-consciousness. You don’t just take it and let it do it’s thing. You have to work with it. It’s there to help you commune with your body. Combine it with a mindful practice such as seeing the beauty in the world around you.

You may hate the word, but opioids and opiates are different. Morphine, Thebaine, and Codeine are Opiates that are psychoactive extracts from the poppy plants. Opioids (generally) are any of the extracts of the poppy plant that bind to opioid receptor and I think also is the technical term for the chemically manufactured poppy derivatives like carfentanil or hydrocodone.

I didn’t realize this but apparently they’ve become so interchangeably used that either term is acceptable when referring to any opioid or opiate which doesn’t make any sense to me.

Since I'm a stickler for verbal accuracy, I guess I'll have to get over my revulsion at the word "opioids." The stuff I take is definitely in that category.

If only I hadn't been so ignorant of black ice many decades ago. That started the whole pain thing.

All I know is it smells like cat piss and makes the best ropes.

EXON46 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> All I know is it smells like cat piss and makes
> the best ropes.

LOL, that would be hemp! As a chronic pain patient of 20+ years, medical marijuana is far from that description. It truly alleviates some of my worst pain, tremendously reduces my need for pharmaceutical drugs, and is available in hundreds of strains. Absolutely makes a very, very positive difference in my well being for which I'm extremely grateful... :-)

I have found that it helps me with some kinds of pain, but does not with others. It doesn't help with the deep pain of p-neuropathy, but it does help with what I can "zingers". I use it predominantly before I go to sleep, so that it cuts out the zingers, and then I can go to sleep with just the steady pain. My use of opioides has greatly reduces since using MJ. This is good for me because the perc usually makes me sick to my stomach, even with the dramamine-like stuff the dr gives me and having eaten.

Just like with other medicines, it helps some people, but not all.

What is the reason my post about marijuana was taken off?

In practice, RfM has "gently" relaxed the rules against discussion of medical marijuana, but the rule against discussion of recreational drugs (including marijuana) is still in place.

That seems a bit unfair to Saucie, Tevai.

Medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are both in play politically, and the church is addressing both. I'd think that since MJ is now mainstream and the debate is moving towards the margins, the drug wouldn't require any more verbal restraint than alcohol.

That's just my opinion. I realize the mods know the context a lot better than I.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That seems a bit unfair to Saucie, Tevai.

This is not "my" rule, it is the rule of RfM (and to my knowledge, this always has been the rule here). Discussion of recreational drugs is still not allowed on RfM.


> Medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are
> both in play politically, and the church is
> addressing both. I'd think that since MJ is now
> mainstream and the debate is moving towards the
> margins, the drug wouldn't require any more verbal
> restraint than alcohol.

This is your opinion, and I will defend to the death your right to have it! :D

The bottom line is: Discussion of recreational drugs has been prohibited for (in my memory) all of the time I have been on this board.

That’s fine, but MJ is legal in some of our states—like Saucie’s. Also, some of the posts in this thread move back and forth between recreational and medical, so the enforcement may in some cases feel arbitrary.

No need to reply. I’ve said my piece.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 12:15AM by Lot's Wife.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/25/2018 01:28PM by Soft Machine.

>>Discussion of recreational drugs has been prohibited for (in my memory) all of the time I have been on this board.

Except C2H60...

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That seems a bit unfair to Saucie, Tevai.
>
> Medical marijuana and recreational marijuana are
> both in play politically, and the church is
> addressing both. I'd think that since MJ is now
> mainstream and the debate is moving towards the
> margins, the drug wouldn't require any more verbal
> restraint than alcohol.
>
> That's just my opinion. I realize the mods know
> the context a lot better than I.


Thanks Love... apparently that rule applies only to me and not to the rest of the people who posted about it.

Hi saucie: It's not directed at only you (even if it feels like it). More that we're in flux, reviewing the rule. Mod decisions can be challenging as many things are not black/white and some interpretation and nuance may be in play (especially with the recent change in status in some areas from illegal to legal). Also, as always, it's a question of mod time. We may see something on a thread we have to delete and then not get back to the thread for a while unless there's a report about a post. It's far from an exact science. You can always query why you've disappeared if it's not obvious or seems unduly unfair.

Maude Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi saucie: It's not directed at only you (even if
> it feels like it). More that we're in flux,
> reviewing the rule. Mod decisions can be
> challenging as many things are not black/white and
> some interpretation and nuance may be in play
> (especially with the recent change in status in
> some areas from illegal to legal). Also, as
> always, it's a question of mod time. We may see
> something on a thread we have to delete and then
> not get back to the thread for a while unless
> there's a report about a post. It's far from an
> exact science. You can always query why you've
> disappeared if it's not obvious or seems unduly
> unfair.

OH so there were other's whose posts got deleted too and not just mine?

saucie Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OH so there were other's whose posts got deleted
> too and not just mine?


Oh, yes!!

I did not understand that you did not understand that this happens all the time around here. We hide posts which reference recreational drugs (seems to me like) almost daily.

The tough posts are the ones which talk about medical marijuana AND recreational marijuana in the same post--these can be exceedingly difficult to mod, and there are times when (in the report where we explain why we are hiding, or NOT hiding, a post) we refer to the specific difficulties IN THAT POST, explain why we made the choice we made, and ask for input (or to be reversed) if we made the "wrong" choice.

When societies and cultures are changing in regard to specific concerns, the betwixt and between period is often extremely difficult for mods/Admin.

We do our best, and we DO ask for input from those who read our reports.

I'll bet Saucie's post will be 100% acceptable in three or four months given how fast MJ is becoming socially and legally acceptable!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/26/2018 05:02PM by Lot's Wife.

I remember when we could not even use the word marijuana here at RfM lest we get our post yanked.

Now it's like "marijuana ... marijuana ... marijuana ... what are you going to do to me."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYkbqzWVHZI



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2018 11:55AM by Dave the Atheist.

Is alcohol a recreational drug ?

I am currently taking CBD oil and I think it helps. From anxiety to pain I believe it does something.

D&C 89:10

"And again, verily I say unto you, all wholesome herbs God hath ordained for the constitution, nature, and use of man—"

It's very likely that medicinally valuable cannabis plants were prominent in the minds of the Mormons who first laid eyes on this "revelation" in D&C 89.

"In the U.S., cannabis was widely utilized as a patent medicine during the 19th and early 20th centuries, described in the United States Pharmacopoeia for the first time in 1850."

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312634/

TBH, it's a no-brainer to figure out the real reason for the campaign to make not only medicinal cannabis illegal, but also the closely related hemp plants that were useful for thousands of industrial uses (ropes, plastics, fuel, building products, fabrics....).

The relatively new petroleum industry (owned by a relatively few people/corporations/financiers and backed by bought-and-paid-for politicians and the bought-and-paid-for media) was busy developing competing medicinal and industrial products based on petroleum, but requiring extensive and expensive processing, all of which could be patented. (The petro-chemical products typically had much worse side effects than hemp and cannabis-based products.)

Of course in order to make massive profits on the newly developing petro-chemical industry, these same movers and shakers had to get rid of the competition. The competition was a family of plants that couldn't be patented and that could be easily grown on family farms.

They succeeded. The "reefer madness" cover story that they used as a pretext did not even apply to industrial hemp crops, but, hey, they look similar so you don't want to get law enforcement officers confused, making it harder to enforce those all-important laws against a naturally growing plant that was perfectly legal throughout the history of humanity and was never seen as such a frightening threat to all that is good and holy...UNTIL...the advent of the petro-chemical industry.

Hemp was a danger to the paper industry and William Randolph Hearst was heavily invested in paper.

It’s amazing how politics is so much like religion. So few people bother to check the facts because the tribe determines reality.

Paper from wood, requiring large-scale timber operations, advantageous freight rates, mills and so on...as opposed to paper from hemp that could be produced at comparatively low overhead by numerous and various small business operators.

The club of industrialists and financiers had a common interest in making it impossible for small-scale operators to compete in various industries that were being scaled up, centralized, concentrated and consolidated. Hemp was an obvious target for competition-elimination in many industrial sectors.

http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/pot/blunderof37.html

wally prince, i think the reason for the criminalization and demonization of cannabis is a little more complicated and multi-faceted.

in his excellent book on the stupidity and corruption of 'the war on drugs', DRUG CRAZY, mike grey points out the racist roots of practically all drug prohibitions. in the case of cannabis, this meant being anti-mexican.

there's another much less well known or acknowledged reason too, i think. george carlin touched upon it in an interview he once gave, in which he asserted that cannabis is a 'values changing drug'. as a long time user myself, i think i know what he's talking about. just as it stimulates creativity in artists, it also stimulates thinking and curiosity, helping one to see things in a new light. the famous scientist carl sagan claimed that he sometimes used cannabis to help him come up with answers to scientific questions...

so how would this relate to the political establishment's ongoing zeal to prohibit cannabis use? again, carlin provided the answer during one of his comedy routines, which u can see by googling 'george carlin owners of this country', where he asserts, i think quite correctly, that the establishment doesn't want to encourage critical thinking among the masses. this is because critical thinkers are harder to deceive, control, and exploit. just like churches like the LDS frown on questioning of their 'authority', governments tend to be the same way, for the same reason!

Ascribing it mainly to racism or anti-Mexican sentiment is the overly simplistic approach. The timelines matches up perfectly with the emergence of patentable industrial products for which hemp was the most prominent, relatively inexpensive, non-patentable, easily renewable alternative. Certainly, racist stereotypes were used in the "reefer madness" propaganda used to get the general public to not resist the prohibition. But that wasn't the real motivation among the elite pushers of prohibition.

It also coincided with the relaxation of alcohol prohibition (obviously alcohol prohibition was a racist policy aimed at the Irish?)

I have no problem factoring in the anxiousness of certain elements in the establishment to prevent people from experiencing the values-altering aspects of cannabis use. But that would be a motivation aimed against the general public, without regard to race or ethnicity. In fact, it could be seen as a move to prevent the majority population from "discovering" such properties of cannabis. Demonize the herb, so that they're too ashamed to give it a try.

Still, none of this means that the critical element that allowed the establishment to pull it off politically was not the profit motive associated with petro-chemical/big pharma cartelization and the need to get rid of the competition that otherwise would be there from small-scale operators. The profit angle would be a pretty easy sale to make to the investor class...probably a lot easier than telling them that the main purpose was to prevent the emergence of expanded consciousness in the general public.

Is an exercise in futility. Marijuana--and the opiates and cocaine--were "caught up in a political wave" brought about by the same "national mentality" that led to the Volstead Act* in 1918. Two pieces of legislation that occurred included the Harrison Narcotics Act of 1914 and the Jones-Miller Act of 1922.

The one individual "responsible" for much of what followed was Harry J. Anslinger; he was an ambitious zealot and crusader, period, and his racism was only a tangential issue compared to his "puritan streak." Per Wiki:

>>Harry J. Anslinger was appointed its first commissioner by Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon under President Herbert Hoover. Under Anslinger, the bureau lobbied for harsh penalties for drug usage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Bureau_of_Narcotics

>>The Federal Bureau of Narcotics (FBN) was an agency of the United States Department of the Treasury. Established in the Department of the Treasury by an act of June 14, 1930 consolidating the functions of the Federal Narcotics Control Board and the Narcotic Division. These older bureaus were established to assume enforcement responsibilities assigned to the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914 and the Narcotic Drugs Import and Export Act, 1922.[1] (aka Jones-Miller Act)

*AKA the 18th Amendment, aka "Prohibition"; note the "timing" of all of these acts, and it's obvious how they occurred during the same period of history.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/27/2018 06:34AM by SL Cabbie.

Watch “Hemp for Victory”, a film the USG made to promote wartime production of hemp. Why were they pushing such a heinous and dangerous plant (with no psychoactive effects) in the 1940s? They made it sound like making rope and other hemp products was a good thing.

#repeat old schoolteacher's statement about "interpreting history."

>>They made it sound like making rope and other hemp products was a good thing. (referring to a film made by the U.S. Government as part of the "war effort")

And I have no doubt it was a "good thing." (gag reflex after thinking about Martha Stewart, however)

(From my scouting days, seriously) Probably the "best" rope* for many purposes is "manila," made from the fibers of the abacá plant (a type of banana). It takes its name from the capital of the Philippines, one of the major areas where it is grown. I hope they taught you about the Philippines and what took place during World War II in that part of the Pacific (see MacArthur, General Douglas).

*The use of synthetics such as nylon was in its infancy, and that was the reason for "reviving" the production of domestic hemp. All of the branches of the U.S. Armed Forces used rope extensively, honest.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2018 12:26AM by SL Cabbie.

justgogreen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> IMHO the government knows the benefit of medical
> marijuana, but also knows people can abuse it like
> alcohol and didn't want another issue to deal
> with.

While I agree with you that your government has long known the medical benefits (and relative harmlessness) of marijuana, I disagree with you about the motivation to keep it illegal.

Legalizing marijuana makes one LESS issue to deal with, not one more. Also, keeping it illegal makes search and seizure powers nearly absolute, and greases the gravy-train private prison (and near-free prison labour) industry.


The last group that wants to see legal marijuana is the alcohol industry, for a variety of reasons. Some companies are seeking to get on board early and get ahead on this. Look out for MJ infused tequila, Willie Nelson style, coming to a corner store near you soon!

But alcohol and MJ together doesn’t make much sense. Coca-Cola is presently in talks with Alberta’s biggest grower to develop MJ infused cold drinks. That makes more sense, and it will be billions of dollars huge (Canada will be MJ legal across the board next month.)


But is it medicine? Of course it is. Sometimes a walk in the park is all the medicine some of us need. What brings us health and well being, which is the whole point and meaning of medicine, comes in a wide variety of ways. And for those that are self-medicating with alcohol and illegal opiates etc, MJ is a much MUCH better alternative.

Human

Soma will soon be widely available in our Brave New World.

'The last group that wants to see legal marijuana is the alcohol industry, for a variety of reasons.'

human, i read or learned somewhere that the biggest funders of the group 'partnership for a drug-free america' were the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries! talk about hypocrisy, these purveyors of legal drugs (which do far more harm than all illicit drugs combined) simply don't want any competition!

i agree it's probably a bad idea to mix alcohol and cannabis. imo, alcohol dulls the brain, while cannabis in moderation stimulates it. it also tends to make one mellow, rather than combative, which alcohol does with some.

i think u're right too that just about anything that helps more than harms can be considered therapeutic or medicinal. cannabis is quite special though. i doubt if any other medicinal plant in the world can alleviate nearly as many ailments as cannabis can. it's remarkably versatile as a medicine.

i think it was another commenter who pointed out harry anslinger and the zealous puritanism that's played a huge role in american drug (including the drug alcohol) prohibitions historically. puritans are very irrational and often wield political power beyond their numbers. just look at who's in charge of 'justice' in america right now. jeff sessions, ultra conservative christian and purveyor of modern day reefer madness, among other things. someone who never lets facts get in the way of his beliefs, like many other conservatives. it's madness, alright. the madness of minds addled by dogmas, not drugs. just say no to dogmas!

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/pdfa1.htm

Weirdly, Sessions was moving towards a pro-MJ stance, as did Boehner, before becoming AG. Why did he halt? Check out how much the Private Prison Industry gave him just before becoming AG.


Constellation Brands, maker of Corona beer and other alcohol beverages, is betting 4 billion that there is a market for alcohol+MJ beverages. But i’m With you, the combination seems contradictory. Then again, so is an Irish coffee.


MJ in food is another big market play that is just sitting there to be exploited. We’ll see.


And I agree with you about the special medicinal properties of MJ. I’ve long been pro-MJ just as a basic ethical stance, but after using it in an oil form after knee surgery, instead of codeine etc that was prescribed, the abstract ethical stance became a personal stance based on experience.

Above is a response to the virgin terry