Regarding states' rights and the Constitution, I.M. Fletch made the most
cogent statement here. I couldn't have said it any better.As a
card-carrying Latter-day Saint I am dismayed at the ignorance and bias expressed
by many who have no understanding of the effects of cannabis. All the evidence
indicates that medical marijuana has helped many people suffering pain and life
threatening conditions, while there is zero evidence that crime and automobile
accidents have risen in states where it is legalized (except perhaps for theft
from dispensaries, but I doubt that it's any worse than theft from other
retail establishments). I use non-psychoactive CBD for insomnia, and it has
saved my health and sanity!As for worrying that people will use
marijuana for R&R... so what? It doesn't make its users any more
violent than binging on sweets and it is certainly much safer than alcohol. I
know many users of cannabis, including my own family members, teachers, medical
personnel, business owners, et al, and they are not crazed drug addicts.
Furthermore, it's nobody's business what they do in their lives!
Legalized drug pushers, er I mean Multinational Pharmaceutical companies are
protected by the FDA to prescribe billions of opiates to the public where
according to the CDC center Drug Overdose data center records 42,416 deaths in
2016 and no legislation to protect its citizens, yet when a state where children
are suffering debilitating epilepsy and others chronic pain seek scientific
proven health from "medical marijuana " ,there is a outcry to silence
those who suffer at the cost of biased, opinionated bodies who do not understand
compassion or relief for their fellow citizens.
In ten years we will look back and see just how foolish it was to be against
helping people with medical marijuana.
Wow. Desperation. Let’s vote already, as the majority of common sense
Utahns want this, and other states have led the way. If you want anecdotal
evidence, plenty of our extended family in Denver are medical professionals
(doctors, nurses, ER docs, etc) and they have seen more damage from alcohol and
opioids than cannabis. Plus those of us here have been waiting for Utah to
claim the benefits of cannabis instead of trying to stem the deaths and injuries
from legal drugs. Follow the money...
The federal government has passed laws banning all marijuana use. The federal
government has also mandated that all States grant marriage benefits to
homosexual couples.I believe a State law alllowing the use of
marijuana is as valid or invalid as would be a State law limiting marriage to
complementary, conjugal couples.Those most upset by this lawsuit
would be the first and loudest to support the same suit, on the same federal
supremacy argument if there were a citizen initiative to limit marriage to
heterosexual coupes.Please note, I have not offered in this comment
any opinion on the benefits or risks of either legalized marijuana or marriage
benefits for homosexual couples. I have simply observed that in both cases,
federal supremacy is at play.Those who support federal supremacy in
one case, oppose it in another. Such inconsistency, such lack of foundational
principle, is as much a problem in politics today as the lack of civility.
Indeed, the lack of consistent principles is part of what prevents civil
@Palmetto Bug "Until the federal government reclassifies the
drug I don’t see how a state can pass laws opposing federal
regulations."Let me explain it to you.The Federal
Government is a creature of the States, not the other way around. The supreme
law of the land, The Constitution, prohibits the Federal Government from
legislating marijuana prohibition. Article 3 and the 10th Amendment make this
abundantly clear. And lest the lawyers start saying up is down and black is
white, we have not one, but two additional amendments (the 18th and the 21st),
that show that this area of law is rightfully for the people of the State of
Utah to decide.
I can’t wait to vote for this initiative.
Don't tell me how innocent and harmless marijuana usage is!Having become a convert in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
only a few months prior to entering the United Sates Army, I personally never
partook of any of the illegal recreational drugs abundantly available.During my years as a soldier in the United States Army, I witnessed the use of
marijuana, opium, hashish, heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine, and the violent
criminal activity accompanying it.In Germany, a soldier in my unit
was castrated by fellow soldiers for being suspected of opposing the drug
use.In Viet Nam, I was frequently inundated in clouds of second hand
marijuana smoke, and because of my outspoken opposition, there even was an
attempt on my own life, using a hand grenade while I slept.Heroin
use was rampant, and I learned how to handle an overdose.If you can
believe it, this was in a war, where we were armed and we had to remain
constantly alert, due to ongoing enemy activity, which greatly added to my
constant fears.I still wonder how I made it back alive?In Korea, I even witnessed soldiers hooking their pet dogs on drugs!
Frivolous lawsuits aside, I find the image selection divisive and a little
ridiculous. I would love to see a lack of bias when I read these stories.
Actually, there is NO law against voting on anything.The problem
comes if/when the new law is implemented, and the feds decided to
"challenge" it.Yes, due to the supremacy clause - the state
WOULD lose. But the challenge has to come from the the party
"harmed" - in this case the federal govt. and the supremacy clause.As far as I can tell, the folks trying to keep it off the ballot are NOT
going to come up with enough SCIENTIFIC proof that all Utahns would be harmed,
particularly if all they do is vote on it. There may very well be
"harm" - but "potential" harm is hard to justify, much less
quantify.The weighty precedent that has already been set is that 29
states have already implemented pot, and haven't been "challenged"
by the feds.I personally couldn't care less which way the thing
goes, but when I read these few specifics on the legal "challenge" - I
can't imagine that they can/will prevail.
I don't know why people are ruled by fear
Re: ". . . peddling disproved theories and unfounded guesses . . . is going
too far."You mean like the disproved theory that weed can be
somehow "legalized" by a lawless election?Funny how
it's "going too far" when weed opponents -- particularly, the
Church --demand compliance with the law, but it's somehow OK when venal,
dishonest weed pushers conveniently gloss over the fact that weed is as illegal
as it has ever been in those states foolish enough to enable and embrace the
crime wave that naturally flows from weed "legalization."Everyone knows this is an illegal scam, perpetrated by evil designs of
conspiring men. It seems to infuriate weed pushers when we refuse to treat them
as if they were honest people with a genuinely humane proposal, but the truth of
the matter is they simply are not.They are, rather, scammers, out to
make a buck off society's most vulnerable and easily led, no matter how
badly it affects the rest of us.Here's hoping the SecState and
courts have the integrity to comply with their oaths of office.
Law suits - letting judges decide? Ballot box - letting citizens decide a
medical science question? Until the medical use of cannabadiol (this lacks the
psychotropic qualities of THC) or other cannabis derivatives is guided by
verifiable evidence the issue will be political, not scientific.
Evidence certainly suggests marijuana has medicinal properties but until the
federal government reclassifies the drug I don’t see how a state can pass
laws opposing federal regulations. I also have big concerns with
allowing lay voters power to legalize medical drugs, bypassing formal FDA
approval. This sets a precedent that could be easily exploited. If citizens
believe marijuana should be legalized for medical purposes we should pressure
congress to change the federal law so the drug can go through the same process
as other prescriptions. Likewise, if citizens believe marijuana
should be legalized for recreational use we should likewise pressure our
representatives to change the law to allow such use (alcohol is far more
dangerous and addictive than marijuana so there’s not much reason to allow
one and not the other but I would be okay outlawing both, prohibition FTW).
For those who haven't read the ballot initiative, there are some key points
to remembers:1. Cities and other jurisdictions will not have the ability
to not allow pot dispensaries in their neighborhood.2. The Ballot
initiative does not collect sales tax. There are great costs with running such a
program3. "Medical" Marijuana does not exist. It is simply adult
use marijuana given to "patients" who only have to visit at
"doctor" once. There is no follow up, and now prescription.
@waterrocket;"That is simply a blatant lie! I don't know about
all "29" states, but I do know that Colorado reported a sharp increase
in both crime and automobile accidents after they legalized the use of marijuana
for "recreational" use."No, the lie is what you're
spreading. Use Google. You'll find out that you're parroting CALM,
which has been disproved by independent sources. But, go ahead and read the
biased sources that support your position. Just don't state it as fact.
I'm skeptical of any group that says the voters have no business deciding
on laws that control their lives. This initiative is about legalizing marijuana
for medical uses. Millions of users and dozens of studies show that marijuana
is far less problematical than many mainstream, perfectly legal drugs, probably
including drugs that the plaintiffs and their families, like all Americans, have
been routinely prescribedIf these plaintiffs and the LDS Church want
to lobby to vote the initiative down, that's certainly their prerogative.
But peddling disproved theories and unfounded guesses to keep this issue from
the voters---that, to my mind, is going too far.
Backers of the issue say this undermines their cause. Excellent. I applaud
anyone who would undermine this terrible proposal. I wish the backers of this
ballot initiative would be honest about their intentions, which is recreational
marijuana. Many people who comment on these articles are arguing for
recreational use. I think that's a terrible idea but at least they're
being honest about their intentions. I would give it 3 years before marijuana
gets reclassified as a schedule 2 drug by lawmakers. Once we have good, unbiased
studies, then appropriate policy decisions can be made about medicinal purposes.
Most people are in favor of that. The dishonest "medical marijuana"
proposal is so fraught with problems that it will lead to recreational use and
that's a bad thing. In fact, as a physician, under this proposal, I could
"prescribe" this to 20% of my patients including little children if
their parents give consent. You know. For "chronic pain" and "other
rare diseases." I'd rather not be picking up the pieces for this social
disaster for the next several decades because of a dishonest, poorly written,
rushed through proposal.
I simply have to respond to Impartial7's comment. You say "29 states
have legalized marijuana in some form or another. None of them have experienced
any rise in crime or car accidents." That is simply a blatant lie! I
don't know about all "29" states, but I do know that Colorado
reported a sharp increase in both crime and automobile accidents after they
legalized the use of marijuana for "recreational" use.I
there is a benefit for medical marijuana, then I see no problem, under a
doctor's care, in fact, it may be far less harmful than the opiodes now in
use. However, I don't believe that all 29 states that have made it legal
did so for "recreational use. I rather suspect not. But your name calling
of those who want to take a responsible approach to this sensitive issue is
wrong, as are your assertions that legalizing this drug has had no effect on
crime or car accidents.
Those lawyers hell-bent on preventing legal marijuana use, should focus on the
abuse of cell phones while driving. They may be in for a surprise!
According to the Cato Institute, the effect of marijuana laws in Washington, and
other states has been negligible!A few years ago, gay marriage was
supposed to spell the demise of Western civilization, and that has proven to be
a real yawner!Like it or not, the country is adoping
"liberal" policies, while the GOP stands still, or in opposition!
This is more of an attack on Free Agency than an attack on marijuana.
One of the objections to medical or recreational weed from "the church"
and by our "church" legislators is that there isn't enough medical
research on weed to allow its use. That hasn't stopped people
commenting here from offering all kinds of "medical" objections to the
use of weed. Which is it? Not enough research of accepting the
"medical" advice of people who have never used weed? Ward house parking
lot discussions don't count as research."Also named as
plaintiffs in the suit are four men — Bruce Wooley, Walter Plumb, Arthur
Brown and Bruce Rigby — who say they are grandparents who sued to prevent
harm to Utahns, including their children and grandchildren."Grandparents wanting to prevent "harm" to their children and
grandchildren? What harm? They forgot to mention that. More people commenting
about something they don't know about.Members of Drug Safe Utah
include the Utah Medical Association, Utah Eagle Forum, Sutherland Institute,
Utah Prevention Coalition Association, the Utah Narcotics Officers Association,
Utah Chiefs of Police, and others, according to court documents.Let's just keep the legal and deadly prescribed OPIATES that kill over
300 people a year.
If potential mis-use is the bar that this group feels necessitates a
"drug" from being banned in the state of Utah, are they also going to
sue to have all the other drugs that are currently being abused deemed illegal
as well - for consistency sake? If the threat the public might get addicted to
a drug or medication is enough to have it banned, isn't there much more
dangerous drugs that deserve "banning" way before marijuana?I am not a marijuana supporter, don't use it, never have. But this
irrational and highly emotionally driven argument is absurd at best. The fact
that something could be abused out side of its legal intended use has never been
the solid basis for banning anything.
"If medical marijuana were legalized, the group claimed, it would harm Utah
residents by raising crime rates, addiction and the risk of car
accidents."This lawsuit should be thrown out on this statement
alone. 29 states have legalized marijuana in some form or another. None of them
have experienced any rise in crime or car accidents that these right wing
alarmists are pushing. But, what has happened is that people in pain have been
getting the non addictive relief that helps them live a better life.
The church has been a big opponent of medical marijuana. Could a reporter dig
and find out if they have financially contributed to this court action?
In Illinois, they just passes a law legalizing Medical Weed to be dispensed in
High Schools.Perhaps Medical Weed will be "prescribed" in
our State Prisons and jails to weed dealer inmates.
I completely agree with the law suit as a criminal endeavor to poison the brains
and minds of people who do not have the capacity to understand or make full
agreement and concession to have this drug forced on them against their will.No matter how you cook this drug its still kills the brain and destroys
one cognitive functions and decisions. Smoking cigarettes is not harmful to the
mind and body yet it has been criminalized out of fake reports and fake medical
lies yet it is not legal to buy or purchase at a reasonable and taxation process
for the benefit of everyone but the smokers themselves.Medical
reports are easy to fix and lie about and no one every challenges the validity
and truths behind their claims. Dr Everett Coop lied to the country in the
1960's about tobacco and cancer, and diseases then fake test truth that it
is all a hoax and still a hoax. We are in an opioid crises because doctors and
lawyers and pharmaceutical company's are lying to us all the time and
murdering sick and healthy patients and no accountability or even an
Why doesn't the deseret news offer a different point of view than what is
said in the lawsuit?