@jsfIf "Ascribing [this lawsuit] to the church with a derogatory
innuendo is tantamount to fostering a bigoted ideology", what does that say
about Plumb and Drug Safe Utah? You know, the folks that filed the lawsuit?@mrjj69Federalism. Generally speaking, the states are not
obligated to enforce federal laws or match their state laws to them. While
there are notable cases of the Federal government circumventing this general
rule (notably speed limits and drinking ages), those are the exceptions, not the
rule.So yeah, state law can totally be in conflict with federal law.
Both in allowing that which the fed prohibits or prohibiting that which the fed
For the people who deny the efficacy of "medical marijuana" -- google
Enadina Sanger. She is (originally) a Utah woman who was indicted for using
medical marijuana in Utah -- she and her husband have now moved to Colorado
where medical marijuana is allowed. She and her husband appeared on the TV show
American Ninja Warrior for the last three years, and their issues/progress can
be documented through that show.Enedina suffers from Ehlers Danlos
syndrome (google it). In the first shows three years ago she was
wheelchair-bound and her life was in question. Last year, after moving to
Colorado and staring the use of medical marijuana, she was finally able to leave
her wheelchair and walk. This year she had progressed to the point that she was
able to run a few challenges in the American Ninja course.She is an
example of the benefits of medical marijuana. What worked for her would work
for others. Why should they have to move out-of-state to get the benefits of
this medical treatment? Opioids ( much more dangerous than marijuana) are
allowed for medical treatment. Why shouldn't medical marijuana also be
allowed (under medically controlled circumstances, of course).
If the good folk of Utah don't want this bill to pass they have the
democratic right to vote against it. However if a majority of voters support the
bill that is what is called democracy.We had the Brexit vote in the UK, a
majority were in favour of leaving the European Union, so we are exiting the
Union...BUT now folk are concerned that the campaign was misleading and they
didn't have all the best information.So what I suggest is, those in
favour of the bill passing, put out positive information and those against, put
of truthful negative information. That way the people will be informed before
they make their choice.
Living a life in stupefied intoxication is not a religion recognized by any
religion in the world. Nor is drug abuse considered a religious event when it
endangers themselves and others who may be loose on the streets and sidewalks
crossing property lines. Drug abuse is not religious, its self abuse and self
inflicted stupidity as a low life and socially indigent way of life. Leave religion out of criminal behavior and self inflicted suffering and lack
of control of t hier own minds and purposes. Just because God said we are in his
image does not mean we are all gods to declare our own misery as a religious way
I am not an attorney. But I fail to see how Utah can pass a long
allowing a substance that is against federal law. Then, force people to
rent to those same people. The DEA still enforces the laws against
marijuana possession, which penalty includes losing their home in a
@jsfSo I noticed you left the last part of that first study which states
that while there would be a measurable amount it would not be enough to test
positive on a drug test but that’s alright I still take your point. It
does raise a question though. Under what circumstances would a landlord find
themselves unwillingly sitting in the same room with several people smoking
marijuana, especially given that the landlord can (and should) restrict people
from smoking in their apartments or within 50 feet of any entrance? As for the
second study the key word is subjective experience particularly considering
several hours on exposure would not result in a positive drug test. The fact
that we both found studies supporting or position on the same website (read not
some “pothead” website) does however support concerns that more
research is warranted.
People seem to be fixated on the notion of smoking medical cannabis. It seems
to me that smoking it would be the least acceptable dosing method, medically.
Edible delivery systems seem more like medicine to me, anyway. Pills, candy,
the famous brownie, oils, tea, whatever, no one would know so no one would have
any reason to object.
Interesting argument.So do LDS members who are landlords currently
refuse to rent to people who consume alcohol, coffee, watch porn, have
extra-marital relationships, etc...?I agree with making your rental
a smoke-free property. Cannabis can be eaten, or used in rubs or compounds.If someone simply possessed a medical cannabis card that doesn't
mean they would use it in a bong on your property.
This lawsuit isnt being brought by the Church. As a member, i resent being
portrayed as being against weed for religious reasons. I'm very much for
medical cannabis. It might help our nation's opioid epidemic. And
i'm against the cost of enforcement and black markets that come with
prohibition. I find recreational use disgusting and stupid. Weed was
recently fully legalized in Alaska, where I've lived for 25 years. My
neighbor regularly smokes recreationally in his back yard. The neighborhood
stinks - literally - because of it whenever he lights up. its very unpleasant.
Smells like skunk. Trust me, weed smells stronger and worse than tobacco.
Concerns of property owners are legitimate. I would not rent to a smoker - weed
more so than tobacco. Landlords should have the right to be selective on who
they rent to.However, as long as i'm not forced to rent to a
weed smoker (because of property damage), i can support legitimate medical use
of edibles, and reduced costs of pointless enforcement.
National Institute of Health web site. "Researchers measured
the amount of THC in the blood of people who do not smoke marijuana and had
spent 3 hours in a well-ventilated space
with people casually smoking
marijuana; THC was present in the blood of the nonsmoking participants
Another study that varied the levels of ventilation and the potency of the
marijuana found that some nonsmoking participants exposed for an hour to
in an unventilated room showed positive urine assays in
the hours directly following exposure; a follow-up study showed that nonsmoking
people in a confined space with people smoking high-THC marijuana reported mild
subjective effects of the drug—a "contact high"—and
displayed mild impairments on performance in motor tasks." Not
to discount the other chemicals in second hand marijuana smoke. So no,
THC's are not filtered out per the reference you stated. Pothead
Thomas Jefferson"Once again some 'moderator' down
there is making claims with no basis in fact. "Comment included
personal attacks, name-calling, epithets, racial slurs or other derogatory
statements."Where? Just say what you mean. Just make
"I dont like what you have to say" as a reason for denying a comment and
quit with the ridiculous excuses.WOW!!! Whenever I complain about
a moderator using their personal biases for denying a comment, I get another
email saying that "complaining about policy is a reason for denying a
comment."I'm not sure how this passed, but maybe, just
maybe they are getting too many complaints about "personal opinion"
being the guidelines rather than the real guidelines.The D-News
denies prior to printing. The SL Trib denies after they print and then tell you
it is their personal opinion that determines what gets rejected. That is the
last line in their set of rules.
To Drug Safe Utah: in time no matter your opposition, medical marijuana will
come to Utah.
@jsf It is true that second hand smoke (tobacco/marijuana) can cause
health issues it is not true as these two claim that you can get a measurable
amount of THC in your system simply by being in the vicinity of someone smoking
marijuana. My statement is based on the research by the national institute of
health. If you have credible research to refute it please feel free to share.
Sorry strom, statements like this create an atmosphere of making a pariah of
other groups. Re-read the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has
nothing to do with filing this motion. Ascribing it to the church with a
derogatory innuendo is tantamount to fostering a bigoted ideology. Re-read the article and correct your comment accordingly.
Is there anything that doesn't violate someone's "religious
freedoms?" the religious wackos are really going to all extremes to force
their religious beliefs on everyone else. Where do our "freedoms" get
to be approved.The LDS Corp is shooting themselves in the
hypocritical foot again. They want to be able to discriminate against
"equal rights" people, you know, same sex marriages. They want to be
able to tell the Medical community what drugs can and can't be used by a
patient. In a way I hope religions keep pushing their lunacy to new
lows. it will come back to bite them in their "religious freedom" area,
aka; tax exemption status.
Folks, This what the left has done for decades, file a frivolous lawsuit and
find a like minded judge to grant an injunction. I personally like it, if for
the only reason that it will cause the pot loving community to spend more of
those out of state dollars they received. And if you are so naive to think that
only some deeply pained end of life individual will be compassionately getting
stoned, well you know the saying about "bench front property in Nevada."
Once pot is approved medically, a whole "medical" industry is developed
to make sure anyone and everyone can get high.
"Research shows that very little THC is exhaled back into the air when a
smoker exhales"That statement is baseless. The lungs, mouth,
nose do not filter out all the chemicals in the smoke. Why do you think second
hand smoke is so bad. Because the same chemicals going in are the same
chemicals coming out. Research, no. Pothead propaganda yes.
Stunts like this only serve to make the mormon church a pariah in society.And, sorry, I can't follow the style guide.Not enough
I really don't have a religious issue, being said, I don't think it
should be allowed. But the real rub is "No landlord may refuse
to lease to and may not otherwise penalize a person for the person's status
as a medical cannabis card holder," I would not allow tobacco
smoking in a rental because the smoke permeates the paint, and the carpeting.
Smoking marijuana will cause the same damage. Back in
the seventies I rented an apartment, and then I found the closet where the
previous tenant stashed his weed. The smell permeated the paint and the carpet
of the closet. It took a lot of effort to remove the stench. Best
add the caveat can't be smoked in a rental unite if smoking is not
allowed.No desire by a smoker of cannabis should ever trump my
rights as a property owner. The first time they were caught smoking they
would be evicted card or no card.
I went to temple square with a can of coca-cola a few years ago the church ask
me to get rid of it. Now they have Coke vending machines on church property. The
Church’s policy is not set in stone they may change their policy towards
marijuana in the near future
That's just plain silly and a desperate move. If people don't want to
use medical marijuana they don't have to use it.
Attorneys who value their credibility usually refrain from launching far-out
claims like this one. If a court adopted the approach urged in this lawsuit,
practically every aspect of politics would be a "religious" issue for
some sect or other. I have a fair amount of experience with First Amendment
issues and I would be mightily surprised if any judge adopted this particular
@Lets check the facts and ProdicusResearch shows that very little
THC is exhaled back into the air when a smoker exhales. So little, in fact, that
if you sat in a room while people exhaled the smoke of four marijuana cigarettes
in one hour, you wouldn’t get high. You would have to be trapped in a
room breathing the smoke of 16 burning joints before you started to show signs
of being high. But this is not a normal circumstance and given the Utah indoor
clean are act and the fact that they would have to smoke outside and away from
the building makes your claims baseless.
First of all, it is legal for landlords to refuse to rent to smokers---of
anything. So I would imagine they could refuse pot smokers even if they were
doing so legally. Cigarettes are legal if you are old enough. Secondly, I would
think it against the law to ask a tenant what medications they are on. Unless
the tenant voluntarily said they had a card, you couldn't ask them. So this
is rather ridiculous.
Plumb's reasoning here are so out of touchThat I'm reconsidering
voting FOR it.
THIS is what 'religious freedom' means to the christians who are
always talking about it. You must follow their religion or it goes against their
'religious freedom'. They like to deny it but this lawsuit proves that
fact.I have never heard of a more frivolous lawsuit. I guarantee it
will be laughed out of court. All mormons should feel ashamed by the actions of
these people who on one hand claim to speak for you and on the other hand
acknowledge that "The case is not formally tied in any way to the
church." The pathetic straw grasping is amazing (and disgusting)
to watch. All over a plant that they dont understand at all.Once
again some 'moderator' down there is making claims with no basis in
fact. "Comment included personal attacks, name-calling,
epithets, racial slurs or other derogatory statements."Where?
Just say what you mean. Just make "I dont like what you have to
say" as a reason for denying a comment and quit with the ridiculous excuses.
It is the people's gov't. It is the people's takxpayer money that
funds the gov't. They should have something to say about the issue. Ballot
issues at times are people's frustrations over the gov't not listening
to them and not doing anything about the issue.
Why don't we just vote on recreational marijuana legalization here instead
of pretending that this is actually a "medical" initiative?There's very little true science and medicine involved in this
initiative. The allowed diagnoses are too vague and the prescriptive quantities
and studies to determine dose, efficacy, and contraindications are lacking. We
already have prescription cannabinoids, just not any prescription marinols. This is not a true medical initiative.
The religious freedom argument is a divisive red herring. However, landlords
should have a right to prohibit smoking in general - regardless of the substance
- in their properties. The smoke damages their property. As an active member
of the Church who has extended family members who could benefit from medical
cannabis, i support legalization. However, a clause forcing all landlords to
rent to smokers is over the line. Landlords should be able to protect their
property from smoke damage. If a landlord is ok renting to smokers, then fine.
But landlords of "smoke-free properties" should not be forced to accept
it. Medically administered cannabis in edible form should be legalized asap -
Wow, someone is really stretching things to keep this initiative off the ballot.
It is clear that the devil is now using the LDS church to push his message to
keep the drug cartels, and the police state alive and well.Didn't we learn anything with the prohibition of alcohol. Prohibition
enriches the powerful; while enslaving the poor. Prohibition leads to
organized crime. Prohibition simply exacerbates the problems of "mind
altering substances."Again, pot by comparison to alcohol causes
not even a tiny fraction of the problems including deaths alcohol causes; so if
anything alcohol not pot should be illegal. Again, pot by comparison to opiods
is not nearly as dangerous and deadly; yet opiods are completely legal as
well.Why is it that our government legalizes things that are far
worse for our bodies and far worse for society at large. Why? The answer is
clear; the government gains tons when it outlaws pot. It enriches the rich; and
enslaves the poor.
I honestly believe that at their core, most people insist on fairness, having
said that as my qualifying statement, it is my opinion that Mr. Plumb and his
unfair use of his religion, and a frivilous lawsuit to infringe on the rights of
others has just given the medical marijuana initiative the boost among active
LDS church members the boost it needs to pass.
So the right to vote on something is now subject to someone's religious
beliefs?Wow. It's a wonder more people aren't adopting
religious beliefs. They give you so much more power and say than non-religious
The blatant hypocrisy of those pushing so-called "religious freedom" is
on full display!
If it's against your religion to smoke marijuana, don't smoke
marijuana.And there's nothing in this that says to can't
requiree tenets to boot smoke in the house (something other smokers already deal
with). And it's not like you're not already required to
rent/lease to folks that don't share your religious beliefs. Fair Housing
The story says:The legal complaint was making reference to a section
of the initiative that states: "No landlord may refuse to lease to and may
not otherwise penalize a person for the person's status as a medical
cannabis card holder, unless failing to do so would cause the landlord to lose a
monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law."The
lawsuit claims that "any practicing member" of The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints would "find this mandate deeply offensive and
incredibly repulsive to their religious beliefs and way of life."--------------------My husband and I are practicing members of The
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Provided the canabis was properly
prescribed by a doctor licensed by the State of Utah and obtained from a
dispensary licensed by the State of Utah, we would have no more problem
renting to a person using prescribed canabis than we would to a person using any
other prescribed drug or medicine. We would not, in any way, "find this
mandate deeply offensive and incredibly repulsive to 'their' (our)
religious beliefs and way of life." Medicine is medicine, whatever type or
form it might be or take.
So, the lawsuit is claiming that the initiative for medical MJ should be off the
ballot because it violates the religious beliefs of LDS people - but
wouldn't taking it off the ballot violate the religious beliefs of Non-LDS
who believe it should be available? Preferencing the LDS beliefs
above the beliefs of others IS, in fact, an "establishment of religion"
- the LDS religion to be specific and thus violates the 1st Amendment of the US
Constitution.Such hypocrisy - is there nothing that these people
won't attempt in order to get their religious beliefs into law?
@Prodicus,No one is saying they have to be able to smoke pot on
their property. The initiative says "No landlord may refuse to lease to and
may not otherwise penalize a person for the person's status as a medical
cannabis card holder, unless failing to do so would cause the landlord to lose a
monetary or licensing-related benefit under federal law." In other words you
can't be refused for just having a card. Just like if you are a gun owner
you would be upset that a landlord refused you because you own guns. But no one
is saying you have the right to shoot on the property. But aside
from all of that, this lawsuit essentially says that allowing voters to decide
on this issue violates religious freedom, because the lawsuit is trying to get
the question removed from the ballot by invoking the religious rights argument.
"mandates that LDS (Church) members would have to open their homes and
personal property to tenants who possess and consume mind-altering substances,
which is a direct affront to their deeply held religious beliefs."Oh please - that is absurd. There are plenty of reasons to oppose medical
pot, but religious freedom isn't one of them.
@Rubydo, Kaiser, and others:Forcing someone to allow people to smoke
pot on their property clearly violates the landlord's civil rights. Yes,
that includes their right to practice their religion by avoiding drugs. In
addition to the usual lung etc issues with smoke inhalation, those who are
exposed to secondhand marijuana smoke frequently end up with measurable amounts
of THC and other cannabinoids in their system.I find it absurd that
people say they can't see any justifiable reason why someone might rather
not lease their property to people who are smoking pot. Have these people never
encountered that smell? Or have they been so continually surrounded by it that
they no longer notice it?There are plenty of other reasons, but that
reason is obvious.
Medical cannabis is legal in 30 states. Are religious freedom rights being
violated there? I suppose members of the church are supposed to just avoid
Canada altogether, considering that recreational use is legal nationwide.
Can landlords currently turn away applicants due to disclosed consumption of
other violations of the word of wisdom? Coffee? Beer? Genuinely asking, not
being rhetorically smug.
It’s immaterial if you’re for or against Proposition 2. The lawsuit
will be dismissed because Mr. Plumb can not demonstrate that he has been harmed
by a law that has not even been passed. What Mr. Plumb is proposing is similar
to the premise of the movie “Minority Report”. A judge cannot and
will not rule regarding harm of a possible future law.
When Utah was First settled in the mid. 1800’s. The Utah Constitution
contained a section covering, Legally using Marijuana through a doctor.Then, Brigham Young decided that we needed to train Doctors.Before that,
people depended greatly on natural remedies. Not witch doctors, but moms,
grandmas and others, who understood what herbs could and could not do. People
knew when to go to the doctor!But then we went backwards?
Religious freedom means you get to live you religion as you see fit. It most
emphatically does not mean that you get to use the power of the government to
make others live your religious beliefs.
This is a simple move to take away your franchise to vote. Let the people
I think the wording on the regulation of zoning for dispensaries is bad.
Currently cities can zone out bars from certain areas. This is important for a
city to plan and develop to protect its citizens. Why does this initiative take
that away from cities? How can you simply say cities you can’t zone out
dispensaries ever without being unconstitutional. Likewise People should have
the right to refuse renters who abuse marijuana.
Seriously?! This is just getting ridiculous!Medical marijuana
doesn't violate religious freedom any more than commonly prescribed
This will be laughed out of court. No one is forcing mormons to use marijuana.
So the proposed state law could force someone to break federal law. What if I
have a security clearance and get drug tested positive, lose my job, because the
state forced me to rent my spare room to a marijuana user? Can I sue the state?
What a load of hogwash. Here is a fun fact for them: Any landlord can rent or
not rent, to anyone they want. Kind of like when someone comes in my bakery and
wants a gay cake. I reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, for any
reason or no reason and that includes renting an apartment. So their argument is
stupid. It's just another attempt by people who think their way is the only
way, to force others to live by their standards. I don't use marijuana, but
I don't believe the government should be telling people whether they can
use it or not.
I don't live in Utah, so technically I don't have a say here. But I am
LDS and having someone use medical pot does not violate my religious freedom.
The plaintiff seems to be inappropriately speaking for others (all Utah Mormons)
whom he doesn't have a right to speak for. Now, I am against illegal drug
use, and don't believe it is right to use any drugs just to get high. But
medical pot, by definition, would be legal. Just because a plant can be abused
does not mean that that same plant cannot have legitimate medical uses. Even
tobacco has a use for sick cows (see D&C 89).
Let's spin this around. If one were to own property should they be suing
for their right to not have to rent to people of one or another religious
persuasion because they're offensive?
I’m a “practicing member” of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints and DO NOT find the medical marijuana initiative offensive in
the least. Protecting “religious freedoms” has become
the poster child of pushback politics. It is warranted in many cases, but not
this one. To invoke “religious freedom” as the reason for the suit
is counter to MY religion.My religion is similar to that of Brigham
Young as he spoke of suffering handcart pioneers: “That is my religion . .
. it is to save the people. . . . that would be apt to perish, or suffer
extremely, if we do not send them assistance.” [JD 4:113]Medical marijuana is a no-brainer. No compassionate person would oppose
that. Opposition comes from the fear of “medical” use being a guise
for, or a slide to, recreational use.
Claiming that one's religious freedom is being violated because someone
else has a different point of view has become the new straw man playing card.
It means nothing in the real world. People need to grow up and, as we are
taught, "work out our own salvation", not pointing fingers of shame at
others. As a retired medical professional I would greatly approve of a natural
pharmaceutical that would eliminate someone's otherwise intractable
seizures or pain from cancer, etc. Join me in voting yes for this blessing for
those in need.
Marijuana smoke has a dominating odor that I dislike very much and object to.
If it were in pill form, and helps the patient, maybe, but I have a feeling that
many times it's recreational and the smoke is really obvious.
Regardless of the merits of this case, or the lack thereof, do Utahns really
want open marijuana use all over their neighborhoods now? There would be new,
legal and unregulated dispensaries in every area, open drug usage in cars, yards
and public places--and all of that would be totally legal and prohibited from
any regulation or enforcement. Getting high will become healthcare.
As an LDS person I fail to see how allowing marajuna for MEDICAL purposes would
violate the teachings of the LDS religion.LDS people already
regulary make use medicine derived from cocane and morphine (opiates that we
keep hearing so much about in the news).As an LDS person, I've
long believed that God provides various plants and herbs for medical use. See
Wow. Way to try and twist the issue. We are members of the church who
absolutely have no problem with renting to cannabis users! In fact, several of
our renters in the past who have used opioids and other prescription drugs have
left us with damages far worse than those renting our homes in other states who
use marijuana. Our experiences have been positive as landlords with renters who
use medical and recreational marijuana.
I don't understand how someone's use of cannabis violates someone
else's religious freedom. It's a ridiculous argument that won't
stand in court. As if the thousands of pharmaceutical psychotropic drugs on the
market that people are on already aren't as bad or even worse.
So you can’t discriminate against someone sexual orientation when it comes
to housing but it’s ok to discriminate against someone who uses cannabis
because of religious freedom? Why not use the same reason to discriminate
against someone who drinks coffee or uses tobacco?