New lawsuit claims medical marijuana initiative violates religious freedoms

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Aug. 20, 2018 4:40 p.m.

    @jsf
    If "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?

    @mrjj69
    Federalism. 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 allows.

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 20, 2018 4:35 p.m.

    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).

  • MattAllalone UK, 00
    Aug. 18, 2018 5:40 a.m.

    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.

  • Misseleer71 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 18, 2018 3:48 a.m.

    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 of life.

  • mrjj69 bountiful, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:35 p.m.

    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 drug raid.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 7:04 p.m.

    @jsf
    So 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.

  • reriding Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 2:53 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahTroutStalker Draper, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 2:07 p.m.

    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.

  • H3 in AK Anchorage, AK
    Aug. 17, 2018 1:35 p.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 1:27 p.m.

    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 high-THC marijuana…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 propaganda.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 1:17 p.m.

    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.

  • peabody Steamboat Springs, CO
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:59 p.m.

    To Drug Safe Utah: in time no matter your opposition, medical marijuana will come to Utah.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:52 p.m.

    @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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:46 p.m.

    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.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:40 p.m.

    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.

  • Sanefan Wellsville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:33 p.m.

    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.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:28 p.m.

    "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.

  • strom thurmond taylorsville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:12 p.m.

    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 characters allowed.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:10 p.m.

    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.

  • Slcut Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 11:44 a.m.

    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

  • JBs Logan, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 11:43 a.m.

    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.

  • shamrock Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 11:36 a.m.

    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 constitutional interpretation.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 11:35 a.m.

    @Lets check the facts and Prodicus

    Research 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.

  • DimpleDell Sandy, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 11:27 a.m.

    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.

  • AC_68 Provo, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 11:02 a.m.

    Plumb's reasoning here are so out of touch
    That I'm reconsidering voting FOR it.

  • Thomas Jefferson Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:56 a.m.

    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.

  • Fullypresent Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:43 a.m.

    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.

  • JapanCougar Layton, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:37 a.m.

    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.

  • H3 in AK Anchorage, AK
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:27 a.m.

    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 - nationwide.

  • NeifyT Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:13 a.m.

    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.

  • What Matters Here Cedar City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:08 a.m.

    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.

  • Karen R. Houston, TX
    Aug. 17, 2018 10:08 a.m.

    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 ones.

  • The Atheist Provo, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 9:57 a.m.

    The blatant hypocrisy of those pushing so-called "religious freedom" is on full display!

  • EscherEnigma Ridgecrest, CA
    Aug. 17, 2018 9:42 a.m.

    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 Act, remember?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 9:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 9:28 a.m.

    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?

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 9:22 a.m.

    @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.

  • 65TossPowerTrap Salmon, ID
    Aug. 17, 2018 8:52 a.m.

    "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.

  • Prodicus Provo, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 8:40 a.m.

    @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.

  • FatherOfFour WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 8:39 a.m.

    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.

  • cthulhu_fhtagn Seattle, WA
    Aug. 17, 2018 8:18 a.m.

    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.

  • Dmorgan Herriman, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 8:11 a.m.

    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.

  • someguyaaron Parowan, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 8:07 a.m.

    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?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 7:58 a.m.

    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.

  • stevo123 Driggs, ID
    Aug. 17, 2018 7:54 a.m.

    This is a simple move to take away your franchise to vote. Let the people decide.

  • Jbejarano Eagle Mountain, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 7:48 a.m.

    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.

  • faazshift Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 7:41 a.m.

    Seriously?! This is just getting ridiculous!

    Medical marijuana doesn't violate religious freedom any more than commonly prescribed pharmaceuticals.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 7:20 a.m.

    This will be laughed out of court. No one is forcing mormons to use marijuana.

  • Lets check the facts Santa Fe, NM
    Aug. 17, 2018 7:10 a.m.

    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?

  • imsmarterthanyou Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 6:59 a.m.

    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.

  • RG Buena Vista, VA
    Aug. 17, 2018 5:52 a.m.

    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).

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 5:49 a.m.

    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?

  • Wyomex Burlington, WY
    Aug. 17, 2018 3:51 a.m.

    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.

  • Flyboy1 South Jordan, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 3:03 a.m.

    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.

  • Endure2End San Jose, CA
    Aug. 17, 2018 2:26 a.m.

    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.

  • 1Reader Alpine, UT
    Aug. 17, 2018 12:48 a.m.

    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.

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 16, 2018 11:35 p.m.

    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 Alma 46:40.

  • Susan Quinton Draper, UT
    Aug. 16, 2018 11:31 p.m.

    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.

  • Rubydo Provo, UT
    Aug. 16, 2018 10:28 p.m.

    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.

  • Rubydo Provo, UT
    Aug. 16, 2018 8:17 p.m.

    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?