@Sherpajames - West Jordan, UTSo everyone who tries it will
experience your same result?
I smoked weed for years. Fun, yes but every morning before work I couldn’t
remember what I needed to bring to complete the task for that days projects. So
I made lists, they made life work. I skied three days a week high as a kite, fun
again. But my skill level seemed to stay around good, but not where I wished it
was. Surprisingly about one year after I stopped smoking weed I
never needed to use lists, I could remember everything, every tiny detail of
what I need to bring to work to complete projects. My skiing went through the
roof. My body and mind worked better together I improved as a productive member
of society, an avid skier at snowbird, a father and husband.Marijuana infects people, changes aditudes and the way people deal with each
other. I have a lot friends that smoke marijuana and they seem to be forever
caught in a small circle.
laws or not, recreational use is happening and will continue to flourish. The
US Government began in the 1700s and the LDS Church began in 1830. Marijuana
smoking began 4000 years ago. Who do you think has more staying power?
Recreational users of pot are 1000 % for medicinal use of pot. It was the
recreational users of pot that alerted the medical community to the benefits of
smoking pot, not the other way around. The medical community and especially the
pharmas are only in it for the money they can make. Big business will not (can
not) approach this issue as a caring health based effort in deference to an
opportunity to make big bucks. Walmart and Walgreen will soon start home
delivery services of 90 day supplies of prescription drugs. Utah is a top
abuser in the United States of abusing prescription drugs. Do you get the
picture. The victims are the voters that didn't get what they voted for.
The scoundrels are the legislators who either through divine intervention or
resolute conviction of the 90 day supply train coming to their homes detest the
recreational user. These legislators are still stuck in a 60's time warp
.In summary, laws or not, recreational use is happening and will
continue to flourish. The US Government began in the 1700s and the LDS Church
began in 1830. Marijuana smoking began 4000 years ago. Who do you think has more
classic bait and switch. is anyone surprised that a lawsuit has been
filed?? How much is defending this lawsuit going to cost taxpayers??
What I have read, including educated critics of the compromised bill, the State
can legally change public driven propositions like Prop 2. The Utah Constitution
allows it. Also, the sure winners in this political wrestling will be Rocky
Anderson and his attorneys. I wonder what their fees will be like.
Hmm... Seems like there's an ulterior motive here. An agenda hidden behind
the scenes from those who manipulate laws in gaining the initial goal. Which
ultimately will bring us to legalized recreational drug use, therefore losing
the value of medicinal purposes.We're this >< close to it
becoming fully recreational. Regardless how it swings, we'll get there soon
enough, and already shooting ourselves in the foot.The drug has been so
far up the schedule one, we haven't even had enough time to study the
substance for its medicinal value. It all appears to have been rushed, the
grammar alone is proof. There are some details that stand out like a black eye.
Seriously! If there's any type of comprise, fix the grammar. Utah is pretty
large geographically.This will in turn, cause the immediate purpose of
growing the plant based on the limitation for dispensing it to those who need
it. This initiative has a lot of mass, and momentum, and will not stop after
this year is dead and gone.It's not rocket surgery. By way of vote,
we've allowed ourselves to be shot in the foot from manipulation. Prove me
wrong, please. I triple dog dare anyone legitimately, and sincerely.
Stop referring to this as a "compromise", that's absurd. This is
a completely different law, something that will help a fraction of patients and
disregards the entire intent of the law we voted on and passed Why would the
winning side "compromise" with the losing side? That doesn't ever
happen in anybithwr circumstance, so why now? If the law had failed, we
wouldn't even be talking about this. The church completely overstepped its
bounds. What happened was an illegal knife in the back to sick patients, all
in the name of big pharma blood money. I've never been so ashamed of my
state in my life. Thankfully this is proving to be a wakeup call, citizens are
starting to realize our local state government has basically been completely
taken over by outside influences, money is changing hands, and in the mean
time the sick are being used as cannon fodder.
@procuradorfiscal;"The same reason all thinking Utahns opposed
it -- it's evil and will result in carnage, misery, and the decline of Utah
society."-- No, the sky is NOT falling and you can crawl out
from beneath your rock.@water rocket;"...since it
was with the promise that prop 2 would be replaced with this compromise bill
BEFORE the election that got it passed in the first place..."--
Wrong. Those of us who voted for it voted for it AS-IS - we opposed the
churchislature's meddling from the very beginning. If that was why you
voted for it, well, there's a sucker born ever second."Those against ... want to liberalize the use "-- Stupid
comment when ANYONE who wants it recreationally can ALREADY get it as easy as
"Broad community engagement ..."To be read as: "Pay no
attention to the man behind the curtain."
Just what is the complaint here? Those, like myself, who need marijuana
medication will get it. The truth? Those against this initiative,
if unveiled, want to liberalize the use to the extent we become like Colorado
and other states where anyone can get it with few controls.
Marijuana and OPIOIDS are both drugs and have a benefit for those that need to
have doctors help manage pain and health. Neither were meant to be on the
wholesale or retail market uncontrolled nor unmanaged.Doctors even
made mistakes in how they prescribed OPIOIDS to their valid and valued patients.
Some doctors even took advantage of the drug economy and made money at
patient’s expense.Legally and medically prescribed
doesn’t mean everyone, patients, doctors and distributors won’t
become corrupt or conniving.
Thanks, @2bits. You're the only commenter who addressed the one question I
had.I'd like to see a poll of Utah voters (both those who voted
for and against Prop 2) to see what they think of the compromise *after being
presented with a comprehensive list of changes*. I'm guessing the majority
would be in favor of it.Seems like most commenting here against the
compromise don't know what it does, and are reacting to characterizations
made by people like Rocky Anderson, who seems more like he's ax grinding
against the Church than advocating for patients.
OK, I finally found an actual sick person who really really doesn't want
the compromise. But after talking with her awhile to find out why... I found
out she was misinformed on what was in the compromise bill. She thought it
would make it so she couldn't get the medication she needs. I pointed out
the 3 things it did... 1. Can't grow your own marijuana2.
Reduced number of privately-run dispensaries3. Required dispensaries to
employ pharmacists to recommend dosagesShe had no problem with any
of those.I asked why she was so against the compromise, she said
friends (probably MJ Activists) told her it would gut the bill they voted on and
make it so she couldn't get the meds she needs. But that's
untrue.If anybody can show me how the compromise makes it so sick
people can't get the medication they need... please show how it does
that.Google "Utah Proposition 2, Medical Marijuana Initiative
(2018) - BallotPediaScroll down to the "Legislative alteration"
section...and "Changes made by the bill" section...Read
them. The changes are small and sensibleDoesn't gut the bill,
or make it so you can't get meds you need, like activists keep pretending.
This lawsuit is built on ignoring the actual timetable of events. Complex public
policy should not be decided on a whim. The fact that the opponents did not put
up more of a fight effected the outcome.At the same time some
percentage of voters who voted in favor of Prop 2 did so because they wanted the
compromise and felt an outright defeat of prop 2 would not move to a compromise.
Re: ". . . arguing that medical cannabis will lead directly to legal
recreational use...is exactly what we’re hoping for."At
last! An honest "medical" weed proponent.He/she honestly
states what all other "medical" weed proponents studiously try to hide
-- this "medical" weed bill is about nothing more than enabling and
profiting from recreational use.It is not -- has never been -- about
compassion, relief of the sick, miracle cures, or any of the assorted bunk used
to sell the idea to a credulous, unsophisticated public that was taken in by a
well-funded but venal and disingenuous campaign by out-of-state blood-money
interests.Kudos for your honesty, though not for your short-sighted
There arethree ways in the United States to get justice. The legislature, the
courts and then the streets. I prefer the later.
The only way this law is going to get changed (so it actually reflects the will
of the majority) is if and when enough legislator's prospects for
reelection are threatened. It's as simple as that. Nothing scares a
politician more than the thought of having to, you know, actually work for a
living. Enough people voted yes on this proposition. Now enough people have show
up next time to vote against the lawmakers who voted yes on the amendment.
That's what I'm going to do; even if it means holding my nose and
voting for a Democrat.
It matters not what the opponents of this most beautiful plant say. Your fear
and paranoia towards Cannabis is comical. People don’t need to drive
across state borders to ‘get their fix’ (eye roll). Folks,
recreational ‘weed’ has been readily available...forever, so arguing
that medical cannabis will lead directly to legal recreational use...is exactly
what we’re hoping for. Free the Weed!!!
Votes don't count in Utah, welcome to the twilight zone.
@Prometheus Platypus: "So why do the losers or opponents get to redraft prop
2 without any input from those who proposed it?"Why did the
losers get to overturn the constitutional definition of marriage in 31 States
(over three-fifths, and almost enough to amend the federal constitution)? And
most of those passed with far wider margins than did Prop 2.Should
Utah pass and enforce State laws that conflict with federal laws in any area
other than marijuana cultivation, sales, possession, and use? Perhaps you'd
like Utah to ignore federal law when it comes to land use policy, restrictions
on certain guns and ammo, EPA regulations, marriage, or other areas?Fact is, legislators are elected by the same voters who passed Prop 2 by a
thin margin. Most legislators won by much wider margins than did Prop 2.Prop 2 is simple legislation subject to amending or repeal like any
other law. Many who voted for it did so only after the legislature announced it
would fix the problems in Prop 2 that effectively legalize recreational use of
pot.There were supporters of Prop 2 who worked on the fix. And any
organization representing 60% of our population is entitled to a seat at the
Some of these comments ignore the fact that our state legislators are voted into
office by the citizens of our state. The legislature is supposed to pass laws,
including changes to laws. That is their main job. Patient
advocacy groups - which patients ?
To those posting that marijuana is against federal law, get real. We live in
Utah, and the compound constitutional republic of Utah is exempt from federal
law. Just ask any Utah Republican office holder.
So much volatility over something that is not as bad as alcohol? Rule it like
that. No use while driving etc. How one little plant has been labeled as evil
when components of all sorts of plants have been used for medication and self
medication. This is fear based and money control. It took just a couple of years
to OK opioids? Yet we keep complaining there is not enough science out there on
mj? Really people it has been decades!
@Impartial7: "Better take it to appeals to get a court out of state and away
from the reach of Utah influences."So how do you figure a
federal court is likely to rule on any law--initiative passed or legislature
passed--that conflicts with federal law? Or does the Supremacy Clause only
apply to federal laws and court rulings the left likes?Should Utah
pass laws that conflict with federal law on issues like the definition of
marriage, access to elective abortions, or access to and use of federal lands
within the State of Utah? Should we refuse to respect EPA rules or federal gun
laws?If not, then on what consistent basis can anyone ask a federal
court to uphold any State law allowing what federal prohibits regarding
marijuana? And both parties are to blame for not changing federal law.Step away from hopes for outcome based judicial activism and the case is less
than weak. Citizen initiatives in Utah create simple legislation. All
legislation is subject to amending or repealing by future legislation. No open
meeting laws were violated. We might just as well sue every time the State
changes tax code or speed limits as think this case has any real legs.
The elephant in the room is Prop. 2 would effectively allow uncontrolled
distribution of MJ, in effect legalizing it. This law corrects the problem.
The effective repeal by the over controlling legislature will be overturned in
Court. Otherwise votes in Utah do not count.
There is a lot of hand wringing about the actions of the legislature. I
completely understand that. I think a better approach would have been for the
legislature to explain, before passing the "compromise" why it was
really necessary. Instead the attitude seemed to be "we have to stop this
before it goes into effect."But there is a simple solution: For
those who voted for the proposition (and I am one of them) we simply vote
against the reelection of legislators who voted for the "compromise."
If there really are 60 some-odd percent of Utahans who favored the proposition
in the form in which it was passed, there should be enough to reform the
membership of the legislature.
@The Rock - Federal Way, WAYes, MJ is illegal under Federal Law.
Federal Law does not want to be the enforcer. It was written to have the States
govern. In my humble opinion the Federal Government needs to quit
sitting on its pockets on this one. All they've done on this is
give us a blind eye and a deaf ear.
Prometheus Platypus - "So why do the losers or opponents get to redraft
prop 2 without any input from those who proposed it?"Actually,
the bill that was debated in the legislature was written with several groups
(Libertas Institute being the main one) that supported Prop 2, State and local
officials, UMA. The LDS church was part of the discussion.Libertas
saw the flaws in Prop 2, worked with several groups to close loopholes and
possible problems down the road.FYI - The Utah State Legislature may
amend any initiated statute by a simple majority vote. When presented with an
indirect initiative, the Legislature may make technical corrections to the
proposed law. Utah Code, Title 20A, Chapter 7, Section 208 and Section 212That gives them the right to change Prop 2...
If you are going to invalidate the promised compromise bill, then you need to
invalidate the election results, since it was with the promise that prop 2 would
be replaced with this compromise bill BEFORE the election that got it passed in
the first place. Some radicals simply want every thing their way, and some just
want to stick it to the church when they can get a chance.
Re: "The removal of auto-immune illnesses has no basis."Yeah
-- no basis other than the unassailable fact that weed has no effect on
autoimmune disorders. So, those suffering from autoimmune disorders would not
only not be helped at all, but would be harmed by toquing weed, thinking it can
somehow benefit them -- perhaps even foregoing real treatment for weed.That, and the fact that many autoimmune disorders can only be accurately
diagnosed by autopsy -- things like fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and
other strains of yuppie flu. This, then, would add another phony
"disorder" -- things like cachexia and chronic pain, that can only be
"diagnosed" by asking the "patient" a few questions, and
can't be clinically excluded -- to the list of "diagnoses"
permitting what amounts to a lifetime of recreational use.Weed
doesn't cure or ameliorate anything any better than aspirin or ibuprofen.
It's much more subject to serious abuse, and much more dangerous to both
the user and those surrounding him.The real problem is the removal
doesn't go far enough. ALL diseases should be removed until science -- not
economics -- says weed could help.
My understanding is some times the legislature goofs when creating a law. They
then go back in and legislatively correct any errors. The logic of
Rocky would be once the legislature passed a error they could not ever go back
and legislatively correct the error.If the state government
invalidated the voting for the prop 2 that would be an issue. But, correcting
it does not invalidate it. The legislature could pass a law to follow federal
law and the prop 2 people would be completely out and it would still be a legal
act the courts could not overturn.By the way, if people are going
across state lines to get their fix, don't drive back. Our children and
our families are more important than your high, impaired driving.
The removal of auto-immune illnesses has no basis. It needs to be re-instated in
the bill. There is no reason people with lupus etc. should need to jump through
hoops, go before a board, when others just need to ask for a prescription.
Please do a little reading about systemic lupus.
So why do the losers or opponents get to redraft prop 2 without any input from
those who proposed it? Why does the church have any say in the
legislation they opposed especially behind closed doors, or secret
combinations?This is the equivalent of a non-member getting to
decide church doctrine.2bits said: According to Ballotopidia the
compromise-bill changed 3 things:1. Removed the provision allowing
patients to grow their own marijuana;2. Reduced the number of
privately-run dispensaries allowed; 3. Required dispensaries to employ
pharmacists to recommend dosagesWhat's so bad about that?Number 3 will tie it up in courts for years. To those opposed
don't use it continue to support addictive opiates and the countries who
supply America with them.
Wait... I thought Compromise was a good thing...
Re: ". . . why would the church spokesperson still tell members to oppose
[Prop 2]? "The same reason all thinking Utahns opposed it --
it's evil and will result in carnage, misery, and the decline of Utah
society.Real Utah only hopes the dupes wake up quick enough to
repeal this venal debacle and avoid converting Utah into San Francisco,
Portland, Phoenix, or Seattle.
@LDSRealityCheck247;" If the compromise was going to be implemented
either way the vote went, then why would the church spokesperson still tell
members to oppose it? That does NOT make sense."Because
Prop 2 caught the church and the Legislature by surprise. They weren't in a
position to control and profit from a free market solution. This
"compromise" allows them to set up and steer production, distribution,
sales and profit to the typical power players.
Patient groups ask court to invalidate Utah's medical marijuana compromise,
enforce Proposition 2. And so they should. No compromise necessary.
Re: " A pair of patient advocacy groups are suing to invalidate the medical
marijuana compromise bill . . . represented by attorney and former Salt Lake
City Mayor Rocky Anderson."Yeah, that pretty much says it
all.In other words, the bought-and-paid-for surrogates of Weed, Inc.
are upset that some slight modicum of control over recreational use will get in
the way of their blood-money profits.Sad.
@ Mr. smart guy, Ballot initiatives are a terrible way to create laws. So
now the hard work comes and thank goodness for the governor and legislature for
making common sense changes. It's apparent thought that the cheech and
chong crowd who loves to smoke pot, is very disappointed. I hope they get used
What doesn’t make sense is that the LDS Church opposed Prop 2 with Marty
Stephens even invoking obedience to the church to vote “no” on the
proposition. If the compromise was going to be implemented either way the vote
went, then why would the church spokesperson still tell members to oppose it?
That does NOT make sense.
Hmmm... only 1 comment so far that's against compromise who doesn't
have a location outside of Utah.Who's driving this campaign?
Utahns, our outsiders?
Of course they want the original proposition to be enforced...this is the way
all other states, who have legalized it for recreational use, got their way.
This won't happen now with this compromise. Nice try!
These so-called patient advocacy groups need to be honest. The legislature is
doing its best to come up with policies that protect patients who would benefit
from CBD, but also minimize the potential for abuse of the system and
recreational use. Honesty from the "advocacy groups"
dictates that they simply tell the truth: "I have a headache so I should be
able to smoke weed." An exaggeration, admittedly, but I'm sure most
readers will get my point.
Better take it to appeals to get a court out of state and away from the reach of
Utah influences. Let the waste of taxpayer dollars begin.
RE: "Patient groups ask"...---Come on patient-groups.
You're starting to sound more like Marijuana-activists than groups of
patients.The compromise gives you everything a patient needs, and
just protects the public more from illicit marijuana.Who's
doing the asking here... Marijuana-activists, or actual patients?Name one medication prohibited by the compromise bill.I mean is
requiring dispensaries to employ a pharmacist to recommend dosages a bad
thing?According to Ballotopidia the compromise-bill changed 3
things:1. Removed the provision allowing patients to grow their own
marijuana;2. Reduced the number of privately-run dispensaries allowed; 3. Required dispensaries to employ pharmacists to recommend dosagesWhat's so bad about that?Are any patients really upset about
the changes? The Marijuana-activists in the group are more upset than the
The "compromise" really doesn't matter that much as referendums and
legislation rarely get implemented as they were originally intended. With it
still being against Federal law there is much that will change with any bill of
this type.Just get it in place now for those who really need it and
changes can always be made in the future to correct the always present errors.
Many people voted for prop 2 with the promise that it would be replaced with a
better compromise bill, with the hope that it would benefit sick people. To
change that now would prove the prop 2 to be a Trojan horse, and the promises
made by ALL parties to replace it were dishonest. They agreed to the compromise
before the election and now retract their support, in hopes of expanding
marijuana use. If you want to use marijuana for recreational use, go to
Colorado or Nevada, but please stop trying to force its use (and consequences)
on the rest of us.
Regardless of what Prop 2 states, it is still against US Law, and Federal Law
supersedes state law.Just ask the Federal Government to enforce
Federal Law with respect to Cannabis in the State of Utah. Problem solved.
All the compromise bill does is make marijuana so difficult for anyone to get
that it will basically guarantee that the illegal drug dealers in Utah and the
recreational pot stores in colorado and nevada continue to run thriving
Good, I hope the court upholds the will of the voters. But it wouldn't be
the first time that a handful of politicians & judges have decided that the
people who vote don't matter.
Veto the vote. Governor Herbert’s call for a special
legislative session and the ensuing “compromise” legislation in the
aftermath of Proposition 2's passage effectively vetoed the electorate and
their vote.Sort of like benevolent dictator who says “The
unwashed masses really didn’t know what they voted for. This will be
better for them.”Voters, beware the claim that your vote
counts. It only counts if it aligns with the Powers that Be.
Just goes to show that for many people Prop 2 is all about recreational use.