LDS leaders on physician assisted suicide and other topics

[pam]

SALT LAKE CITY, Utah — The LDS Church's First Presidency is asking the faith's members in four western states to oppose bills that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide and recreational marijuana use.

Church President Thomas S. Monson and his counselors sent a letter Wednesday to Mormons in Colorado, where Proposition 106 would legalize physician-assisted suicide.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664777/LDS-leaders-ask-Mormons-to-oppose-legalization-of-assisted-suicide-recreational-marijuana.html?pg=all

[anatess2]

There goes Gary Johnson...

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I have a question about the marijuana issue.  I'm not sharing this to question our leaders, but to help me understand.  The Lord has told us to "study it out in our minds" before coming to Him.  So here's my thought about marijuana...we can all agree that it is unhealthy for recreational use, right?  (Let's leave the medical marijuana debate aside for a moment.)  So from that perspective, I can totally understand why our Leaders would be against it.  

The thing I'm struggling with is this: while I know recreational marijuana is unhealthy, I see no reason to fill our jails with marijuana users.  Now, if we had some sort of mandatory rehab like Portugal, then I could really consider that.  My other thought is that prohibition did little to control the use of alcohol.  People simply went underground.  This seems like an area where education would be more powerful than legislation....and yet, I can already hear in my mind someone using the same arguments to justify some things I am strongly opposed to like prostitution.   So I can't quite sort it out.  

@MormonGator  and @Just_A_Guy, you have both been patient with me and helpful in the past...what are your thoughts?  Anyone else?

And no...this will not keep me from voting for Gary Johnson.   My religious conscience won't let me vote for Trump or Hillary.  No candidate, except maybe McMullen???  is going to perfectly align with our LDS standards.  

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I have a question about the marijuana issue.  I'm not sharing this to question our leaders, but to help me understand.  The Lord has told us to "study it out in our minds" before coming to Him.  So here's my thought about marijuana...we can all agree that it is unhealthy for recreational use, right?  (Let's leave the medical marijuana debate aside for a moment.)  So from that perspective, I can totally understand why our Leaders would be against it.  

The thing I'm struggling with is this: while I know recreational marijuana is unhealthy, I see no reason to fill our jails with marijuana users.  Now, if we had some sort of mandatory rehab like Portugal, then I could really consider that.  My other thought is that prohibition did little to control the use of alcohol.  People simply went underground.  This seems like an area where education would be more powerful than legislation....and yet, I can already hear in my mind someone using the same arguments to justify some things I am strongly opposed to like prostitution.   So I can't quite sort it out.  

@MormonGator  and @Just_A_Guy, you have both been patient with me and helpful in the past...what are your thoughts?  Anyone else?

And no...this will not keep me from voting for Gary Johnson.   My religious conscience won't let me vote for Trump or Hillary.  No candidate, except maybe McMullen???  is going to perfectly align with our LDS standards.  

I totally agree with you on legalizing marijuana. Often times people wrongly think "legalization" means "approval". It doesn't. I don't approve of many things that are legalized but I don't have any right to run your life anymore then you have the right to run mine. Keeping it illegal is a very bad idea. It creates arrest records for people who have in reality committed a victimless crime at a young age. Therefore, it makes it much harder for them to find employment throughout their lives and to become productive members of society. Lots of other reasons too, the list goes on.  

Edited October 16, 2016 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

32 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I totally agree with you on legalizing marijuana. Often times people wrong think "legalization" means "approval".

People do exactly that...  They say its not legal... therefore it is not immoral... And off they go...  While marijuana is less likely to have the negative impact then that other "illegal drugs" on a person or society "less likely" is not the same as "none."  

That being said our drug laws are kind of screwy and could use a re-vamp.  But I would prefer that re-vamp go in the direction of what actually works to help them get and stay clean. Rather then isolated from society (current) or society giving it a free pass (most common recommendation)

 

[james12]

Issues of individual rights, such as marijuana use have been on my mind lately. As you said, marijuana use is unhealthy and I would add addictive, and mentally damaging (particularly to children). So clearly it is self destructive to recreationally use marijuana. But more and more I believe people should have the freedom to do wrong, so long as what they do does not harm another person or limit another persons freedom. In some instances it pains me to say that, but every rule laid down by government ultimately must be enforced at the point of a gun. If I absolutely refuse to pay my taxes my free will must be taken away and I be forced, into a jail cell.  The same goes for marijuana use, or prostitution between consenting adults if they are illegal.  

That is why it is important that personal moral issues not be mandated by the state. If a person smokes or views pornography, government should not prevent them from doing so. In such situations we must separate church and state. The state protects my freedom to life, liberty, and property but otherwise it needs to get out of my life. The church tells me God's laws and helps me live a moral life. I must be free to live these moral laws. On the other hand, the state should not get involved in religious matters. If a church does not want to marry a gay couple they are completely free to do so. The state has no right to mandate marriage requirements to the church. 

Now having said all that, I believe it is within the rights of the government to limit the sale of harmful substances. I do not want a big tobacco 2.0, or gummy bears laced with marijuana readily available, both of which put children at risk. So I would argue for the decriminalization of marijuana but not the legalization of it. In other words, the government should not be able to put a person in jail for using marijuana but companies should not be able to put out adds enticing people to buy it. This seems clear. I think it makes sense to push for education regarding the harmful use of marijuana. I also agree that rehab requirements should be in order for people who abuse the drug. Although, in reference to my earlier point about people having the freedom to do wrong, I am still working through some of this in my mind. 

 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by james12

[Guest]

5 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I have a question about the marijuana issue.  I'm not sharing this to question our leaders, but to help me understand.  The Lord has told us to "study it out in our minds" before coming to Him.  So here's my thought about marijuana...we can all agree that it is unhealthy for recreational use, right?  (Let's leave the medical marijuana debate aside for a moment.)  So from that perspective, I can totally understand why our Leaders would be against it.  

The thing I'm struggling with is this: while I know recreational marijuana is unhealthy, I see no reason to fill our jails with marijuana users.  Now, if we had some sort of mandatory rehab like Portugal, then I could really consider that.  My other thought is that prohibition did little to control the use of alcohol.  People simply went underground.  This seems like an area where education would be more powerful than legislation....and yet, I can already hear in my mind someone using the same arguments to justify some things I am strongly opposed to like prostitution.   So I can't quite sort it out.  

@MormonGator  and @Just_A_Guy, you have both been patient with me and helpful in the past...what are your thoughts?  Anyone else?

And no...this will not keep me from voting for Gary Johnson.   My religious conscience won't let me vote for Trump or Hillary.  No candidate, except maybe McMullen???  is going to perfectly align with our LDS standards.  

Why not keep marijuana illegal, so it isn't available at the supermarket or something, but punish those who are caught by confiscating it and giving them a fine rather than arresting them?  Because while i think putting up some barriers to use is a good idea for this gateway drug, it is certainly not worth ruining someone's life over.

Yeah, keeping it illegal won't stop it, but i think it is an important gesture in trying to keep a righteous society, lest we wind up like the Nephites in the Book of Mormon, who as a social whole would periodically fall into wickedness and as a result be brought into captivity by their enemies.

Edited October 16, 2016 by DoctorLemon

[james12]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

People do exactly that...  They say its not legal... therefore it is not immoral... And off they go...  While marijuana is less likely to have the negative impact then that other "illegal drugs" on a person or society "less likely" is not the same as "none."  

The public needs to be educated on this matter. Lagalization does not mean right, and wrong does not mean illegal. Part of the problem is our laws have never been consistent in this regard. 

Certainly, the one thing we must not do is bow to this misunderstanding and make things illegal just because they are wrong. This cause countless problems and inserts the state into issues they should not be involved in at all, including religious freedom. 

[Guest MormonGator]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

Why not keep marijuana illegal, so it isn't available at the supermarket or something, but punish those who are caught by confiscating it and giving them a fine rather than arresting them?  Because while i think putting up some barriers to use is a good idea for this gateway drug, it is certainly not worth ruining someone's life over.

As long as you make sure that punishment of jail time is off the table, this would be fine with me.

 

I think it's a losing battle though-polls show that a growing number of people have no problem with legalizing it and more and more states are leaning towards that outcome. Once you legalize something (like abortion or gay marriage) it's incredibly hard to restrict it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't fight it-of course you should. But you need to be prepared it might be a losing battle. 

[NeuroTypical]

Hi from smoky good-feelin' Colorado.

Now MJ is fully legal here, we're in the middle of discovering the impact of legalizing it.  We're in the middle of gathering new data of how many auto accidents, people fired for cause from places of employment, instances of domestic violence, misdemeanors, felonies, homicides, etc, involve someone with MJ in their system, and how much of it is present. 

Not much in the way of completed scientific studies yet, just growing anecdotes.  As we're gathering these statistics, we keep seeing the answer "more than before legalization" over and over and over and over again.  And over again.

Edited October 16, 2016 by NeuroTypical

[MrShorty]

Literate Parakeet, this is a good question. I'm not sure I fully understand the answers around legalization and/or decrimilization of marijuana.

I cannot help but continue to draw parallels between the issues with marijuana and Prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's.  Pres. Heber J. Grant encouraged members in Utah to vote against repeal, but Utah voted for repeal anyway. I would be curious what attempts were made in those days to measure the impact of Prohibition on all of those aspects, as well as incarcerations and the energy it took to enforce Prohibition. My impression is that, when the impact for good and bad of Prohibition has been weighed, most believe that the costs of Prohibition (in terms of enforcement and black markets and all of that) were greater than the benefits of a "sober" society.

If have also found the "decriminalization" model used by Portugal since about 2000 to handle their drug issues is also interesting. By encouraging "minor offenders" to seek treatment (without consequence if they don't) has overall paid large dividends in terms of the costs and energy spent on enforcement and incarceration. Again, I am no expert, only aware of the bare basics of Portugal's system, but the overall evaluation I see is that decriminalization has been a net positive.

And, the letter does not address concerns regarding medical marijuana, and why the Church opposes some marijuana legislation and lets other legislation go. I realize that, if these are considered "revelation" that God does not always explain why he gives revelations. I guess the question is whether we see these as "suggestions" or "revelations". Whether "sustaining the Prophets" means that we must/should vote as directed, or if we can vote contrary to the wishes of the Church and still be "sustaining the Prophet".

 

[NeuroTypical]

Colorado had MMJ laws before just out-and-out-legalizing MJ.  Total, utter farce.  I mean, I'm sure many people who needed it medicinally were able to get it.  But so was anyone else willing to lie.

A few years back, I sat in front of a dispensary for a few hours and ate my lunch, watching the people going in and out.  Watched dozens of people - most alone, some couples.  Without exception, every single person or couple included a healthy looking male between the age of (I'd guess) 18 and 45.  I didn't see a single person who looked ill, or hurting, or even under the weather.  I didn't see any wheelchairs, no canes or walkers, no painful or stooped walks.  Not even so much as a sad looking face.  Nobody used the handicapped parking space - in fact, most people showed up and left on foot.  The local racial demographic was not represented equally in what I observed (translation, in a 90% white area, the people who got their "medicine" were about half white, 25% black, 25% hispanic).

I know you can't tell a person's diagnosis by looking at 'em.  I also know the people pushing MMJ laws were also pushing emotionally swaying pictures of children with bent spines, and people with advanced-stage cancer.

My other issue with MJ, either MMJ or not, is unless you are dang sure where you're getting it, you may be funding the kidnapping, murderous, child-sex-slave-trading transnation transnational criminal organizations, otherwise known as "cartels".  The guy behind the counter may or may not care, may or may not tell the truth.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thank you everyone!  I am really enjoying this conversation, you are giving me much food for thought.  Thank you!  

[Just_A_Guy]

Here are some random thoughts drawn on my own experience:

1)  At least in Utah, my experience is that you probably won't do jail time on a first- or second-time marijuana possession offense (other than perhaps a night in jail while you sober up/make bail) so long as you keep to the terms of your probation.  (It's not a matter of getting a pricey attorney; this is even true with LDAs.  In fact, many LDAs are better at negotiating plea deals than private counsel; because the DAs see the LDAs much more frequently and will probably be on friendlier terms with them.)  If you violate probation, or if you had intent to distribute, or if you were busted in a drug-free zone; then yeah, a few months becomes more likely.  But this notion that our prisons are full of non-violent offenders who did nothing worse than have a couple ounces of weed on their persons, is generally incorrect (at least as far as Utah goes).

2)  I'm not convinced that prohibition was as fruitless as some folks like to claim.  I've seen studies saying per capita alcohol consumption went down (and didn't return to pre-Prohibition levels until the 1970s); and other studies debunking the first studies.  But common sense says that if a product is illegal, it will be harder to obtain and fewer people will use it.  (If potheads are really able to get as much pot as they want, then why do they care whether we legalize it or not?  Answer:  They know darned well that it will be easier for them to get pot, and they'll be able to increase their consumption.)  One thing to bear in mind about statistical evidence is that it's only as good as its gatherers.  I was at the Utah Heroin and Opiates Summit a couple weeks ago, and one of the presenters was a coroner from Tennessee who mentioned, in passing, that one of the issues in analyzing our current heroin epidemic is that a lot of county coroners can't identify an overdose victim--because in a lot of jurisdictions, all you have to do to be a coroner is to have a high school (yes, high school) degree and win an election.  

3)  I've dealt with both users of marijuana, and users of much harder stuff.  The general trend I see is that the meth/opiates/acid users already know that they're into some bad stuff and want to get away from it--but they just can't.  The potheads, by contrast, doggedly insist that there's nothing wrong with what they are doing and that the guvmint should just leave them alone.

4)  Inpatient rehab is horrendously expensive. If you're paying $3K per month for your treatment, you're probably on the lower end of the spectrum.  

5)  Not all rehab facilities are created equal.  Part of my practice involves being assigned to represent parents who are going family dependency drug court.  Our clients typically works with a handful of local women's residential facilities who have contracted with the state to provide the service; and even among them and there is a notable difference between their treatment approaches and success rates.  My impression is that there is still work to be done in developing a consensus as to best practices in the field of addiction recovery.  (@LiterateParakeet aren't you a mental health practitioner of some kind?  You might know more about this than I do.)  

6)  When you're talking about putting people through rehab at government expense, there's going to have to be a cost-benefit analysis.  I honestly don't know how unhealthful or addictive marijuana is--the issue is heavily politicized and it's hard to get trustworthy data; but there's certainly a wide and growing perception out there that pot isn't much worse than tobacco.  I believe that with harder drugs, the success rate of inpatient rehab is somewhere in the ballpark of 40-50% (I'm almost certain it's not as high as 60%).  As much as I dislike tobacco, I wouldn't want $3-$4K/month of my tax dollars being used to put smokers through treatment with only a 50% chance at long-term success; and I'm not yet convinced marijuana is worth that level of public investment either.  It may be that, with a few relatively minor tweaks, our current program of catch-and-release might wind up being the best thing we can come up with.

7)  Re medical marijuana:  Again, harking back to the Utah Heroin and Opiates summit, one of the presentations was by a Dr. Jennifer Plumb, a professor at the U of U medical school and director of the Utah Naloxone Project.  (Naloxone is a drug that can be administered by injection or nasal spray, that will bring you back from a heroin OD.  If you've seen those Utah billboards about "Heroin Kills.  Naloxon Saves.  Get it." on Utah highways--her agency is behind those; and the kid in the picture is brother, who died of an overdose back in the '90s.)  Anyways, someone asked Dr. Plumb about the use of medical marijuana for pain management as an alternative to opiates.  Dr. Plumb--who, one would think, would have been eager to recommend the use of non-opiates and who one would expect to be reasonably informed on the topic--was open to further research; but she stated that there just isn't any scientific data (anecdotal stuff, yes; statistical data, no) supporting the use of medical marijuana at this point.

8)  This was something that was said at the summit about opiates generally, but I presume it's also the case with marijuana:  It used to be that there was a clear distinction between drug pushers and drug consumers; and between drug consumers and non-drug consumers.  If you wanted drugs, you had to go to the seedy part of town, or talk to one of the "bad kids" at your school, or whatever.  It's not that way any more.  Users are just as likely to be supplied by their romantic partners, siblings, or parents; you can get your product delivered to your door via UPS; and kids from "good families" are nearly as likely to be using as kids from "the wrong side of the tracks".  

[estradling75]

11 hours ago, james12 said:

The public needs to be educated on this matter. Lagalization does not mean right, and wrong does not mean illegal. Part of the problem is our laws have never been consistent in this regard. 

 

They are being educated...  In exactly the opposite direction...  Thus the problem

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

They are being educated...  In exactly the opposite direction...  Thus the problem

Make sure you don't confuse "being educated" with "they must agree with me." 

[Traveler]

 

On ‎10‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 3:29 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

I have a question about the marijuana issue.  I'm not sharing this to question our leaders, but to help me understand.  The Lord has told us to "study it out in our minds" before coming to Him.  So here's my thought about marijuana...we can all agree that it is unhealthy for recreational use, right?  (Let's leave the medical marijuana debate aside for a moment.)  So from that perspective, I can totally understand why our Leaders would be against it.  

The thing I'm struggling with is this: while I know recreational marijuana is unhealthy, I see no reason to fill our jails with marijuana users.  Now, if we had some sort of mandatory rehab like Portugal, then I could really consider that.  My other thought is that prohibition did little to control the use of alcohol.  People simply went underground.  This seems like an area where education would be more powerful than legislation....and yet, I can already hear in my mind someone using the same arguments to justify some things I am strongly opposed to like prostitution.   So I can't quite sort it out.  

@MormonGator  and @Just_A_Guy, you have both been patient with me and helpful in the past...what are your thoughts?  Anyone else?

And no...this will not keep me from voting for Gary Johnson.   My religious conscience won't let me vote for Trump or Hillary.  No candidate, except maybe McMullen???  is going to perfectly align with our LDS standards.  

Until all of the side effects of marijuana – especially cognitive reasoning abilities (both short and more importantly - long term) is properly documented without misleading propaganda; it must remain illegal for the safety and protection of the lesser intelligent segments of our society.

 

The Traveler

[kapikui]

What a lot of people seem to think is that not legalizing marijuana means we have to keep enforcing bans in the way that we have, including confiscating ALL of someone's property because a small amount of marijuana was found inside a tenant's room.  Yes, the court ordered that the property be restored (7 years later and after it had been sold), but it was too late.  A conviction wasn't even needed as the law (as upheld by some moronic courts) specified that property seizure could happen before conviction because it was wrong that someone who obtained money through selling drugs then be allowed to use that money.  Of course many departments are now using for revenue enhancement, and a few have even reportedly been accused of planting evidence so that they can get lucrative properties. 

I would also argue strongly that the bans need to be at the state level since I can see no possible constitutional authority for a blanket federal ban on any particular substance.  After all during prohibition the people of the United States decided that alcohol should be banned.  In order to accomplish that a constitutional amendment was needed.  

Why then is it now permissible for an unelected DEA or FDA bureaucrat to decide whether or not someone should face federal prison for a particular substance?  The federal government has the authority to say that substance X may not cross state lines for the purpose of sale.  That's it. That is the full extent of the power to regulate such ceded by the people to the federal government in the constitution. Anything more is overreach.

Now I'm a large proponent of keeping the drugs that are currently illegal, illegal within the borders of my state.  What your state does is its business, but the federal government badly needs to keep to its original charter and power granted by that charter. 

[Traveler]

14 minutes ago, kapikui said:

What a lot of people seem to think is that not legalizing marijuana means we have to keep enforcing bans in the way that we have, including confiscating ALL of someone's property because a small amount of marijuana was found inside a tenant's room.  Yes, the court ordered that the property be restored (7 years later and after it had been sold), but it was too late.  A conviction wasn't even needed as the law (as upheld by some moronic courts) specified that property seizure could happen before conviction because it was wrong that someone who obtained money through selling drugs then be allowed to use that money.  Of course many departments are now using for revenue enhancement, and a few have even reportedly been accused of planting evidence so that they can get lucrative properties. 

I would also argue strongly that the bans need to be at the state level since I can see no possible constitutional authority for a blanket federal ban on any particular substance.  After all during prohibition the people of the United States decided that alcohol should be banned.  In order to accomplish that a constitutional amendment was needed.  

Why then is it now permissible for an unelected DEA or FDA bureaucrat to decide whether or not someone should face federal prison for a particular substance?  The federal government has the authority to say that substance X may not cross state lines for the purpose of sale.  That's it. That is the full extent of the power to regulate such ceded by the people to the federal government in the constitution. Anything more is overreach.

Now I'm a large proponent of keeping the drugs that are currently illegal, illegal within the borders of my state.  What your state does is its business, but the federal government badly needs to keep to its original charter and power granted by that charter. 

I would suggest you become more informed about the opiate wars and the “100 years of shame” suffered in China and the collapse of Chinese society that followed and has not even yet recovered.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

 

I think we need to be a little more open minded about assisting and care for the dying.   We may not think that those that die from cardio failure are of much concern but to be present when one dies of repertory failure or multiple organ failures leaves no doubt (at least for me) that we ought to be more humane and open to options in assisting the dying under such conditions.  

Perhaps some (or even most) current legislation in physician-assisted passing ought to be opposed but, at least in my mind, the process of death for the terminally ill needs much better attention and care.  Currently morphine is the drug of choice to comfort many of the dying experiencing pain – but a knowledgeable and reasonable person should know that the doses required to relieve server pain for many of the dying will indeed kill a person in such week condition.  – For those concerned about being among those willing to take a life in severer crisis for strictly religious reasons.

 

The Traveler

[kapikui]

And why does something that happened in China alter the enumerated powers in a legal document governing the United States.   It may indeed be better to have a federal ban.  If that is the case, get an amendment passed that empowers the federal government to do so. As it stands, the power that the federal government is using is illegitimate. 

 

[james12]

37 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Until all of the side effects of marijuana – especially cognitive reasoning abilities (both short and more importantly - long term) is properly documented without misleading propaganda; it must remain illegal for the safety and protection of the lesser intelligent segments of our society.

The Traveler

Wow. When will all the side effects be known? Who are these more intelligent people and why should they control what another person decides to take in their own body? What if these lesser intelligent people don't want protection as provided by the intelligent class?

[NeuroTypical]

Heh - "known".  That's always an interesting word.   Eventually, Traveler's important bar will be passed, and we'll have reliable, repeatable, double-blind scientific studies on the impacts of long-term MJ use.  With this important bar passed, most folks will feel comfortable saying "we now know".

Lots of folks will hear the summaries of these studies, laugh, and say "We've always known that MJ makes you stupid, and makes you do stupid things.  How much money did the eggheads spend on this crap?"

[Traveler]

26 minutes ago, james12 said:

Wow. When will all the side effects be known? Who are these more intelligent people and why should they control what another person decides to take in their own body? What if these lesser intelligent people don't want protection as provided by the intelligent class?

 

More intelligent people check sources before believing popular main stream propaganda.  I referenced the side effects (especially long term effects on cognitive reasoning abilities) that are already known.  Specifically psychotic paranoia that we are currently observing in the Black Lives Matter movements.  To quote one such person, “I am afraid to go to work because I fear I will be shot by a policeman”.  --- When has any person (Black or otherwise) been deliberately targeted and shot while at work coconsciously doing their job – excluding drug dealers and Mafia hit men.

 

The Traveler

[Guest MormonGator]

11 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

More intelligent people check sources before believing popular main stream propaganda. 

 Ouch, that was sort of mean. It has nothing to do with intelligence.