On August 23rd I received an email from my Church. This email was sent to all members of the Church living in Utah. The email advises all to vote ‘no’ on Proposition 2, which proposes the legalization of the use of medical cannabis in Utah.

As I read, pondered, and prayed about this discussion, I decided share how I feel on the matter (in no specific order):

Separation of church and state

In my opinion, not too many people understand what the ‘separation of church and state’ is, and many frequently allow that expression to be misused. First off, let me share that there is no mention of “separation of church and state” in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights. This ‘saying’ comes from an 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut. The purpose of Jefferson’s letter was to give reassurance to that congregation that a wall had been built and placed in between church and state in order to protect their religious freedoms. In other words, this separation was not designed to keep religion out of the state, but rather to protect religion from the state.

Many of us obtain our moral bearings from God (or your preferred deity) through whichever religious beliefs we associate with. All our decisions are guided through these very same moral bearings. The misguided and mistaken idea of what the separation of church and state is, would have us completely strip away all the convictions of what make us who we are. It is an unrealistic expectation of me, to operate without the beliefs that make me who I am. My beliefs should affect everything that I do. I should be able to say that I defend position A, B, or C, or that I act this way or that way because I believe in God.

I defend the Church’s desire to provide bearings to its congregation, as long as it is done properly.

The Church’s Partnership with the Utah Medical Association

Who would I want in the cockpit of the aircraft taking me and 200 others from point A, to point B? A trained and experienced pilot. If I need to remodel and expand my house, who should I want to be at the helm of such project? A trained and experienced contractor.

With that in mind, is it too hard to understand why the Church partnered with the Utah Medical Association? If you want medical advice, wouldn’t you want to consult with a trained and experienced physician? I would, and I believe that so does the Church.

The Utah Medical Association is an organization representing physicians. The problem, and a very important point to consider, is that I wouldn’t be the first one (or the last one) to draw a direct connection between doctors and big pharma.

In the video below (please be aware of a couple quick slightly crude comments) you can see:

-A glimpse in the amount of prescribed drugs and the revenue it generates to big pharma.
-The potential influence that prescription medicine television ads have on consumers.
-The use of the prescription medicine catch phrase “ask your doctor”.
-The exorbitant marketing costs directed at benefiting health care providers in contrast with marketing directed at the consumer.
-Lawsuits about irresponsible marketing practices.
-Pharmaceutical sales reps promises of potential income.
-Lack of qualification of pharmaceutical sales reps.
-Free samples and free food from drug sale reps as incentives to doctor’s offices to influence decision making on which prescription medicine to prescribe.
-Prescription medicine data from pharmacies sold to drug companies that end up at the hand of the drug sales rep with the intent of directing sales.
-Drugs prescribed for non FDA approved uses.
-Big pharma paying doctors to be guest speakers to other doctors with the intent of promoting their prescription medicine.

In the article titled “This Is The Sickening Amount Pharmaceutical Companies Pay Top Journal Editors” you can read about the money that big pharma pays to editors of the world’s most influential medical journals. Conflict of interest much?

So who would potentially be the ones to lose the most, if patients traded opioids for medical cannabis? Big pharma. Then would it be too hard to see a possible reason for a group of Utah doctors to be against a proposition that could have a financial impact to big pharma? I’ll let you decide.

“Analysis” from Kirton McConkie

I imagine that by now you have read or at least heard about the so called “analysis” of the Utah Medical Cannabis Act that was done at the Church’s request to the law firm of Kirton McConkie. The “analysis” is an extremely biased document, in which the law firm fails to present the facts, and severely omits key information that the public should know. In my rebuttal, I describe the “analysis” as a document with a “clear intent to present just part of the information, a fraction of the whole in a narrative that fits an agenda.”

I believe the Church is honestly concerned about Utah’s health and public welfare, but it has been misguided by the Utah Medical Association’s impartial and agenda-driven stance on the issue, and by Kirton McConkie’s lackluster and subpar “analysis”.

The Prophet, President Russell M. Nelson

I sustain President Russell M. Nelson as a prophet, seer, and revelator. I know that he possesses and is the only authorized person to exercise all the keys of the Priesthood. I have been blessed to have received this assurance from Heavenly Father through the Holy Ghost. There are no actions of men that will have an impact in the testimony that I have of our living Prophet. President Nelson is our living Prophet, he is the mouthpiece of God, and we should listen to what he says. I know that the Priesthood is the power of God given to men and I am humbled by the privilege of possessing such Priesthood.

The Church of Jesus Christ and Politics

The Church has a long and admirable track record in not taking sides in regard to political parties, political platforms, and political candidates.

The Church also encourages us as members, to be engaged in politics, to participate and be educated in civic matters, and to exercise our right to vote.

I believe the Church has the right to formulate a stance in regards to any subject matter.

I believe the Church has the right to advocate and defend the stances it believes in.

I also believe the Church can invite its members to ponder about matters that are deemed to impact society in general.

While I agree with all these statements, I also know that the Church is a house of order and as such it must abide by its own tenets.

One thing that the Church has never done, was to advise me on how to vote. Until now.

On April 7, 1996, then Prophet, Gordon B. Hinckley gave an interview to 60 Minute’s Mike Wallace.

They talked about many things including politics. I was not surprised when President Hinckley said:

“We urge our people to exercise their franchise as citizens of this nation, but we do not tell them how to vote, and we do not tell the government how it should be run.”

On top of that, we can read identical language from the Church’s Handbook of Instructions 1 (section 17.1.33) and from the Handbook of Instructions 2 (section 21.1.29) the following (I’ll break it down):

“While affirming the right of expression on political and social issues, the Church is neutral regarding political parties, political platforms, and candidates for political office. The Church does not endorse any political party or candidate.”

So far so good. The Church is neutral and doesn’t take sides.

“Nor does it advise members how to vote.”

Now we have a problem. We can clearly see the inconsistency between what the Church should do and what the Church did. The Church has advised me to vote no on Prop 2. Such direction is against the Church’s directive.

“However, in some exceptional instances the Church will take a position on specific legislation, particularly when it concludes that moral issues are involved.”

Again, so far so good. I believe the Church has the right to take a stance and monopolize efforts in defending its stance.

“Only the First Presidency can speak for the Church or commit the Church to support or oppose specific legislation or to seek to intervene in judicial matters. Otherwise, stake presidents and other local leaders should not organize members to participate in political matters or attempt to influence how they participate.”

Again, we have another problem here. Seeing that only the First Presidency can speak for the Church on these matters, we need to be reminded that the email was sent from Elder Craig C. Christensen from the Seventy, not from President Russell M. Nelson or another member of the First Presidency. We also need to observe that according to the directive in both Handbooks of Instructions, only the First Presidency can commit the Church to support or oppose specific legislation.

I don’t believe that the First Presidency is unaware of the email that was sent, but their knowledge of it doesn’t change the fact that the email is from Elder Christensen and not from President Nelson.

Another problem is the local focus of opposition to this measure in the state of Utah, meaning, why hasn’t the Church opposed similar measures in other states? Why the focus in the state of Utah? Why didn’t the Church oppose similar bills in other states?

I had an interesting conversation with a dear friend of mine about this. My friend is a great person and I love this person. This individual is a strong member of the Church, who have served and continues to serve faithfully in several Church callings. The conversation went like this (paraphrased):

My Friend: You need to vote no on Prop2 because that is what the Church asked.
Me: But that contradicts the directive given by the Church on both handbooks of instructions.
My Friend: If the Church told me to vote yes on Prop 2 I would still vote no because that’s the moral and right thing to do.
Me: So, are you saying that you would vote against the Church’s instructions?
My Friend: No. I guess I would have to think about it.

Based on this interaction, I take that this person is conflicted.

The reason why I’m talking about this, is because many faithful members of the Church are torn and heartbroken because they will be voting in favor of Prop 2 all while thinking they are going against the will of Heavenly Father or that they are not following the Prophet. There hasn’t been any claim that this opposition is derived from any doctrinal directive, any prophetic utterance, or that is being presented as revelation from the Lord. Based on anything made public so far we can say with certainty that the instruction you received to vote against Prop 2 did not come from our beloved President Nelson. My advice is for you to study all sides of the discussion, decide on how to vote, and present it to the Lord. No human being advice can trump the promptings of the Lord through the Holy Ghost.

Risks

Medical Cannabis is not for everyone, nor it is the solution for all ailments as it is not completely benign or without risk. One of the hurdles of medical cannabis patients is figuring out what work best for them, whether deciding the right delivery method, or the ideal combination amount of the active ingredients. In this sense medical cannabis is no different than any medication and its misuse will bring adverse consequences.

The point here is to advocate for the government to remove the barriers that prevent even more in-depth research of medical cannabis. Research without the restrictions posed by the government would allow for new discoveries in regards to even greater benefits of the plant, better understanding of the potential risks, and permit researchers to better comprehend and make recommendations as to how better dosage the medicine.

Many suggest that the use of medical cannabis is the gateway for recreation use of marijuana. Anyone who reads the Utah Medical Cannabis Act proposal without any bias will clearly see that the bill is very strict and doesn’t have any provisions for recreational use. The bill is clearly not written in a way to allow for the use of cannabis recreationally but at least I can understand the basis for the concern from some, with the track record of other states like Colorado and Oregon.

The point here is based on two quotes from my favorite US President (This is a ‘trick statement’, let’s see if you catch the reference):

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful and committed citizens can change the world.”
and
“Decisions are made by those who show up”

The take way is that it is up to us to allow or prevent legislation to pass based on what we believe is right for the state of Utah. If you don’t want this bill to pass or if you want this bill to pass, it is up to you to mobilize and be active in defending the principles that you believe in. If you stay home and refrain from participating in the political process then you’re simply being acted upon by those who may not have your best interest in mind. I believe that medical cannabis is a great blessing for the state of Utah, but I will fight with tooth and nail against recreational use of cannabis.

Do your part. Study both sides of the matter. Read the proposed bill. Learn about the concerns. Ask questions and seek wise counsel. Learn about the history of medical cannabis and the implications of the bill becoming law (or not). After becoming educated on the subject, bring yourself to your knees and make your decision a matter of prayer. You cannot go wrong if you do that.

I felt peace with the confirmation of the Spirit when I decided to vote YES on Prop 2.