Mountain states Mormonism misleads on marijuana

Twenty-four U.S. states have legalized sales of recreational marijuana, yet parts of the Rocky Mountain West remain steadfast in their opposition to cannabinoids. One reason is state and local political domination by the LDS or Mormon Church. Starting in 1915 Mormons made marijuana taboo.

A hundred years later problems with Mormonism’s public image resulted in an attempt to rebrand itself exclusively as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Try as it may, Mormonism cannot outrun the history of its attitudes toward marijuana. It clearly outlined its position on cannabis and drugs in its out-of-print 1992 edition of the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

In addition to avoiding tea, coffee, and alcoholic beverages, members should not misuse legal drugs, and should not use any substance that contains illegal drugs or other harmful or habit forming ingredients.

The Encyclopedia goes on to contrast Mormonism with the drug awareness of other religions in a holier-than-thou ranking system that uses marijuana legalization as its moral benchmark:

Legalization of Marijuana: Only one in ten Latter-day Saints supports the legalization of marijuana, compared with about two in ten among Protestants and Catholics. Forty-one percent of Jews and half of those with no religion favor legalization of marijuana. [NORC pooled surveys for 1972-1988]

If someone wanted to construct criminal laws in which a higher probability of arrest falls upon Jews, non-believers and people other than themselves, few better options exist than making marijuana illegal and creating draconian penalties for its use. Faith alone cannot justify the constitutionality of anti-marijuana laws. That would be an illegal establishment of religion by the government. Something more organic or scary is needed.

Prior to and after World War II, Jews and non-believers were often lumped together with Communists. Mormonism was strongly tied to the anti-Communist John Birch Society by one of its biggest fans, church president Ezra Taft Benson (1899-1994). Benson and the Birchers believed legalizing marijuana and water fluoridation were Communist plots. Fluoridation has since been cleared of all charges of Communism by medical science.

Marijuana criminalization remains useful to religious isolationists living in remote towns and villages because its illegality discourages certain undesirables from traveling, working or retiring there. Anti-marijuana laws give Mormons and other prohibitionists an edge when it comes to government employment. Persons applying for a drug enforcement job with the DEA, or the FBI which also covers drug cases, will be summarily rejected if they have tried cannabinoids only once in their lives. Service in the military is unlikely with marijuana or other drug arrests. Security clearances will be denied. All it takes are polygraphs or a positive urine test to terminate a government career.

Persecuting marijuana consumers creates easier pathways for anti-marijuana religious groups to take over government agencies. In one example Mormon FBI managers attempted to usurp the bureaucracy—if not the whole of the FBI—only to be busted in 1989 for discriminating in the hiring, training and treatment of Hispanic job applicants. The offending agents also targeted FBI employees possessing seniority and perfect job performances based solely on skin color, culture, and ethnicity. The Book of Mormon labels darker skinned people as “Lamanites” who it says are “loathsome” since they are believed to be the descendants of Laman and are thereby allegedly cursed for their evil nature and corruption. It goes on to proclaim that Lamanites can repent and embrace the Book of Mormon and automatically become “white and delightsome”. A landmark lawsuit brought by Hispanic FBI agents, Mat Perez vs. FBI, resulted in the presiding judge ordering the FBI to clean up its act.

The LDS Church has experienced a declining membership since 2013 in contrast to cannabinoids which show a tolerance or popularity increase that now encompasses 70-percent of adult Americans. The Church’s declining membership has several sources: lower birth rates, modernism, science, secularism, eroding beliefs, its cover-up of its neglect of charitable functions, and a scandal in which shell companies were used to disguise its ownership of for-profit businesses and other organizations. Typically left out of the calculation is the Church’s disdain and persecution of consumers of a plant the ancient Egyptians referred to as the “branches of bliss”. It’s possible that many Mormons who once regarded Mormonism as their preferred drug switched to a better one. Certainly few of those who enjoy branches of bliss today would give it up merely to join the Latter-day Saints.

This entry was posted in Servetus. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Mountain states Mormonism misleads on marijuana

  1. One thing the JBS never learned: the Communist regimes of the 20th century supported Marijuana criminalization, going as far as having users and dealers shot without trial. (Ditto for other drugs.) Just look up Operation Black Poppy that the Soviet Union enacted.

  2. Servetus says:

    Mormonism’s rejection of tea and coffee consumption can have cancerous consequences:

    23-Dec-2024 — Can drinking coffee or tea help prevent head and neck cancer? Pooled analysis of numerous studies suggests a potentially protective effect.

    In a recent analysis of data from more than a dozen studies, coffee and tea consumption was linked with lower risks of developing head and neck cancer, including cancers of the mouth and throat. The findings are published by Wiley online in CANCER, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Cancer Society.

    Head and neck cancer is the seventh most common cancer worldwide, and rates are rising in low- and middle-income countries. Many studies have assessed whether drinking coffee or tea is associated with head and neck cancer, with inconsistent results.

    To provide additional insight, investigators examined data from 14 studies by different scientists associated with the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology consortium, a collaboration of research groups around the globe. Study participants completed questionnaires about their prior consumption of caffeinated coffee, decaffeinated coffee, and tea in cups per day/week/month/year.

    When investigators pooled information on 9,548 patients with head and neck cancer and 15,783 controls without cancer, they found that compared with non-coffee-drinkers, individuals who drank more than 4 cups of caffeinated coffee daily had 17% lower odds of having head and neck cancer overall, 30% lower odds of having cancer of the oral cavity, and 22% lower odds of having throat cancer. Drinking 3–4 cups of caffeinated coffee was linked with a 41% lower risk of having hypopharyngeal cancer (a type of cancer at the bottom of the throat).

    Drinking decaffeinated coffee was associated with 25% lower odds of oral cavity cancer. Drinking tea was linked with 29% lower odds of hypopharyngeal cancer. Also, drinking 1 cup or less of tea daily was linked with a 9% lower risk of head and neck cancer overall and a 27% lower risk of hypopharyngeal cancer, but drinking more than 1 cup was associated with 38% higher odds of laryngeal cancer.

    “While there has been prior research on coffee and tea consumption and reduced risk of cancer, this study highlighted their varying effects with different sub-sites of head and neck cancer, including the observation that even decaffeinated coffee had some positive impact,” said senior author Yuan-Chin Amy Lee, PhD, of Huntsman Cancer Institute and the University of Utah School of Medicine. “Coffee and tea habits are fairly complex, and these findings support the need for more data and further studies around the impact that coffee and tea can have on reducing cancer risk.” […]

    AAAS Public Science News Release: Can drinking coffee or tea help prevent head and neck cancer? Pooled analysis of numerous studies suggests a potentially protective effect

    CANCER: Coffee and tea consumption and the risk of head and neck cancer: An updated pooled analysis in the International Head and Neck Cancer Epidemiology Consortium

    Authors: Timothy Nguyen MPH, Alzina Koric PhD, Chun-Pin Esther Chang PhD, Christine Barul PhD, Loredana Radoi DDS, PhD, Diego Serraino MD, Mark P. Purdue PhD, Karl T. Kelsey MD, MOH, Michael D. McClean ScD, Eva Negri PhD, Valeria Edefonti PhD, Kirsten Moysich PhD, MS, Zuo-Feng Zhang MD, PhD, Hal Morgenstern PhD, Fabio Levi MD, Thomas L. Vaughan MD, MPH, Carlo La Vecchia MD, MSc, Werner Garavello MD, Richard B. Hayes DDS, PhD, Simone Benhamou PhD, Stimson P. Schantz MD, Guo-Pei Yu MD, MPH, Hermann Brenner MD, Shu-Chun Chuang PhD, Paolo Boffetta MD, MPH, Mia Hashibe PhD,
    Yuan-Chin Amy Lee PhD.

  3. Servetus says:

    The American Psychiatric Association (APA) focuses on psychedelic medications:

    1-Jan-2025 — As the body of research grows around the potential promise of psychedelic medications in psychiatry, many questions and challenges remain. The January issue of the American Journal of Psychiatry features a series of articles, including new research, reviews and commentaries, on the use of these treatments.

    The issue addresses many of the ongoing challenges and looming questions in the field of psychiatric psychedelic research and treatment. These include issues relevant to basic pharmacology and effects on neural circuits, evidence of clinical efficacy, methodological challenges/ limitations of existing research (such as possibly large expectancy effects and functional unblinding), and contextual factors pertaining to public health and policy considerations. Other issues include drug interactions; whether patients can experience therapeutic benefits without experiencing the altered state (“psychedelic experience”) associated with psychedelic treatments; and the role of the drug (regulated by the FDA), the role of the psychological support/therapy component (likely not to be FDA-regulated) and the interaction of the two in treatment.

    “Sufficiently addressing and answering these scientific and clinical questions will be critical for the future clinical success of these agents,” AJP’s Editor-in-Chief Ned Kalin, M.D., writes […]

    A few of the articles from the issue are highlighted below:

    “Psychedelics for the Treatment of Psychiatric Disorders: Methodologic Considerations and Guidance for Future Research, Clinical Development and Implementation,” Roger S. McIntyre, M.D. et al. — This review addresses general methodological considerations for psychedelic clinical trial data and provides recommendations. The paper is intended to help facilitate the interpretability and translatability of psychedelic studies and provides guidance for their future research and implementation, to ensure that development of psychedelic treatments is rigorous with respect to safety and the actual benefits of these treatments.

    “Single-dose Psilocybin for Depression with Severe Treatment Resistance: a Non-Randomized Controlled Trial,” Scott T. Aaronson, M.D., et al. — Original research from Aaronson and colleagues describes positive findings from an open-label trial of psilocybin treatment in individuals with severe treatment-resistant depression. This small open-label study demonstrated significant safety and efficacy of synthetic psilocybin in severe treatment resistant depression.

    “Benefits and Challenges of Ultra-Fast, Short-Acting Psychedelics in the Treatment of Depression,” Johannes G. Ramaekers, Ph.D., et al. — Ramaekers and colleagues review the evidence for ultra-fast, short-acting psychedelics such as dimethyltryptamine and 5-methoxy-dimethyltryptamine (5-MeO-DMT and DMT) which potentially offer benefits such as individualized dosing regimens to maximize treatment outcome and facilitate less complex and less costly implementation.

    “Primum Non Nocere: The Onus to Characterize the Potential Harms of Psychedelic Treatment” Sharmin Ghaznavi, M.D., Ph.D., et al. — As with all therapeutic interventions, research is needed not only into their benefits, but also potential risks, including scrutiny in broad populations with psychiatric and medical comorbidities typically excluded from clinical trials. Among the known and potential harms of psychedelic treatments reviewed by Ghaznavi and colleagues include enduring perceptual disturbances; overuse, misuse and dependence; challenging experiences or “bad trips”; acute and cumulative cardiovascular effects; and more. They also make recommendations for further research and monitoring.

    AAAS Public Science News Release: Special issue of APA’s official journal focuses on psychedelic medication

    Special issue of APA’s official journal focuses on psychedelic medication: Peer-Reviewed Publication, American Psychiatric Association.

    Position Statement on the Use of Psychedelic and Empathogenic Agents for Mental Health Conditions

    For a copy of full articles, contact press@psych.org

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *