I think of the pope praying at the border for those who have lost their lives trying to reach America. I wonder if it was one of the few events honoring those who have died there, one of the few moments someone has paused to observe their loss.
Where are the candle light vigils? Have there been any, at all? Does anyone on this side of the border mourn the passing of these people by going there for observances? More than 3,000 have given their lives trying to reach America in the last 20 years. For that, has so much as a single candle been lit down at that border?
So, I thank the pope. I thank him for going there and mourning this loss of life.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Wednesday, February 17, 2016
Do Away with Backroom Meetings
I would that my state were the most open and transparent in the nation. That would entail the meetings being open. It would mean the Republican caucuses would no longer run to get behind closed doors.
I wish even the lobbying process were open to the public. I think it would be wonderful if a few legislators, on their own, told lobbyists that they would love to meet with them, but only if the meetings were open to the public. The meetings would be videotaped and posted online.
Backroom meetings? Do away with them. Do everything in view of the public. The public's business should be conducted in public.
I pause, at this point, and wonder what meetings might should be behind closed doors. Off top, if the meeting is about legislation, I cannot think of any. If the meeting is about your election campaign or such, hold it behind closed doors whenever you like. But, if it is about legislation, no.
I wish even the lobbying process were open to the public. I think it would be wonderful if a few legislators, on their own, told lobbyists that they would love to meet with them, but only if the meetings were open to the public. The meetings would be videotaped and posted online.
Backroom meetings? Do away with them. Do everything in view of the public. The public's business should be conducted in public.
I pause, at this point, and wonder what meetings might should be behind closed doors. Off top, if the meeting is about legislation, I cannot think of any. If the meeting is about your election campaign or such, hold it behind closed doors whenever you like. But, if it is about legislation, no.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Are We Living in the Marijuana Bubble?
I suppose I wonder if we are living in a marijuana bubble, a time when people's belief in Mary Jane well exceeds what the drug is worthy of.
If so, it might be a bubble that sticks around for a long time.
I think most on the medical benefits the drug is suppose to deliver. From a little bit of looking into it, I'm beginning to doubt it is what it is cracked up to be. Maybe three drugs on the market derived from marijuana components or synthetic components? And, none of them are wonder drugs?
And, the biggest medical benefit of marijuana is that it is a pain killer, no more? Not that pain relief doesn't have value, but pain relief is a far cry for curing someone of disease or defect.
I have been a proponent of medical marijuana. Now, I find myself wavering.
Then, when I find good evidence that marijuana is not overly fantastic as a medicine, I find myself further questioning other claims made for marijuana, like it being as great a source of creativity that they say it is.
If so, it might be a bubble that sticks around for a long time.
I think most on the medical benefits the drug is suppose to deliver. From a little bit of looking into it, I'm beginning to doubt it is what it is cracked up to be. Maybe three drugs on the market derived from marijuana components or synthetic components? And, none of them are wonder drugs?
And, the biggest medical benefit of marijuana is that it is a pain killer, no more? Not that pain relief doesn't have value, but pain relief is a far cry for curing someone of disease or defect.
I have been a proponent of medical marijuana. Now, I find myself wavering.
Then, when I find good evidence that marijuana is not overly fantastic as a medicine, I find myself further questioning other claims made for marijuana, like it being as great a source of creativity that they say it is.
Monday, February 15, 2016
If Marijuana is a Wonder Drug, Why so Few Medicines from it?
Ah, so there's a prescription drug with a chemical taken right out of the marijuana plant. And, it might receive FDA approval. Doesn't this mean medicinal marijuana would be available in Utah, with or without the Utah Legislature making it legal? No, it is not like the whole plant is the commodity, but this could mark the beginning of the components from marijuana finding their way into pharmaceuticals.
In addition to this natural-component product, there are drugs with synthesized components.
Sativex, by name. That's the one with the natural marijuana ingredient. You can already get it in England, Germany, and Canada, among other nations. Sativex is said to treat neuropathic pain and spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis. And, it is used as a pain treatment for those with advanced cancer. It was in Phase 3 testing in the United States in 2015. I don't know if that testing was completed.
Then, there's Dronabinol. That's got some synthetic THC in it. It is said that it stimulates appetite and treats nausea.
Nabilone is along the same lines. And, there are other synthetics in the pipeline, undergoing testing.
Here's the question: If marijuana is such a wonder drug, if the properties in it can do all the grand things that we hear about, then why have not more marijuana-type products passed FDA's testing requirements?
In addition to this natural-component product, there are drugs with synthesized components.
Sativex, by name. That's the one with the natural marijuana ingredient. You can already get it in England, Germany, and Canada, among other nations. Sativex is said to treat neuropathic pain and spasticity in patients with multiple sclerosis. And, it is used as a pain treatment for those with advanced cancer. It was in Phase 3 testing in the United States in 2015. I don't know if that testing was completed.
Then, there's Dronabinol. That's got some synthetic THC in it. It is said that it stimulates appetite and treats nausea.
Nabilone is along the same lines. And, there are other synthetics in the pipeline, undergoing testing.
Here's the question: If marijuana is such a wonder drug, if the properties in it can do all the grand things that we hear about, then why have not more marijuana-type products passed FDA's testing requirements?
Sunday, February 14, 2016
Did Jesus Experience These Things?
If the Savior experienced all things while down here, would that include the experience of being wrong, of maybe even causing harm when you did not intend to? Did he have the experience of not being able to help someone as much as He would have liked? Did He experience not having things turn out the way He intended them to?
He was perfect. He had no flaws. I am aware of that. But, He was born of a human mother and half mortal -- for a reason.
I think of the story in Mark 6:31-33, of how he thought to take His disciples to a desert place to rest, for there were many people in the place where they were, so that they didn't even have leisure to eat without people disturbing them.
So they departed in a ship privately, it says. And that word, "privately" suggests they did not want people to know they were leaving, or where they were going.
"And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ran afoot thither out of all the cities, and out went them, and came together unto him."
So, Jesus had hoped to take his disciples to a place where they could be at peace from those that would disturb them. But, it didn't work out that way. It didn't turn out as intended. The people saw Him leave, and recognized Him, and chased along the shoreline, and were at point o fexit when Jesus and His disciples arrived to get off.
I think of another story, in Mark 5, of how a man had a legion of spirits, and Jesus would to cast them out. But, they plead with Him, that instead of sending them out of the country, to send them into a herd of swine. Jesus accommodated them, and the spirits entered the swine, and the swine ran down a steep place into the sea and were drowned.
And, as a result, I would guess, the owner or owners were without their swine. That they may have had owners is indicated in that it says, "And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done."
When someone does you harm, you might want him to leave. And, even so, we read, that the people, "began to pray him to depart out of their coasts."
Jesus was half mortal. He came down to earth to experience all things. It does seem to me that experiencing such things as these are part of experiencing all things. I know such experiences are part of life's learning experience for me, and consider they might have been part of the Lord's experience, as well.
I could be wrong, but I wonder. And, no, I do not think it wrong to wonder.
I think of how it is said that since He was half mortal and half non-mortal, He had the power to not die, and could have refused to die when crucified, but gave His life up. I wonder if it would be the same with the two stories I have related. He lived the mortal side of life, and chose not to use His "powers" (if I can use that word), to see into the future to know that the people would follow him along the seashore, and to know that when the swine were killed, the people would fear Him.
He was perfect. He had no flaws. I am aware of that. But, He was born of a human mother and half mortal -- for a reason.
I think of the story in Mark 6:31-33, of how he thought to take His disciples to a desert place to rest, for there were many people in the place where they were, so that they didn't even have leisure to eat without people disturbing them.
So they departed in a ship privately, it says. And that word, "privately" suggests they did not want people to know they were leaving, or where they were going.
"And the people saw them departing, and many knew him, and ran afoot thither out of all the cities, and out went them, and came together unto him."
So, Jesus had hoped to take his disciples to a place where they could be at peace from those that would disturb them. But, it didn't work out that way. It didn't turn out as intended. The people saw Him leave, and recognized Him, and chased along the shoreline, and were at point o fexit when Jesus and His disciples arrived to get off.
I think of another story, in Mark 5, of how a man had a legion of spirits, and Jesus would to cast them out. But, they plead with Him, that instead of sending them out of the country, to send them into a herd of swine. Jesus accommodated them, and the spirits entered the swine, and the swine ran down a steep place into the sea and were drowned.
And, as a result, I would guess, the owner or owners were without their swine. That they may have had owners is indicated in that it says, "And they that fed the swine fled, and told it in the city, and in the country. And they went out to see what it was that was done."
When someone does you harm, you might want him to leave. And, even so, we read, that the people, "began to pray him to depart out of their coasts."
Jesus was half mortal. He came down to earth to experience all things. It does seem to me that experiencing such things as these are part of experiencing all things. I know such experiences are part of life's learning experience for me, and consider they might have been part of the Lord's experience, as well.
I could be wrong, but I wonder. And, no, I do not think it wrong to wonder.
I think of how it is said that since He was half mortal and half non-mortal, He had the power to not die, and could have refused to die when crucified, but gave His life up. I wonder if it would be the same with the two stories I have related. He lived the mortal side of life, and chose not to use His "powers" (if I can use that word), to see into the future to know that the people would follow him along the seashore, and to know that when the swine were killed, the people would fear Him.
Saturday, February 13, 2016
Could Utah Lead Out in the Testing of Marijuana? Probably Not
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said Friday it would like more research before medicinal marijuana is legalized.
Consider, then, what needs to be done, or what could be done. The typical testing for pharmaceuticals involves primarily three steps: Giving it to 20-100 people to see if it is safe, giving it to 100-300 people to see if the drug has efficacy, and giving it to 2,000-3,000 people to see if it has therapeutic value. Could Utah follow those three steps, before legalizing a drug derived from marijuana?
I read how marijuana has not been tested. If this is true, that this type of testing has not taken place, doing this would place Utah at the forefront of researching medical marijuana.
I think we might should consider the expense of such a study, though. I do not know how much it would be, if it would be something we could pay for, or if it would be prohibitive. I read how small companies often sell their patent rights to large pharmaceuticals when their product reaches this testing stage, as it is expensive. I wonder how many workers are required to conduct the study. I wonder if the medical school at the University of Utah could be utilized to conduct the study and if that would hold the expense down.
Then, the question comes, can you even do a study -- should you -- if the drug remains illegal on the national level. It seems the first step is to call on Congress to rewrite federal law, and that rewrite should include provision allowing marijuana to be grown for and used in testing.
Or, the right of the states to legalize marijuana could be tested in the courts, with the question being whether the 10th Amendment's reserving powers not given the federal government to the states means the states have the right to legalize marijuana regardless what the federal government says.
Either way, whether Congress changes the national law or whether the courts rule favorably on the 10th Amendment, if the reason for little research is due to marijuana being illegal, then when that approval comes, the pharmaceuticals probably would be quick to do testing.
The thought that Utah could be at the forefront of research would disappear.
Consider, then, what needs to be done, or what could be done. The typical testing for pharmaceuticals involves primarily three steps: Giving it to 20-100 people to see if it is safe, giving it to 100-300 people to see if the drug has efficacy, and giving it to 2,000-3,000 people to see if it has therapeutic value. Could Utah follow those three steps, before legalizing a drug derived from marijuana?
I read how marijuana has not been tested. If this is true, that this type of testing has not taken place, doing this would place Utah at the forefront of researching medical marijuana.
I think we might should consider the expense of such a study, though. I do not know how much it would be, if it would be something we could pay for, or if it would be prohibitive. I read how small companies often sell their patent rights to large pharmaceuticals when their product reaches this testing stage, as it is expensive. I wonder how many workers are required to conduct the study. I wonder if the medical school at the University of Utah could be utilized to conduct the study and if that would hold the expense down.
Then, the question comes, can you even do a study -- should you -- if the drug remains illegal on the national level. It seems the first step is to call on Congress to rewrite federal law, and that rewrite should include provision allowing marijuana to be grown for and used in testing.
Or, the right of the states to legalize marijuana could be tested in the courts, with the question being whether the 10th Amendment's reserving powers not given the federal government to the states means the states have the right to legalize marijuana regardless what the federal government says.
Either way, whether Congress changes the national law or whether the courts rule favorably on the 10th Amendment, if the reason for little research is due to marijuana being illegal, then when that approval comes, the pharmaceuticals probably would be quick to do testing.
The thought that Utah could be at the forefront of research would disappear.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Marijuana Should Remain Illegal Until the Federal Law is Changed
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints certainly makes a point on the fact marijuana remains federally illegal. As I reflect on this, it occurs to me no state should be allowed to forge ahead with marijuana legalization unless the federal law is changed.
I wonder how many court cases have questioned the various state approvals. Or, have there been no such court cases at all? There certainly should be some. You don't simply defy federal law and expect not to end up in court. At least, you shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Either the national law should be enforced, or it should be changed. It seems to me, that with as many states as have approved marijuana either for recreational or medical use, somewhere a Congress member should be bringing up legislation. One way to address the issue would be a replacement law saying marijuana is illegal except when approved by a state. That is the status essentially in effect, but without an actual law giving it efficacy.
Marijuana should remain illegal until the federal law is changed. Unless it is changed, the various state laws should not have effect unless a court rules it is a matter of state rights under the Constitution.
I wonder how many court cases have questioned the various state approvals. Or, have there been no such court cases at all? There certainly should be some. You don't simply defy federal law and expect not to end up in court. At least, you shouldn't be allowed to do so.
Either the national law should be enforced, or it should be changed. It seems to me, that with as many states as have approved marijuana either for recreational or medical use, somewhere a Congress member should be bringing up legislation. One way to address the issue would be a replacement law saying marijuana is illegal except when approved by a state. That is the status essentially in effect, but without an actual law giving it efficacy.
Marijuana should remain illegal until the federal law is changed. Unless it is changed, the various state laws should not have effect unless a court rules it is a matter of state rights under the Constitution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)