Utah lawyer says his religious beliefs are more important than sick people who use medical cannabis

Logical consistency is not one of the “conservative’s” deeply held religious beliefs.


well, there’s this bit in the D&C, but I don’t think it helps his case much…

“The use of wine, strong drinks, tobacco, and hot drinks is proscribed;
Herbs, fruits, flesh, and grain are ordained for the use of man and of animals;
Obedience to gospel law, including the Word of Wisdom, brings temporal and spiritual blessings.”

[emphasis mine]


As a practicing and practical Mormon myself I want to say this guy is definitely being an intolerant tool. Our beliefs also promote chastity before marriage and fidelity within marriage - and I’m sure he has unwed cohabitants as tenants, which would be right in line with the same grounds as his stated opposition to medicinal marijuana (which should make it pretty easy to demonstrate his “religious freedom” argument is highly selective and thus effectively arbitrary, or at least capricious and insubstantial).

The bottom line of a genuine religious ethos is remarkably compatible with general humanism: mind yourself according to your own values, and you should be nice to other people whether or not their values align with your own.

You want to condemn unregulated drug use? Fine - do it on the grounds of safety, security, and property values - crack houses and meth labs are bad for everyone. But for someone going through the process of medical review and administration? What’s the difference between this and any other Schedule II substance?


Cannabis (kaneh-bosm) was the main ingredient in the anointing oil used on Jesus and is mentioned in the old testament 5 times. The stories of its use include applying it topically to the sick to heal them. If his sincerely held belief is that of a follower of christianity, he would do well to know that and would champion its use.


Or use barrier methods between their sect and the general public, you know, practice safe sects.


@Bemopolis & @simonize - note that the same passage of scripture (available here in its entirety: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/89) includes:

  1. And, again, strong drinks are not for the belly, but for the washing of your bodies.
  2. And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.

Use of an herb with skill, and/or within a medical context, certainly seems to be Mormon-kosher. Also, this whole section was provided as a “general advice” more than “strict commandment”, which really undercuts the guy’s stated opposition.

Disclaimer: I’m also a Mormon. This guy is not a good representation of the faith.

Edit: added links to usernames.


That guy’s picture begs for the @Beschizza treatment.


Yep. They failed at that, so they’ve been trying to regulate the hell out of it, in the hopes that nobody gets drunk:


Congratulations for going there. My mind went there too, but you nailed it. I audibly “arghed”.

1 Like

How many times are we going to have this same stupid argument? There is no constitutional right “not to be offended”-- the very existence of other religions is basically counter to every other your religion (“Thou shalt have no gods before me.”) It is not in the best interests of the state (and “the state” is really just a proxy for the whole of the citizenry) to allow discrimination simply to satisfy your religious beliefs.

[edited on advice from @Auld_lang_syne and @medievalist]


I’m too high to read this one.


to associate with people and practices that run counter to his deeply held beliefs, something his lawsuit says is a violation of his religious liberties. The suit also claims that being forced to rent to medical marijuana patients amounts to “compelled speech.”

You could replace “marijuana patients” with something else, say, “Hindus” and it would make just as much sense. And I’m sure he’d legally love to discriminate against those of other religions (and probably does so anyways), but the whole “equal protection” thing comes in. But it really does feel like the current “religious liberty” movement is ultimately looking to do away with that idea entirely (as long as they’re in the majority, that is…).

But one’s a religious objection and the other is a moral objection. As far as conservative Christians are concerned, the two have nothing to do with each other.


Well; not cannabis, apparently.


While the major religions in practice here in the United States have this as a condition of “goodness”, it’s worth remembering that it is not a universal facet of all religions.

1 Like



Interesting. He says he doesn’t want to be forced to rent to marijuana users. Of course nobody’s forcing him to be a landlord in the first place. It’s his choice to own rental properties, and he can choose not to.



Not so. Many religions recognize other religions. And syncretic religions actually swallow other faiths whole - for example the ancient Roman religion, and Hinduism, and to some extent great vehicle Buddhism are all syncretic.

Western thought is hampered by nearly two thousand years of Christianity - our books and teachers constantly tell us that the strange and awful features of Christianity are part and parcel of religion itself. We’re conditioned from birth to believe that religions must have gods, that religions are based on faith, and that religions are intolerant - all these things are completely and utterly false statements, those are features of some specific religions, and not of religion itself.

Basically most of us have been conditioned to believe all motor vehicles (religions) are Ford Fairlanes (Christianity), so when we encounter a vintage Harley (Jainism) we have to overcome some serious brainwashing.

Edit: Scooped by @Auld_Lang_Syne! Have a cup o’ kindness, sirrah!


In the words of an old robed space wizard, “trust your feelings”, because that’s exactly what their actual goal is.


Tree of life, hello!

1 Like