Does the Bible Back Marijuana? Politician Cites Scripture to Tout ‘Miraculous Plant’

Greg, thanks.

Thanks for the apology, Jim.

In the first article on marijuana I say, “The argument for medical marijuana seems to just be a way of opening the door to the recreational use of marijuana.”

Roger, I should have elaborated a little more in the first article (I did so in my statement above).

The next article does offer a little more information along these lines.

The clamor for medical marijuana seems to be for the smoking of marijuana rather than using medicine developed from the ingredients in marijuana.

In other words, take away the recreational high or euphoria, and many are no longer interested in it’s medicinal use.

The great majority of folks arguing for medical marijuana do seem to primarily just want to open the door to its legalized recreational use.

When a state legalizes marijuana, two things seem to happen: First, most anyone can get a “prescription” and start smoking it. Second, the push then begins to completely legalize it for recreational use.

I am for any drug that has a legitimate medical use.

But I, and I believe Scripture, would caution against the use of recreational mind-altering drugs. And as mentioned in the article, we should even be very careful about using the legitimate, legal drugs; many get hooked on them.

David R. Brumbelow

Dave,

Your blog posts that you reference are filled with numerous points of misinformation. For example, you state that crime goes up in countries that have legalized Marijuana. Seeing that Uruguay is the only country in the world that has legalized marijuana, and that was only legal in the last 60 days, provides you no evidence for that claim. In addition, I work for the company that produces Marinol, and it is no he same thing as marijuana. In addition, you at mismatching references on alcohol in the Scriptures and comparing it to marijuana, which is tenacious at best, especially since the Bible doesn’t even state that alcohol should be legal or commands us not to drink alcohol.

i don’t think think anyone is proposing that we as Christians should recreationally smoke marijuana. But based on your arguments we should ban many of our current legal drugs like morphine, sleeping pills, OxyContin….. Since these are all misused recreationally as well.

since it has been illegal, we have never even had good research around it for useful medicinal purposes. I am 100% behind legalizing for medical use.

Marinol

Pronunciation

Generic Name: dronabinol (droe NAH bih nol)
Brand Name: Marinol

“Dronabinol is a man-made form of cannabis (also known as marijuana).”

-from drugs.com

David R. Brumbelow

I am curious what your initial response is to recent legislation here in MN, where the door has been opened to pill, oil and vapor forms for medical use, but not smoking.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/261093071.html

[David R. Brumbelow]

Marinol

Pronunciation

Generic Name: dronabinol (droe NAH bih nol)
Brand Name: Marinol

“Dronabinol is a man-made form of cannabis (also known as marijuana).”

-from drugs.com

David R. Brumbelow

It is good that you can Google. I won’t go into all the details, but there is significant differences. Marinol contains a synthetic form of THC which is only one of many (>60) canniboids marijuana. I was a pharmaceutical chemist at Solvay Pharmaceuticals, that manufactured the drug originally. It is now owned by Abbott.

[Greg Linscott]

I am curious what your initial response is to recent legislation here in MN, where the door has been opened to pill, oil and vapor forms for medical use, but not smoking.

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/health/261093071.html

I approve. [Sidebar … there’s very little with which Gov. Dayton and I agree … this is one of them where we agree]

The one of the problems the medical use of marijuana has is the FDA and the DEA won’t allow for THC to be put into widespread clinical trials in the US. The Feds are seemingly intransigent in their position that marijuana\THC has no medical uses.

How available in the US is Marinol? Is it available for distribution on a doctor’s prescription?

[dgszweda]

David R. Brumbelow wrote:

Marinol

Pronunciation

Generic Name: dronabinol (droe NAH bih nol)
Brand Name: Marinol

“Dronabinol is a man-made form of cannabis (also known as marijuana).”

-from drugs.com

David R. Brumbelow

It is good that you can Google. I won’t go into all the details, but there is significant differences. Marinol contains a synthetic form of THC which is only one of many (>60) canniboids marijuana. I was a pharmaceutical chemist at Solvay Pharmaceuticals, that manufactured the drug originally. It is now owned by Abbott.

My only contribution to this subject is to say that here in California, medical marijuana is a huge joke. Anyone can get it to get high for ANY reason. I know of no other “prescribed” drug treated in this way, except for the very rich. There is no doubt it is a Trojan Horse.

While I agree that it is sin to use cannabis recreationally, I am for its legalization for the same reasons that I believe cigarettes, alcohol, gluttony, handguns, motorcycles, the SI Swimsuit issue, and skydiving should be legal. The church should preach against, and I should guard against sin (including insobriety). However, our nation was built on the principle of self-governance. Sin is not the jurisdiction of the state. Sin is the jurisdiction of the individual, family, and church.

For those of you who argue that recreational cannabis should be illegal, how is your position consistent unless you are also for the banning of cigarettes, alcohol, the SI Swimsuit issue, motorcycles, and skydiving? Do you really want to use governmental force to keep people from sin and unnecessary risk? If so, what assurance do you have that the atheist will not use similar governmental force to prevent you from “polluting your child’s mind with religion”?

[Rob Fall]

The one of the problems the medical use of marijuana has is the FDA and the DEA won’t allow for THC to be put into widespread clinical trials in the US. The Feds are seemingly intransigent in their position that marijuana\THC has no medical uses.

How available in the US is Marinol? Is it available for distribution on a doctor’s prescription?

dgszweda wrote:

David R. Brumbelow wrote:

Marinol

Pronunciation

Generic Name: dronabinol (droe NAH bih nol)
Brand Name: Marinol

“Dronabinol is a man-made form of cannabis (also known as marijuana).”

-from drugs.com

David R. Brumbelow

It is good that you can Google. I won’t go into all the details, but there is significant differences. Marinol contains a synthetic form of THC which is only one of many (>60) canniboids marijuana. I was a pharmaceutical chemist at Solvay Pharmaceuticals, that manufactured the drug originally. It is now owned by Abbott.

It is available for use from any doctor. It is primarily prescribed to bring back hunger for patients undergoing chemotheraphy. As with any medication in the US, any doctor can prescribe any medication for any condition (called off label prescriptions). Some doctors have been prescribing Marinol for a variety of conditions. Most of the people that I know, who legitimately take pot for medical reasons, find that smoking it, provides instantaneous relief, has essentially no side effects, is shorter lasting, and provides more benefits. Marinol is a slower acting/releasing drug (on purpose) since you want your hunger to come back over longer periods of time. While THC is the main ingredient in marijuana, there are more than 60 other cannabid related compounds in marijuana that are not found in Marinol. I suffer from a condition where marijuana could be helpful. I am not sure I would smoke it if it became legal. I don’t know what I would do. I do feel that it is a natural drug that has been shown to have the potential of a lot of benefits, and I think science should get a crack to see what it does. And if it does provide benefits, than we should allow it to be given by a licensed professional.

[Sean Fericks]

While I agree that it is sin to use cannabis recreationally, I am for its legalization for the same reasons that I believe cigarettes, alcohol, gluttony, handguns, motorcycles, the SI Swimsuit issue, and skydiving should be legal. The church should preach against, and I should guard against sin (including insobriety). However, our nation was built on the principle of self-governance. Sin is not the jurisdiction of the state. Sin is the jurisdiction of the individual, family, and church.

For those of you who argue that recreational cannabis should be illegal, how is your position consistent unless you are also for the banning of cigarettes, alcohol, the SI Swimsuit issue, motorcycles, and skydiving? Do you really want to use governmental force to keep people from sin and unnecessary risk? If so, what assurance do you have that the atheist will not use similar governmental force to prevent you from “polluting your child’s mind with religion”?

Heroin and Meth, too, Sean? Is the issue only sin, or does any society have an interest in controlling addictive and destructive substances?

Sean, to compare skydiving and marijuana doesn’t help your case.

[Sean Fericks]

While I agree that it is sin to use cannabis recreationally, I am for its legalization for the same reasons that I believe cigarettes, alcohol, gluttony, handguns, motorcycles, the SI Swimsuit issue, and skydiving should be legal. The church should preach against, and I should guard against sin (including insobriety). However, our nation was built on the principle of self-governance. Sin is not the jurisdiction of the state. Sin is the jurisdiction of the individual, family, and church.

For those of you who argue that recreational cannabis should be illegal, how is your position consistent unless you are also for the banning of cigarettes, alcohol, the SI Swimsuit issue, motorcycles, and skydiving? Do you really want to use governmental force to keep people from sin and unnecessary risk? If so, what assurance do you have that the atheist will not use similar governmental force to prevent you from “polluting your child’s mind with religion”?

Chip, I think the solution to your question (where do we draw the line?) is found by viewing the problem through the framework of “jurisdiction”. Romans 13 acknowledges that government should play a role in prohibiting evil. But I think we would all agree that secular government should not prohibit all forms of evil (pre-marital sex, gluttony, attending a heretical church, etc.). So where do we draw the line? I believe that the line should be well-defined, consistent, objective, and informed by Scripture and history. I suggest that we grant secular government the duty of protecting individual rights, and prohibit it from unnecessarily impeding these rights (along the lines of our federal Constitution). Our founders recommended this course, and it has brought us the most successful society in history. Other governments have gone beyond this “jurisdiction” and tried to enforce economic equity, societal morality, and even religious orthodoxy. History and Scripture do not provide us with successful examples of these types of societies. Rome (spoken of in Romans 13) persecuted our forefathers, and then coopted our religion for the sake of power. England, Spain, and France all attempted to enforce orthodoxy of faith and practice. Each, in turn, was responsible for great atrocities againts Jews, Protestants, and Pagans. To the extent that nations have attempted to enforce economic equity, they have impoverished the nation as a whole (China, Russia, even the United States under the Affordable Care Act). Even in the OT, where we have the clearest examples of secular moral legislation, Israel failed time and again. These things were recorded for our admonition, and we should take heed. When too much power is granted, kings will heap wealth and women to themselves. They will murder to cover their tracks. They will lead a nation to idolatry. So where do we turn for a solution to drug use, pornography, gluttony, and foolish sinful behavior in general? I suggest that this battle must be waged in the “jurisdiction” of the individual heart, the family, the church, and the community. Secular government is utterly incapable of enforcing personal morality in a fair, biblical, consistent way.