Connect with us

Cannabis News

Catholics Against Cannabis? – What Archbishop Aquila of Colorado Gets Wrong about Marijuana Legalization

Published

on


cannabis catholics and archbishop

Reginald vs. the Arch Bishop

 

Recently, I came across a pastoral letter penned by Archbishop Aquila of Colorado addressing his concerns around cannabis legalization and use. Written like an epistle to fellow Catholics, it aimed to sway opinions against the licensed cannabis industry.

 

As a long-time cannabis advocate, I felt compelled to respond in a similar literary fashion – as one man of the “hempen cloth” respectfully engaging another man of the “holy cloth.”

 

While our perspectives differ, perhaps this exchange in good faith can further mutual understanding on this complex issue from both moral and pragmatic lenses.  The Bible does talk about cannabis, and it is not in a negative way at all!

 

Therefore, I’ve written my own epistle responding to the Archbishop’s major points from my own experience and reason. Let’s see what insights emerge from juxtaposing these alternating angles.

 

Now onward to my open letter rebutting the claims around legal cannabis dangers to society’s moral fabric and human dignity. As with all exploration of truth, there are always new depths to fathom through candid dialogue.

 

Dear Reasonable Readers,

 

It seems the esteemed Archbishop fancies himself the great savior sent to rescue the misguided masses from our wanton embrace of the devil’s lettuce. As a long-tenured voice for cannabis wisdom, I feel duty-bound to put nib to parchment addressing this woefully regressive scribing.

 

While I applaud any attempt at intelligent discourse, imposing one’s personal prohibitions under pretense of salving imaginary moral failings benefits nobody. Individual experience, not institutional dogma, should guide adult choices around cannabis and entheogens.

 

As a man of the (hemp) cloth myself, I speak for the reasoned liberty to explore consciousness on our own terms, according to inner authority. No earthly gatekeeper can govern the landscape of spirit.

 

The dear Archbishop surely means well in his paternalistic intentions, as misguided as they may be. But his desire to rescue reflects an antiquated worldview clinging to control as progress leaves it behind.

 

Therefore I will unravel his arguments with care, humility and wit – addressing notions of “public danger” in hopes of uplifting understanding between all people of compassion.

 

While our perspectives may differ, we share the highest aim of reducing suffering through wisdom. Surely some common ground exists sans condemnation of those finding solace or insight through this sacred plant’s gifts.

 

But first, a light roast and fresh bowl beckon to set the stage. Prepared thusly in body and mind, let us delve in…

 

One is not the other

 

A core mistake permeating the Archbishop’s thesis is conflating all “drugs” – from cannabis to fentanyl – invoking one to indict the other. But equating these substances betrays a superficial analysis, ignoring profound pharmacological differences.

 

Cannabis legalization has never been linked to increased opioid deaths. In fact, extensive data reveals the opposite – medical marijuana availability correlates to reduced opioid abuse and mortality.

 

The reason is simple – cannabis provides a safe alternative for pain relief with no lethal dosage, avoiding the addictive spiral of dangerous pharmaceuticals. Patients rationally substitute lower-risk cannabis for toxic prescription opioids.

 

So the proliferation of deadly synthetics like fentanyl is a crisis fueled by overzealous medical and recreational regulation, not legal plant access. Prohibition’s squeeze effect drives addicts toward ever more dangerous black market alternatives once cut off from legal channels.

 

If the dear Archbishop truly wishes to reduce opioid deaths, he would support fully decriminalizing possession for personal use to break cartel monopolies. Adults could access regulated supplies without life-crushing criminal penalties or impure street substitutes.

 

This public health approach understands you cannot temper human nature through moralizing and force. Only by meeting people where they are, with pragmatism and compassion, can positive change occur.

 

Demonizing safe, useful plants that never caused an overdose death makes little sense beside truly hazardous synthetics killing tens of thousands annually. Conflating them suggests reactionary reasoning rather than empirical cost-benefit analysis.

 

Moreover, traces of fentanyl in seemingly any street substance make blanket prohibition even deadlier in the age of mass poisoning. Preaching total abstinence amidst this crisis ignores on-the-ground reality.

 

While addiction is heartbreaking, we only compound the despair through judgment and incarceration. The divine light shines in each person intrinsically beyond circumstances. How much suffering has the Church inflicted through moral certitude?

 

Cannabis, meanwhile, presents no comparable public safety risk and offers profound mind-body benefits tempering addictive drives when used consciously. Where is the crime against human dignity in this healing ally?

 

I understand the Archbishop aims for moral clarity with easy categorical bans. But such reasoning collapses upon examination. We must drop fear-based ideologies to actually serve humankind’s welfare.

 

The essence is recognizing humanity’s agency with compassion, not exerting institutional control. Otherwise the Church joins the oppressors, forcing conformity that breeds resentment and rebellion.

 

If contradiction and hypocrisy undermine moral authority, what does logic say about incarcerating non-violent neighbors for using a non-lethal plant? Or blessing wine each Mass as holy while condemning far safer substances?

 

I ask only for philosophical consistency aligned with Christ’s teachings of unconditional love and forgiveness. If brewed beverages warrant no prohibition, how can anyone justify jailing adults for cannabis under a just God?  What if Jesus told his followers to legalize the cannabis plant?  Would Catholics rally and push politicians from the Right to do God’s Will?

 

The Free Will Argument

 

A contradiction arises when moral authorities condemn adults exercising free choice granted by God. Nowhere in scripture does Jesus model coercive prohibition against benign freedoms. So what precedent allows institutional power to override divine gifts?

 

The essence of Christianity centers on recognizing God’s supreme respect for human free will. Despite foreknowledge of sin and suffering, He trusts us with moral autonomy.

 

This begins in Eden’s garden. God implores guidance, not restriction – warning Adam and Eve to avoid forbidden fruit, yet allowing choice. He understands coercive control cannot cultivate growth.

 

Thus, we inherit the Creator’s image imprinted with intrinsic freedom of will. Every soul journeys toward salvation at its own pace through experiencing consequences. Spiritual maturity arises from difficult discernment, not blind obedience.

 

Outlawing choice attempts to undermine God’s trust in us to learn and grow wise. But forbidden fruit becomes most tempting, as the Archbishop knows. What purpose does banning plants serve except inflaming yearning and contempt for unjust laws?

 

Neither can institutions justly enforce morality – that realm resides only in our hearts. One cannot mandate compassion any more than love. To attempt coercion is to admit moral failure already.

 

Thus, heavy-handed prohibition contradicts core Christian values of forgiveness, redemption, and free will. It debases spiritual beings to wayward children requiring worldly authority’s firm discipline.

 

But what higher wisdom justifies caging peaceful neighbors for mind-altering sacraments ancient cultures have used for millennia? Who truly defies divine order – the seeker of revelation through nature’s gifts, or those claiming dominion over another’s soul?

 

If we each bear a spark of the infinite, who can righteously exert such control over another’s relationship with creation? The hypocrisy boggles spiritual logic.

 

Moreover, positive law remains only half the picture. Natural law and divine order supersede policies. While pragmatism has its place, the ultimate arbiter of right living resides in our sacred conscience beyond any institution.

 

Herein lies the paradox – one cannot enforce morality externally, only encourage it through teaching. People obey just laws because they align with innate ethics, not authority itself. So education and leading by example prove far more powerful than condemnation and punishment.

 

The Abbey wishes order through domination, but Jesus disrupted all social orders of oppression. He understood only the radically free can experience redemption. So whose way better aligns with the Christ vision?

 

I ask the Archbishop humbly consider this perspective. The Church has inflicted immense harm through moral certainty and suppression. But faith in human dignity calls us to lift up the oppressed and free prisoners, not bind souls to dogma.

 

By recognizing the divine already alive in every living being, we walk the path of love, forgiveness and liberation. Not through control but surrendering it do we see Spirit’s vastness. And by honoring free will do we partake in grace.

 

Serving the Vulnerable Means Ending Prohibition

 

A core contradiction arises when justifying prohibition as protecting vulnerable communities. In practice, criminalization exacerbates the very issues it purports to address by empowering the unregulated underworld.

 

The most economically and socially marginalized inevitably bear the worst brunt of underground drug markets and disproportionate enforcement. Banning substances doesn’t make them disappear – it concentrates the risks.

 

Without legal stability, those struggling with addiction become isolated from healthcare and treatment. Fear of condemnation or arrest deters confession and intervention until matters turn tragic. The social stigma around “criminal” behavior often proves deadlier than substances themselves.

 

Furthermore, prohibition grants immense wealth and firepower to cartels and gangs terrorizing vulnerable neighborhoods. They operate with impunity outside law, whereas legal commerce breeds accountability. No regulation means no safety controls on production or distribution.

 

So ironically, the quest to eliminate drugs through prohibition directly fuels poverty, violence, and despair in disadvantaged communities. It pullulates the very crisis used to justify its perpetuation. This endless, irrational cycle serves no one, least of all “the least among us.”

 

If we truly wish to serve those suffering, we must end the charade of prohibition that exacerbates every problem it claims to address. Only through legalization can we enact pragmatic regulations protecting the vulnerable instead of rendering them voiceless sacrificial lambs.

 

Surrendering moral indignation for nuanced harm reduction would better uphold human dignity. meeting people with support and care rather than condemnation. The road of excess may lead to wisdom when traveled consciously rather than under threat.

 

Surely a model guided by open reason would produce better outcomes than irrational policies claiming reason’s name while ignoring its principles. If facts matter, the case against prohibition is overwhelming on basis of real-world impacts.

 

I understand the desire for easy categorical bans in seeking order. But such control obsesses over deleting the undesirable rather than cultivating the good.

 

The divine path recognizes each imperfect being’s intrinsic worth beyond circumstances. It calls us to feed the hungry, to comfort prisoners, to treat all life as sacred no matter how far it has strayed. This vision must guide policy.

 

So I gently ask the Archbishop – do draconian prohibitions aligned with corporate greed and private prisons reflect Christ’s teachings? Is it dignified to cage non-violent neighbors while blessing wine each Mass?

 

My brother, true morality cannot be mandated through earthly policies, only encouraged by addressing root causes of despair – poverty, trauma, mental healthcare, community. From darkness, light is born. And the people yearn for shepherds, not judges.

 

We both seek health, hope and redemption for all. But we must tear down dividing walls imprisoning the most vulnerable. Then with humility, wisdom and grace, we can collectively build the more beautiful world our hearts know is possible.

 

His Hempiness,

Reginald Reefer

 

CATHOLICS AND CANNABIS, READ ON…

WEED IN THE INCENSE BURNER AT MASS

SOMEONE PUT WEED IN THE INCENSE BURNER AT MASS IN SPAIN!



Source link

Cannabis News

US Court Rules Delta-8 THC Derived from Hemp is 100% Legal, Slamming the DEA in Embarrassing Court Case

Published

on

By


supreme cour ruling on delta-8 thc from hemp

In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) derived from legal hemp sources is not classified as a controlled substance under federal law, directly contradicting the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) position that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, fall under Schedule I controlled substances. This landmark ruling emerged from a case brought forward by several key players in the hemp industry who challenged the DEA’s interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives. The court’s decision not only rejects the DEA’s restrictive stance but also provides much-needed clarity regarding the legal status of Delta-8 THC, allowing for its continued production and sale from legally sourced hemp. This ruling is significant as it has the potential to reshape the regulatory landscape for cannabinoids, encouraging further exploration and commercialization of hemp-derived products while also highlighting the ongoing tensions between federal regulations and the rapidly evolving hemp industry.

 

 Delta-8 THC: A Naturally Occurring Cannabinoid

Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) is a naturally occurring cannabinoid found in trace amounts in hemp and cannabis plants that shares a similar molecular structure to Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana, but is known to produce significantly milder intoxicating effects; the 2018 Farm Bill’s legalization of hemp and its derivatives containing no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis created a legal gray area for Delta-8 THC, which has proliferated in the form of various products derived from legal hemp sources and sold in a largely unregulated market, as they are not explicitly classified as controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) despite the agency’s stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols should be treated as Schedule I drugs regardless of their origin or potency, a position that has been challenged by hemp industry players arguing that Delta-8 THC from legal hemp should be exempt from the same restrictions as Delta-9 THC.

 

 The DEA’s Stance and Industry Challenges

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has taken a firm stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, are classified as Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), regardless of their source or concentration. This position has faced considerable resistance from various stakeholders within the hemp industry, who argue that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp should not be subjected to the same stringent restrictions as Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana. Proponents contend that the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives, should extend to include Delta-8 THC, allowing it to be treated as a legal product when sourced from hemp that contains less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC. They emphasize that while Delta-8 THC may occur naturally in small amounts in hemp, the majority of Delta-8 products on the market are produced through a chemical conversion process from CBD, which the DEA argues renders them synthetic and thus illegal. This conflict has led to ongoing legal challenges, with some courts ruling in favor of the hemp industry, asserting that Delta-8 THC should not be classified as a controlled substance when derived from legal hemp. As the debate continues, the tension between the DEA’s regulatory framework and the evolving hemp market raises critical questions about the future of cannabinoid regulation in the United States.

 

 The Court’s Ruling and Its Implications

 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp sources is not controlled substance.

  • The court found the DEA’s interpretation of the law was “arbitrary and capricious” and lacked a reasoned explanation.

  • This ruling effectively removes Delta-8 THC from the DEA’s list of controlled substances, provided it is derived from hemp containing less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC.

  • The decision provides legal protection for businesses and consumers involved in Delta-8 THC products derived from legal hemp sources.

 

 

Opportunities for the Hemp and Cannabis Industries

The recent court ruling represents a significant victory for the hemp and cannabis industries, paving the way for new possibilities in product development and research.

  • Therapeutic Potential: Delta-8 THC has been recognized for its potential therapeutic benefits, which could attract more consumers seeking alternative treatments.

  • Increased Investment: The legalization of Delta-8 THC may lead to heightened investment and innovation within the sector, encouraging the development of new products and formulations.

  • Regulatory Concerns: Despite the positive implications, the ruling also raises important concerns regarding the regulation and quality control of Delta-8 THC products, necessitating careful oversight.

  • Need for Standards: As the market for Delta-8 THC expands, there will be a pressing need for clear guidelines and standards to ensure consumer safety and product consistency, helping to build trust in these emerging products.

Broader Implications for Cannabis Legalization

The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives.

  • Increasing State Legalization: As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify.

  • Step Forward for Delta-8 THC: The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization, yet significant challenges remain.

  • Path to Comprehensive Legalization: There is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.

 

Conclusion

 

The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives. As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify. The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization; however, significant challenges remain, and there is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.

 

DELTA-8 THC IS LEGAL, READ MORE…

DELTA-8 NOW LEGAL

COURT PANEL RULES DELTA-8 THC IS LEGAL UNDER THE FARM BILL!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

What Is It, Why You Should Care, and How Cannabis Helps

Published

on

By


metabolic syndrome

Metabolic syndrome is an umbrella term referring to several conditions that negatively impact how the body metabolizes carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.


It occurs when there are unusual, abnormal chemical processes in the body which affect otherwise healthy metabolic functions. The primary symptoms of metabolic syndrome include abdominal fat, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides, and low levels of LDL (good) cholesterol. These conditions all greatly increase the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and other severe health issues that are difficult or near impossible to reverse.

 

The most telling symptom, though, is a large waist circumference – and you don’t need to take any kind of medical test to tell you this because it’s completely visible.


That’s why prevention is key when it comes to metabolic syndrome. However, the choices you make on a daily basis in your lifestyle can determine your risk for metabolic syndrome of not. We know that an unhealthy diet that is high in sugar, salt, and processed food can contribute to the symptoms of metabolic syndrome. A sedentary lifestyle, obesity, poor sleep hygiene, and exposure to chronic stress can also make the risk much worse. Smoking tobacco and alcohol are even worse – don’t even think about it.


But cannabis? That can actually help!

What Studies Say

 

A recent study that was published in the American Journal of Open Medicine found that young adults with a habit of consuming cannabis had a significantly lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome. For the study, investigators from the University of Miami analyzed a cohort of almost 4,000 individuals whose ages ranged from 18 to 25. They specifically zoned in on the young adults’ cannabis use.

 

They found that current cannabis users were 42% less likely to have metabolic syndrome. They also found that Non-Hispanic Blacks, who were consuming more weed than the other subjects, were found to be the least likely of all to have metabolic syndrome. “Current cannabis users had a lower prevalence of MetS, predominantly noted among NHB (non-Hispanic Blacks], the group with the highest prevalence of current cannabis use,” said the study’s authors. “Future prospective studies are warranted to examine the role of specific cannabinoids on MetS by race/ethnicity,” they said.

 

A Smaller Waist Circumference: Why You Should Pay Attention, And How Weed Can Help

 

Having a large waist circumference or a visibly fatty belly has been associated with numerous health conditions. Of course, this includes a heightened risk of metabolic disease. It also increases the risk of inflammation, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease incidence, and cancer among others.

That is why it’s critical to pay attention to the size of your stomach. A smaller waist means you have a smaller amount of visceral fat, which is necessary for better health and an improved quality of life.

There are many steps you can take to reduce your visceral fat. These include:

 

  • Sticking to a low carbohydrate and low sugar diet

  • Having a diet high in good protein sources

  • Reduce consumption of trans fat and saturated fats

  • Engage in strength training and cardiovascular exercises

  • Manage stress effectively

 

Last but not the least: did you know that consuming cannabis has been shown to be associated with smaller waistlines and a reduced risk for obesity?

In 2020, a study out of Quebec in Canada revealed that cannabis consumption was linked to a smaller waist and reduced triglyceride levels. For this study, the investigator in Canada analyzed subjects who either never consumed marijuana in the past, used it sometime in the past but had no recent use, had some infrequent use, or consume it infrequently. They specifically measured the participants’ waist circumference and triglycerides.

 

They found out that the subjects who consumed certain marijuana strains for metabolic syndrome for at least 4 days per week were found to have smaller waistlines as well as less triglycerides compared to the other participants in the study.

 

Another study from 2015, also out of Quebec, was conducted by researchers from the Conference of Quebec University Health Centers. They analyzed cannabis consumption patterns of 786 Arctic aboriginal adults, the Inuits. The investigators also analyzed their body mass index to search for any links between cannabis use and BMI.

They found that study participants who consumed marijuana within the last year were more likely to have a lower body mass index, as well as reduced fasting insulin and better insulin resistance (using the HOMA-IR indicator) compared to those who did not.

“In this large cross-sectional adult survey with high prevalence of both substance use and obesity, cannabis use in the past year was associated with lower BMI, lower percentage fat mass, lower fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR,” said the researchers. In other words, they observed a relationship between cannabis use and BMI that led them to conclude that cannabis and cannabinoid use can help consumers reduce the likelihood of obesity and diabetes.

 

Meanwhile, an older study from 2013 also had similar results. Research data from The American Journal of Medicine taken from more than 4,600 patients yielded interesting findings. Almost 45% of patients never consumed marijuana in their lives, while 43% of them smoked in the past though no longer do currently. And 12% of them were regular cannabis users.

Researchers discovered that cannabis users who consumed marijuana within the past month had 16% less fasting insulin levels compared to those who never consumed weed. In addition, they even add reduced HOMA-IR levels and higher high-density lipoprotein. Furthermore, the investigators found that regular cannabis users who usually consume more calories, they also had lower BMI’s.

 

Conclusion

 

Staying fit and healthy is much more than vanity: science and medical research makes it clear that there is a strong link between obesity and body mass index, to overall health and wellness. Metabolic syndrome further emphasizes the importance of keeping one’s BMI normal, and based on these studies, that’s something cannabis can help with. Integrating responsible cannabis use into your lifestyle is one tool out of many that can help you stay healthy and reduce the risks of developing metabolic syndrome.

 

MORE ON METABOLIC SYNDROME AND WEED, READ ON…

MARIJAUNA HELPS WITH METABOLIC SYNDROME

WHY CANNABIS HELPS METABOLIC SYNDROME NUMBERS!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

More Bad News for Intoxicating Hemp (California, Missouri, New Jersey)

Published

on

By


Last week, I wrote a post entitled “Loper Comes For the DEA. Will it Matter Though?” In that post, I discussed a brand new federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals case that concluded that hemp derivatives like THC-O are not controlled substances. The hemp community has largely celebrated this as a win, even though as I wrote in that post and back in July, none of this really matters if Congress bans intoxicating hemp products – which looks like it will happen.

On the heels of the Fourth Circuit case, a few things happened that don’t make life easier for people who want intoxicating hemp products.

Probably the most significant of the bad news, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued emergency regulations to ban a series of intoxicating hemp products. A lot has been written about these regulations, but it’s worth pointing out that California’s hemp law (AB-45) was already not very favorable to smokable hemp products.

For example, AB-45 already prohibits smokable hemp products. And more notably, it defines THC to include THCA and “any tetrahydrocannabinol, including, but not limited to, Delta-8-tetrahydrocannabinol, Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and Delta-10-tetrahydrocannabinol, however derived”. In other words, all of the various things that are defined as THC – and there are many – must already not exceed 0.3% in the aggregate. This means that a host of products were already de facto banned in the state.

While, to be sure, the new emergency regulations take things farther, I think it would be inaccurate to describe this as a “sea change” in how hemp products are regulated in the state. What remains to be seen is whether CDPH or other agencies ramp up enforcement in any meaningful way. It’s California, so my guess is no.

California’s not the only state taking aim at intoxicating hemp products. Just the other day, Missouri’s Attorney General created a new task force to crack down on intoxicating hemp products. New Jersey’s Governor also signed a bill cracking down on intoxicating hemp products.

All this just adds to the long list of states and municipalities that had been going after unregulated intoxicating hemp products prior to the Fourth Circuit’s decision – often for violations of state or local law which are unlikely to be impacted by the federal case. And of course, if Congress gets around to banning intoxicating hemp products, that will likely be the last straw for many of these products.



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media