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

Webinar Replay: Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em

Published

on

By


On Thursday, November 7th, Vince Sliwoski, Aaron Pelley and Fred Rocafort held a post election discussion “Post-Election Cannabis Wrap – Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em”. Watch the replay!

Key Takeaways from the “Smoke ’em if You’ve Got ’em – 2024 Post Election Cannabis Wrap” Webinar:

  1. Panelists:
    • Vince Sliwoski: Oregon Business lawyer specializing in cannabis and commercial real estate.
    • Aaron Pelley: Experienced in cannabis law since Washington’s legalization in 2012.
    • Fred Rocafort: Trademark attorney working closely with the cannabis team.
  2. Election Results Overview:
    • Most 2024 cannabis ballot measures did not pass.
    • Florida, South Dakota, and North Dakota saw failures.
    • Nebraska became the 39th state to legalize cannabis for medical use when it passed two cannabis initiatives, Initiatives 437 and 438.
  3. Federal and State-Level Developments:
    • Medical use is currently legal in 38 states, and 24 states allow recreational use.
    • Republican support for marijuana legalization is growing.
  4. Federal Policy Implications:
    • Schedule III Rescheduling: The process to move cannabis to Schedule III is ongoing, which could significantly impact the industry.
    • Importance of Federal Appointments: The future of cannabis policy depends heavily on who is appointed to key positions in the administration.
  5. International and Domestic Trade:
    • Schedule III status could ease import/export restrictions on cannabis.
    • Unified control of House, Senate, and presidency might expedite legislative progress.
  6. Economic and Industry Impact:
    • Cannabis stocks experienced volatility post-election, reflecting investor uncertainty.
    • Federal legalization and banking reforms are crucial for industry stability and growth.
  7. Future Outlook:
    • The potential for federal rescheduling remains strong, with hearings scheduled for early 2025.
    • State-level initiatives and regulatory developments will continue to shape the industry.

Watch the replay!



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

I Had Just One Puff

Published

on

By


one puff of a joint a drug test

“How Long Does One Puff of Weed Stay in Your System?”… This topic can be difficult to answer since it is dependent on elements such as the size of the hit and what constitutes a “one hit.” If you take a large bong pull then cough, it might linger in your system for 5-7 days. A moderate dose from a joint can last 3-5 days, whereas a few hits from a vaporizer may last 1-3 days.

 

The length of time that marijuana stays in the body varies based on a number of factors, including metabolism, THC levels, frequency of use, and hydration.

 

Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the primary psychoactive component of cannabis. THC and its metabolites, which remain in your body long after the effects have subsided, are detected by drug tests.

 

Since these metabolites are fat-soluble, they cling to bodily fat molecules. They could thus take a while to fully pass through your system, particularly if your body fat percentage is higher.

 

THC is absorbed by tissues and organs (including the brain, heart, and fat) and converted by the liver into chemicals such as 11-hydroxy-THC and carboxy-THC. Cannabis is eliminated in feces at a rate of around 65%, while urine accounts for 20%. The leftover amount might be kept within the body.

 

THC deposited in bodily tissues ultimately re-enters the circulation and is processed by the liver. For frequent users, THC accumulates in fatty tissues quicker than it can be removed, thus it may be detectable in drug tests for days or weeks following consumption.

 

The detection time varies according to the amount and frequency of cannabis usage. Higher dosages and regular usage result in longer detection times.

 

The type of drug test also affects detection windows. Blood and saliva tests typically detect cannabis metabolites for shorter periods, while urine and hair samples can reveal use for weeks or even months. In some cases, hair tests have detected cannabis use over 90 days after consumption.

 

Detection Windows for Various Cannabis Drug Tests

 

Urine Tests

Among all drug tests, urine testing is the most commonly used method for screening for drug use in an individual.

 

Detection times vary, but a 2017 review suggests the following windows for cannabis in urine after last use:

 

– Single-use (e.g., one joint): up to 3 days

– Moderate use (around 4 times a week): 5–7 days

– Chronic use (daily): 10–15 days

– Chronic heavy use (multiple times daily): over 30 days

 

Blood Tests

Blood tests generally detect recent cannabis use, typically within 2–12 hours after consumption. However, in cases of heavy use, cannabis has been detected up to 30 days later. Chronic heavy use can extend the detection period in the bloodstream.

 

Saliva Tests

THC can enter saliva through secondhand cannabis smoke, but THC metabolites are only present if you’ve personally smoked or ingested cannabis.

 

Saliva testing has a short detection window and can sometimes identify cannabis use on the same day. A 2020 review found that THC was detectable in the saliva of frequent users for up to 72 hours after use, and it may remain in saliva longer than in blood following recent use.

 

In areas where cannabis is illegal, saliva testing is often used for roadside screenings.

 

Hair Tests

Hair follicle tests can detect cannabis use for up to 90 days. After use, cannabinoids reach the hair follicles through small blood vessels and from sebum and sweat surrounding the hair.

 

Hair grows at approximately 0.5 inches per month, so a 1.5-inch segment of hair close to the scalp can reveal cannabis use over the past three months.

 

Factors Affecting THC and Metabolite Retention

 

The length of time THC and its metabolites stay in your system depends on various factors. Some, like body mass index (BMI) and metabolic rate, relate to individual body processing, not the drug itself.

 

Other factors are specific to cannabis use, including:

 

– Dosage: How much you consume

– Frequency: How often you use cannabis

– Method of consumption: Smoking, dabbing, edibles, or sublingual

– THC potency: Higher potency can extend detection time

 

Higher doses and more frequent use generally extend THC retention. Cannabis consumed orally may remain in the system slightly longer than smoked cannabis, and stronger cannabis strains, higher in THC, may also stay detectable for a longer period.

 

How Quickly Do the Effects of Cannabis Set In?

 

When smoking cannabis, effects appear almost immediately, while ingested cannabis may take 1–3 hours to peak.

 

The psychoactive component THC produces a “high” with common effects such as:

 

– Altered senses, including perception of time

– Mood changes

– Difficulty with thinking and problem-solving

– Impaired memory

 

Other short-term effects can include:

– Anxiety and confusion

– Decreased coordination

– Dry mouth and eyes

– Nausea or lightheadedness

– Trouble focusing

– Increased appetite

– Rapid heart rate

– Restlessness and sleepiness

 

In rare cases, high doses may lead to hallucinations, delusions, or acute psychosis.

 

Regular cannabis use may have additional mental and physical effects. While research is ongoing, cannabis use may increase the risk of:

 

– Cognitive issues like memory loss

– Cardiovascular problems including heart disease and stroke

– Respiratory illnesses such as bronchitis or lung infections

– Mood disorders like depression and anxiety

 

Cannabis use during pregnancy can negatively impact fetal growth and development.

 

Duration of Effects

Short-term effects generally taper off within 1–3 hours, but for chronic users, some long-term effects may last days, weeks, or even months. Certain effects may even be permanent.

 

Bottom Line

The amount of time that cannabis remains in your system following a single use varies greatly depending on individual characteristics such as body fat, metabolism, frequency of use, and mode of intake. Frequent users may maintain traces of THC for weeks, whereas infrequent users may test positive for as little as a few days. Hair tests can disclose usage for up to 90 days, while blood and saliva tests identify more recent use. Urine tests are the most popular and have varying detection durations. The duration that THC and its metabolites are detectable will ultimately depend on a number of factors, including dose, strength, and individual body chemistry.

 

PEE IN A CUP COMING UP, READ ON..

how long does weed stay in your urine

HOW LONG DOES WEED STAY IN YOUR URINE FOR A DRUG TEST?



Source link

Continue Reading

Cannabis News

Is Kratom Addictive? Understanding Dependence, Risks, and Safe Usage

Published

on

By


is kratom addictive

Is kratom addictive? Discover the potential for dependence on Kratom, the risks involved with its use, and how to approach its consumption responsibly.

From 2011 to 2017, over 1,800 calls to poison centers involved kratom in the U.S. This significant number highlights the concern regarding kratom addiction.

However, without Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversight, and due to various consumption methods like teas and capsules, there are significant health risks. Safe use of kratom is now in question due to these issues.

Research debates how dependence develops, outlining signs like loss of control and withdrawal symptoms. These signs are seen in regular kratom users. Ironically, some people switch from drugs like heroin to kratom, looking for a legal alternative.

Understanding Kratom: Origins and Prevalence

Kratom comes from the Mitragyna speciosa tree in Southeast Asia. It can act like a stimulant or like opioids, based on how much you take. People use it in different ways, for a small energy boost or stronger effects at higher doses.

The legal status of kratom in the U.S. is complicated and changing. It’s a hot topic because some worry about its misuse. It’s still legal in several states. This shows how different places handle drug rules. The National Institute on Drug Abuse is looking into its medical benefits. But, the FDA hasn’t approved it for medical use yet. The DEA calls it a “drug of concern,” which means policies might change.

  • From 2011 to 2017, poison control centers in the U.S. got over 1,800 reports about kratom. This shows it’s widely used and might pose health risks.

  • Kratom’s main ingredients bind to opioid receptors very strongly, stronger than morphine even. This fact is key to understanding its effects.

  • As more people use kratom, more are reporting serious health problems. These include liver and heart issues, and tough withdrawal symptoms, particularly in those already sick.

The statistics show mounting worries about kratom in the U.S. As its use grows, it’s becoming more important to health policies and laws. What happens next will depend on further research and legal decisions.

Is Kratom Addictive: Investigating the Substance’s Nature

The question of kratom’s addictiveness focuses on how it affects brain receptors and its long-term health implications. The ongoing debate highlights concerns about dependence and the risk of addiction. Scientists are closely looking at these issues.

How Kratom Works in the Brain

Kratom’s main alkaloids, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, bind to the brain’s opioid receptors, similar to painkillers and narcotics. This connection suggests a potential risk of dependence. These alkaloids are key to kratom’s pain relief but also point to possible addiction concerns, especially with frequent, high-dose usage.

Patterns and Consequences of Long-term Use

  • Using kratom often, especially in large doses, can increase the risk of dependence and intense withdrawal symptoms, similar to opioid withdrawal.

  • Although some use it for pain or to improve mood, long-term kratom users might see serious health problems, like liver damage and mental health issues.

  • Withdrawal symptoms, including irritability, nausea, and sleep problems, show kratom’s impact on one’s physical and mental health.

Assessment of Addiction Risks

Studies indicate a significant risk of addiction to kratom, especially with high doses or frequent use. Dependence develops as the body gets used to kratom, leading to tolerance and a need for more to feel its effects. Withdrawal symptoms emphasize this risk, as highlighted by health experts.

Physiological Effects: Kratom’s Impact on the Body

There is a lot of debate about the safety and use of kratom. This herbal extract comes from the Mitragyna speciosa plant. It has drawn attention for its possible harmful effects on the body. The FDA has issued many warnings about kratom, raising safety concerns.

  • Kratom Adverse Effects: Kratom users have reported side effects like nausea, vomiting, and confusion. More serious issues include high blood pressure and liver damage. These problems highlight the risks of using kratom.

  • Herbal Extract Safety: Some kratom products contain heavy metals and pathogens. These can cause severe health issues, including death. This shows the importance of safety in herbal products.

  • FDA Warnings and Regulations: The FDA has linked kratom to over 35 deaths and warns against using it. They point out the lack of medical uses and the risk of addiction.

  • Physiological Impact: Kratom’s effects depend on the dose and the user’s body. Yet, it can lead to dangerous outcomes like liver damage and seizures.

  • Safety Concerns from Authorities: Federal agencies like the DEA are worried about kratom’s safety. Although not a controlled substance, monitoring suggests users should be careful.

Kratom might offer temporary relief for some ailments, but it comes with significant risks. The FDA’s warnings should make people think twice. If considering kratom, it’s crucial to talk to a doctor first. Experts stress the need for safety and caution with herbal extracts.

Conclusion

Kratom’s role in health and regulation is complex, with views and research findings widely varied. Some people use kratom for its claimed health benefits, but it’s a hot topic. Experts advise caution and suggest consulting a doctor before using kratom due to the unclear effects.

Clinical studies using scores like SOWS and COWS haven’t confirmed withdrawal symptoms from kratom. This adds to the debate, especially when some users report withdrawal. This makes kratom a controversial subject among different findings and user experiences.

When it comes to treating opioid addiction, kratom can be both helpful and harmful. Some have used it successfully to fight addiction. Yet, some states have banned it. This highlights the need for regulations and consistent product quality. It also raises questions about kratom’s legal status due to mixed actions by authorities.

The situation shows how complex kratom is in the realm of substance use and law. Without clear evidence supporting either its benefits or risks, it poses a challenge. More research is needed to guide regulations and health advice. For now, anyone thinking of using kratom should be careful, seek medical advice, and keep up with laws and health guidelines.

 

WHAT IS KRATOM ANYWAY? READ ON…

WHAT IS KRATOM

WHAT IS KRATOM AND WHY ARE YOU HEARING ABOUT IT NOW?



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending

Copyright © 2021 The Art of MaryJane Media