“One of these things…IS…like the other….”

So. We perked up when Fox13News announced another physician group is supporting of the UMA’s wholly undocumented, emotionally loaded statement opposing the ballot initiative.

But several things seemed off in this article about the “Utah Psychiatric Association” – a body which to our knowledge has never weighed in publicly on medicinal cannabis.

Also, the article didn’t quote a spokesperson or name any leaders, and just stated that the group had issued “an official statement” not only agreeing with #UMA’position, but agreeing with it “as written.”

Now THAT’s being supportive.

Which, btw, may have saved them the time and effort required to specify their own particular objections. I.e., has UMA’s handiwork said everything they were thinking?

[Note 1: As we’ll outline, it may well…have…]

[Note 2: UMA’s position paper HAS been thoroughly debunked by investigative reporters and the Standard-Examiner’s editorial board. See: https://bit.ly/2Ja8WxV

So. We wanted to know more about the not very public UPA.

The first thing we found is that their website existed from 2007-2011, but they apparently haven’t had a web presence since, tho’ the American Psychiatric Ass’n still offers the dead link for the site.

Guess they’ve just been waiting for the right cause??

The rest of what we found on the APA site – was even more illuminating:

The #UPA’s address is the SAME as the UMA’s (in Murray), and, tho we found nothing on UMA’s website about the UPA, they list being in the SAME OFFICE suite at that address, use the UMA E-MAIL DOMAIN, and list the SAME PHONE NUMBER… 😮

This would have made it easy for them to be familiar with UMA’s statement, as it was written in a shared space.

Also like UMA with its non-medical CEO, the UPA also lists a CEO.

So. Is it reasonable to speculate that the UPA is perhaps more a subsidiary of the UMA than a fully independent organization, or at least is a small org that uses some of the auspices and resources of the UMA?

This would make their endorsement of the UMA’s position about as surprising as, say, the Utah Co. Republicans endorsing the state Republican platform.

So. We don’t know, but wonder if one specialty part of the UMA has just reached out to media to announce they support the UMA’s position.

That is, might members of the UMA – whose veracity is looking shakier by the day – have purported to represent a wholly separate opponent whose actual independence, organization, and degree of dedicated research in the medical cannabis sphere may be questionable? That would be embarrassing, no…??

Doctors we know would like to see UMA’s approach examined by doctors with actual expertise in MC research and working state programs.

So. Might it be time for a housecleaning of the UMA’s current board?

Questions. We have (lots of) questions…


See full article – Utah Psychiatric Association opposes medical marijuana ballot initiative