Last Friday, the Obama Administration’s DEA finally replied to a 9 year old request to reschedule marijuana out of Schedule I in the Controlled Substances Act. The response was as predictable as it was insane.
We stop being surprised by this stuff, and all weekend I was at a loss to even know what to write about this, but it begs us to take a step back and look at just how completely bonkers the anti-drug establishment in this country has become. The report claims that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use, and that it lacks even accepted safety for use under medical supervision.
Just to make this as clear as possible, the American Medical Association has already asked the Federal Government to review its classification after concluding that it has some medicinal benefits that scientists should research further. As far back as 1999, our own government’s Institute of Medicine concluded that there were only mild safety concerns with the drug if it wasn’t smoked – which it doesn’t have to be. A European company called GW Pharmaceuticals already produces a medicine called Sativex directly from marijuana plants that’s used in the UK, Canada, and now Germany for MS patients. And to top it off, the Federal Government’s own Department of Health and Human Services holds a patent on the plant’s medicinal compounds.
But even beyond all that, this is the Obama Administration’s DEA – led by someone, Michele Leonhart, who he appointed – saying publicly that they think that marijuana is a more dangerous drug than cocaine, opium, oxycodone, and methamphetamine, all drugs found in Schedule II; which means that – unlike marijuana – it can be safely used with a doctor’s supervision. We can laugh all we want at the crazy shit that Michele Bachmann says, but she’s never said anything close to as crazy as that. And this is coming from the administration who came into office in 2009 saying that they were going to put science ahead of ideology?
Lee, I guess you’re just gonna have to wait until we get a president who’s a leader — someone like Teddy Roosevelt who gets out in front of public opinion and uses the bully pulpit to create public opinion. Barack Obama is not that man.
@1
Yep.
This is not an issue I follow closely, and I don’t pretend to know very much about it, but if you want to read the actual ruling it’s here:
http://www.ofr.gov/(S(ztclq22gsjl5u42mfotcq3cv))/OFRUpload/OFRData/2011-16994_PI.pdf
Here’s a question, though: Who should make the decision about whether marijuana should be legally available for medicinal and/or recreational use, politicians or scientists? In other words, should this issue be addressed by regulators or elected officials? And if by the former, which agency should have final say, the DEA (a law enforcement agency) or the FDA (a regulatory agency)? Or someone else?
I don’t know the answers to these questions, I’m asking because I hope someone does.
RR Let’s start with science.
Having the DEA decide whether or not cannabis is or isn’t legal is totally unacceptable. Law enforcement does not make the laws. That’s the job of the elected government. Any action by the DEA to declare anything legal or illegal is, prima facia, unconstitutional!
Let’s just abolish the DEA, since it has grown too big for its britches!
Legalize cannabis, regulate it and tax it. It’s that simple!
@5 “Let’s start with science”
Oh, fuck that, Roger. Let’s start with personal freedom.
Oops! How did that get on the wrong thread?? Sorry.
@8
Steve, the other comment was removed due to longstanding HA policy.
Crap, it looks like the SJ post I was replying to got deleted by Lee.
It appears to me that you both have a problem.
So you need to delete my post too?
You edited my post. Please do me a favor and either delete it or post it in it’s entirety.
re Steve @7 I fully understand the personal freedom side of the issue and have been using that one for some thirty years, but at times there is a place to drag out other ways to discuss this, such as science, prisons, corruption in laws enforcement and the damage down to many of the youths in society for using a mild intoxicant.
7 – 12: I have no idea what this is all about. Selective deletions may lead to reader confusion.
@12
If you want the backstory, please feel free to email me, but SJ is no longer permitted to leave comments in my posts. All I did to your comment was remove the response to his deleted comment.
@15 It’s none of my business, but just being nosy, what’s with you and SJ? Is there another little civil war in the comment threads that escaped my notice?
@13 It’s just that too often when those other aspects are brought into the discussion, the denial of freedom gets swept under the rug. I don’t like seeing that happen.
@14 Edited comments bother me. My comment @7 in reply to Seattle Jew’s deleted comment was edited. I’d rather my comment was simply deleted.
@16
Very simple. There was a bizarre sock-puppet incident last year that led to an agreement that if SJ refrained from commenting in my posts, he would avoid an outright ban from HA. This is about the 5th time he’s violated the agreement. All I do is delete his comments.
“Cannabis plant extracts can effectively fight drug-resistant bacteria.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Technolo.....038;page=1
@17
My apologies Steve, I just tried to delete what was in response to a deleted comment.
No big deal. Onward.
I’ve always thought it rather irrational when the Republicans support deregulation of most commercial enterprises, yet switch gears completely when it comes to pot and sex.
I think it is New Hampshire where they recently outlawed the distribution of condoms, even to married women (wasn’t that already declared unconstitutional in the 1960’s with regard to a Connecticut law?). And nothing gets the Republican lawmakers in a tizzy like the prospect of legalized pot on any level.
Yet in other matters, they remain quite opposed to any governmental intrusions. A decade or more ago, a Republican Senator who is a private pilot caused a ruckus when he landed at a closed airport. After an FAA investigation, he was required to take some additional safety classes before he could renew his license. But ever since, this Republican Senator has opposed the FAA at every turn, insisting on proceedures which allow pilots to continue flying with increased rights to appeal decisions even when cited for serious safety violations. He has even threatened to fight for the elimination of the FAA entirely.
@22
The intense focus on for-profit dispensaries recently really revealed that ugly truth.
22, 23 — Republicans don’t want to regulate light bulbs or guns, but they want to regulate pot and condoms. Strange.
Condoms, of course, are used by our troops over the muzzles of their M-16s to keep dirt and moisture from fouling the barrels; maybe Republicans wouldn’t ban condoms if they understood their military applications?
We all do things that are bad for us, we eat fast food, we don’t exercise, we speed in our cars, maybe drink too much on occasion.
Yes, smoking pot is bad for you. But, so what? The handful of times I’ve smoked pot in the last decade are far less bad for me than all sorts of legal things I’ve done that are bad for me.
I’ve probably done more harm to my body by grinding my teeth than I have by smoking pot every other year at a show at The Gorge. Hell, the sunburns I got at those shows where probably worse for me than the pot.
We need to stop splitting hairs and legalize the stuff.
Constitutionally, the DEA has no right to prohibit or control any substance. An amendment was required for the Fed gov to prohibit alcohol. Why to states let them control substances at all under the CSA?
I’d really like to see these discussions more around states rights. It’s obvious that neither dems or republicans at the federal level are going to loosen their grip marijuana, and for reasons unknown to me, the states just let them do it.
I’d also like to see some jury nullifications in narcotics trials.
Uh, no. This is one of those things that everyone thinks has to be true, and yet the scientific evidence doesn’t back it up. There is even evidence that smoking pot has anti-cancer qualities, and that is reacts completely differently with the lining of your lungs. Whereas tobacco smoke causes the lung sacs to compress, thus trapping nasty stuff, pot smoke does the opposite. And if you are worried, get a vaporizer or make some brownies.
I’m getting tired of people making the lame assumption that using cannabis has to be bad for you. Where is the evidence? Has there ever been a link between lung cancer and smoking pot?