DEA Rejects Yet Another Marijuana Rescheduling Petition

[fastandbulbous]

"Under the CSA, if marijuana is found to have "currently accepted medical use," it cannot be Schedule I."

Which means that they can't/don't follow their own rules (as cannabis has been used medically in the US), so either they are intellectually challenged fuckwits or think that 'the rules' don't apply to them; either way that makes a good case for their being disbanded as a government agency due to incompetance or for acting outside the remit of their own rules

Logic is a powerful tool!

 

[Damien]

Which means that they can't/don't follow their own rules (as cannabis has been used medically in the US), so either they are intellectually challenged fuckwits or think that 'the rules' don't apply to them; either way that makes a good case for their being disbanded as a government agency due to incompetance or for acting outside the remit of their own rules

Logic is a powerful tool!

According to the "rules" the federal government is clearly in the right. On this level it makes sense. On the level of "Why is marijuana illegal?" well, I would just be preching to the choir to say more.

Leonhart cited the Raich medical marijuana case in arguing that marijuana has no "accepted medical use" because the federal government doesn't recognize it, and even quoted from the decision: "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," and "Congress expressly found that [marijuana] has no acceptable medical uses."

 

[dankstersauce]

Leaving room for the real & knowledgeable smokers to reign supreme :D

^there would probably be so many pot snobs that smoking weed would probably be about as cool as wine tasting. (which is pretty popular...but not with kids).
Smoking weed is kind of like wine tasting...well at least for those of us that like to smoke the finer stuff. at least thats how i smoke these days.

Anyway, I think it's kind of ridiculous that the DEA is in charge of scheduling substances. If they want job security for the rest of their careers, all they have to do is keep everything illegal and they can afford their kid's college/uni and retire nicely. Then the next generation of DEA agents come in and they want to keep their job for the next 20-30 years and support their families, so there is absolutely no incentive for them to change the scheduling.

It's obvious that cannabis shouldn't be schedule one but why would the DEA want to reduce the potential amount of people they can arrest? Not to mention it's probably easier/less dangerous to arrest harmless marijuana users compared with going after dangerous cartels and organized crime syndicates.

Still, I'm 24 years old and I believe that before I die I will at least see decriminalization in the US. Maybe I'll see legalization if I'm lucky.

 

[fastandbulbous]

According to the "rules" the federal government is clearly in the right. On this level it makes sense. On the level of "Why is marijuana illegal?" well, I would just be preching to the choir to say more.

Sorry, I don't 'get' the federal/state law thing being from a country where such things don't exist!

BTW, who determines at a fedral level if cannabis is a medicine - let me guess, the DEA? So loads of doctors throught the US are wrong because people with next to bugger all medical knowledge say it's so...
(don't get me wrong, Gordon Brown rode roughshod over the Advisory Council on Drug Abuse's recommendations about cannabis. Politicians & bureaucrats - font of all knowledge eh?)

 

[Damien]

Forgiven.

On the second note, yes I believe the DEA determines that. (-_-)

 

[Huaca]

They have to keep drugs illegal to keep the prices high so organized crime can make their profit. Prohibition of drugs also helps the alcohol industry maintain its monopoly on legal highs. Also more prohibitions give the police easier access to your privacy. They can arrest anyone for almost anything.

 

[OldTripper]

I think that US black operations feed off the global illegal drug trade, to pay for the off the books black operations, such as when the US is installing friendly governments in it's client states, by training and funding opposition groups.

Organized crime at the highest levels is within the US government itself.

It's a joke that marijuana is illegal, while alcohol is legal, from an amount of damage to society the substance has done.

Another question that arises is what gives on group of men (Politicians, lawmakers, judicial branches, law enforcement) the right to make rules, that bind other groups of men (The public) without the other groups consent (The public)?

I never consented to give the right of possession of my body, to the government, to do with what they wish, when they make up a rule I never consented to. Such as if my mommy and daddy (government) catch me smoking weed, they then have the right to send my body to prison?

I think we have to really examine what gives others the right to make rules that bind us, and why.

Many should investigate, as long as we are not infringing on the life, liberty, and happiness of another, where do governments which are supposed to represent us, get the power they allege they have?

 

[entropy90]

Well in the words of KMFDM, I declare War on the War Against Drugs.

In all respect, this is bull. Im tired of living in America for many reasons but this tops it. Why cant we all enjoy our personal escapes? Ones choice to use is for that persons own mind to decide not some distant governing body.

Screw you DEA.

 

[fastandbulbous]

^ Yeah it's not illegal to (attempt) to commit suicide if you're the only one who ends up 'suffering', so if it's legal OK to kill yourself, where do governments get off on behaving like bullies and telling us that we can't choose to put certain compounds in our body because it might hurt us. If that's the reasoning behind the legislation, why aren't sports like rallying, rugby, formula 1 etc illegal as they result in a fair few hospital (& morgue) admissions each year - & that's without even touching on things like skydiving...

There is no resonable justification for allowing one but legislating against the other

 

[feelgoodhit]

^ Yeah it's not illegal to (attempt) to commit suicide if you're the only one who ends up 'suffering', so if it's legal OK to kill yourself, where do governments get off on behaving like bullies and telling us that we can't choose to put certain compounds in our body because it might hurt us. If that's the reasoning behind the legislation, why aren't sports like rallying, rugby, formula 1 etc illegal as they result in a fair few hospital (& morgue) admissions each year - & that's without even touching on things like skydiving...

There is no resonable justification for allowing one but legislating against the other

Quoted for undeniable TRUTH... this is a point that isn't brought up often enough in this argument, even for me.

 

[Kaneh Bosm]

According to the "rules" the federal government is clearly in the right. On this level it makes sense. On the level of "Why is marijuana illegal?" well, I would just be preching to the choir to say more.

No it does not make sense, the Raich case was such bullshit. Here was a woman who was growing 6 cannabis plants for her own personal medical use under state law but because it is illegal on the federal level she got raided. She took it to court and cited the 10th amendment which allows the states to create their own laws as long as they do not violate the constitution. The Supreme Court said there is one other exception to that amendment, interstate commerce which means the federal government can tax, regulate trade between states stuff like that. The Supreme court stretched the right for the government to regulate interstate commerce to mean the government can deem cannabis grown for legal personal medical use in which no money or currency is involved to be illegal. Anyone can see how this is bullshit of uncharted proportions coming from our government. This case was such a dog and pony show that anti-drug, right wing justice Clarence Thomas had a lengthy dissent to the case.

Very little people know but the federal government was sued for not allowing the terminally ill and those with medical necessity to use cannabis. There are 6-7 people living today who get medical cannabis mailed to them in hermetically sealed tins from the federal government. The federal government also has patents on several medicinal properties of cannabinoids. This is ALL politics as usual.

 

[MCMG]

^ Yeah it's not illegal to (attempt) to commit suicide if you're the only one who ends up 'suffering', so if it's legal OK to kill yourself, where do governments get off on behaving like bullies and telling us that we can't choose to put certain compounds in our body because it might hurt us. If that's the reasoning behind the legislation, why aren't sports like rallying, rugby, formula 1 etc illegal as they result in a fair few hospital (& morgue) admissions each year - & that's without even touching on things like skydiving...

There is no resonable justification for allowing one but legislating against the other

Wow I never even though about it like that but its such a good fucking point. But then again, how can they incarcerate a dead person?

 

[alwaysinpain]

but think of the children! Oh the children! What would they do if marijuana was legalized??

Probably smoke less of it...

exactly!!!!!!!!

 

[shepj]

heard of change.org? One of their top 10 issues (which brought in a total of over 600,000 voters) is presenting legalizing medical and recreational use (was like top issue No. 7)... to Pres. Obama on inaguaration. So maybe this will change in the States.

 

[Ernestrome]

heard of change.org? One of their top 10 issues (which brought in a total of over 600,000 voters) is presenting legalizing medical and recreational use (was like top issue No. 7)... to Pres. Obama on inaguaration. So maybe this will change in the States.

Heard the obama team's response to that question?

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

 

[shepj]

Heard the obama team's response to that question?

Q: "Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?" S. Man, Denton

A: President-elect Obama is not in favor of the legalization of marijuana.

It's early in his campaign... I think his standpoint will change.

 

[Ernestrome]

I hope it will, it would be a pleasant surprise but at the minute it remains

 

[Beenhead]

Im not tryin to take their side, but the DEA has doctors as well. And, though, there are loads of doctors who say that Marijuana is good medicine, there are loads who claim it is not, or there are other drugs currently in place that can do the job better

 

[FractalStructure]

who thinks we will see the legalization of recreational marijuana use in our lifetimes?

I think we're more likely to see the nation go up in flames first.

Im not tryin to take their side, but the DEA has doctors as well. And, though, there are loads of doctors who say that Marijuana is good medicine, there are loads who claim it is not, or there are other drugs currently in place that can do the job better

They have wonderful doctors and scientists working for them, like the famous, talented Dr. Ricuarte

 

[entheogensmurf]

Spot on. I don't have any evidence to hand to support this claim but I believe that the rates of marijuana consumption for Dutch youngsters (e.g. 15 - 25 years old) is something like half the rate of marijuana consumption amongst youngsters in the UK and the USA.

Reefer Madness: Legalizing pot in no way makes us safer
http://stash.norml.org/reefer-madness-legalizing-pot-in-no-way-makes-us-safer/

And specifically -
The enemy said:

The Dutch National Committee on Drug Prevention stated that marijuana use among students increased 250 percent in eight years. Most Dutch towns have adopted a zero-tolerance policy toward coffee shops that sell marijuana due to growing opposition to the idea that it is a relatively innocent soft drug. The Dutch have instituted new policies requiring 27 coffee shops in Rotterdam that sell marijuana within 200 meters of schools to close down by 2009.

NORML responded with this:

Agent Capra, when Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, you might remind him that according to the European Monitoring Center on Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA, the EU’s ONDCP) latest report entitled, THE NETHERLANDS DRUG SITUATION 2006, the “last-year prevalence (%) of cannabis use” in the 15-24 age group was 14.3% in 1997 and had dropped to 11.4% (page 26) by 2005. In the Dutch National School Surveys on Substance Use for pupils aged 12-18, the lifetime prevalence of cannabis use in 1996 was 22% and monthly prevalence was 11%, and those figures dropped to 19% and 9% respectively by 2003.

And Agent Capra, for a dose of American Madness, we should note that the lifetime prevalence and last-month prevalence of cannabis use among American teens in that same time period were no less than twice as high as the Dutch figures.

The decrease in coffee shops owes a lot to new regulations aimed to curb abuses by tourists, not the Dutch. Also, new regulations forbidding tobacco smoking and forcing establishments to choose between liquor or cannabis are causing some businesses to stop selling cannabis or to close their operations.

Actually, it could certainly be a coincidence. Comparing the USA to the Netherlands is not such a great comparison because of all the cultural differences.

QFT

Great and valid point, however, we could look at this for a taste:
http://stash.norml.org/teen-marijuana-use-increases-slightly/

Maybe it’s medical marijuana! In 2001, there were only eight medical marijuana states. Now there are thirteen. And in those medical marijuana states, teen use has gone down at a rate greater than the US average.

So, I think that helps illuminate the chance of a decrease. Shrug.

Im not tryin to take their side, but the DEA has doctors as well. And, though, there are loads of doctors who say that Marijuana is good medicine, there are loads who claim it is not, or there are other drugs currently in place that can do the job better

Can you be specific by providing a few examples?

I could've sworn that I've read more than one story where cannabis helped equally or better -- and it stimulates their appetite.
What about the side effects of these "better" drugs?
What about the cost difference between these drugs and marijuana?
People who actually need cannabis for medicinal reasons can literally grow their own medicine -- can they grow the pharmas? Ridiculous question I know, but that is the point.


The majority of the doctors who appose medical marijuana, if you listen to them, you'll find that they are biase and stuck in their ways. The stigma of using pot to help/heal is a powerful influence on many a individuals opinion.
I've encountered some rather obstinate doctors in my time, who held beliefs that have been refuted quite a while ago. It would be one thing if what they stated was backed up and without a decent counter in the form of hard research.

There have been some cases where doctors are required (hmm I think it was required) to improve their handwriting; take a class or what have you. This was an attempt to increase the readability of their hand written prescriptions, FYI.
The next step will be for them to take a course in critical thinking and then review the available data.

who thinks we will see the legalization of recreational marijuana use in our lifetimes?

I think we're more likely to see the nation go up in flames first.

They have wonderful doctors and scientists working for them, like the famous, talented Dr. Ricuarte

Within 15 years as of this morning.

Infamous you mean... That putz.