Congress members urge Obama to remove marijuana from illegal drugs list

neversickanymore

Moderator: DS
Staff member
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Messages
32,765
Location
babysitting the argument in my head
Congress members urge Obama to remove marijuana from illegal drugs list
February 13, 2014

In a signed letter issued on Wednesday, 18 members of Congress have called on President Barack Obama to reclassify marijuana, a drug currently listed in the same category as heroin and LSD.

Authored by Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), the letter comes after President Obama’s comments to the New Yorker in January, in which he stated his belief that marijuana is not any more dangerous than drinking alcohol or smoking cigarettes.

Under the 1970 Controlled Substances Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration classifies marijuana as a “Schedule I” substance. This is the harshest classification available for illegal substances, placing cannabis in a stricter category than drugs like cocaine. Schedule I substances are believed to have "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

"You said that you don't believe marijuana is any more dangerous than alcohol: a fully legalized substance, and believe it to be less dangerous 'in terms of its impact on the individual consumer,'” the letter reads. "This is true. Marijuana, however, remains listed in the federal Controlled Substances Act at Schedule I ... This is a higher listing than cocaine and methamphetamine, Schedule II substances that you gave as examples of harder drugs. This makes no sense."

Pointing to the high number of people incarcerated for possessing marijuana, the congressman urged Obama have Attorney General Eric Holder either delist the drug or remove it from Schedule I or II classification.

"We believe the current system wastes resources and destroys lives, in turn damaging families and communities," the letter states. "Taking action on this issue is long overdue."

As noted by US News and World Report, the 1970 law permits the attorney general to "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."

Speaking with CNN’s Jake Tapper, however, Obama seemed to rule out unilateral action by the administration.

"What is and isn't a Schedule I narcotic is a job for Congress," Obama said during the interview. "It's not something by ourselves that we start changing. No, there are laws under – undergirding those determinations."

This explanation did not satisfy Blumenauer, who issued a separate statement on Wednesday saying the White House could act on its own if it wants.

"The Administration needs recognize the relative dangers of these drugs if it wants to restore its credibility," Blumenauer told the Huffington Post. "The first step is to reschedule marijuana, which the Administration can do unilaterally. We can't let this arbitrary and incorrect bureaucratic classification ruin any more lives."

So far, Colorado and Washington are the only two states to have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, though numerous others have voted to allow it for medical purposes. As RT reported last month, multiple states will be taking up ballot initiatives on pot legalization during elections in 2014 and 2016.


http://rt.com/usa/lawmakers-demand-reclassify-marijuana-legal-926/

NSFW:
000_was7574508.si.jpg
 
"We believe the current system wastes resources and destroys lives, in turn damaging families and communities..."

Sounds like the famous sound-bite meme that the UK police and politicians always use, "Drugs ruin lives and blight communities". Except now we the real culprit is revealed, prohibition.
 
If Obama doesn't make some major headway with the legalization of cannabis in the next 2 years, mainly since its his 2nd term in fucking office for god sakes, then I'm holding off on any hope that it's going to get through for another decade or so. The time is right to do it now...it'd be very interesting in the South to have weed suddenly legalized. I could honestly still see cops arresting people for pot for a few months after it, not being able to believe what had just happened...

Honestly, I just want some shit to get through on the federal level so weed will STOP BEING TESTED FOR...it's so idiotic - test for coke or H, OK, but weed??? The least harmful one and the only one that actually sticks around???? But yeah, that's bullshit that needs to be changed soon.
 
This is great!

A huge leap for the drug movement, prohibition shouldn't be their in the first place the sooner this happens the sooner countless lives are improved.

Cutos congress considering you all usually have your head up your ass you are finally speaking for the people. Thats what your there for in the first place anyways.
 
Its a plant, i dont think it should be scheduled at all.

To be trite, there are good reasons to ban plants in some situations. For instance, in Australia, marijuana was for a long time classed as an invasive weed because there were entire valleys choked with wild hemp that had originally been planted in the 18th century for sails and ropes, the plantation was abandoned and allowed to go feral. It was quite a big problem and took many decades to clear up. So, while I 100% support the legalisation of marijuana for recreational use, I wouldn't necessarily support the right of every man and his dog to grow it wherever they wanted (such is the situation now), I'd still want to see it regulated like any other cash-crop that can become an invasive weed if not properly managed.
 
To be trite, there are good reasons to ban plants in some situations. For instance, in Australia, marijuana was for a long time classed as an invasive weed because there were entire valleys choked with wild hemp that had originally been planted in the 18th century for sails and ropes, the plantation was abandoned and allowed to go feral. It was quite a big problem and took many decades to clear up. So, while I 100% support the legalisation of marijuana for recreational use, I wouldn't necessarily support the right of every man and his dog to grow it wherever they wanted (such is the situation now), I'd still want to see it regulated like any other cash-crop that can become an invasive weed if not properly managed.

That's not a good enough reason. No plant should ever be banned, under any circumstance. Is a plant too invasive? Then simply remove as much of it from the landscape as possible. Don't ban it, treat the situation as it should be treated: remove the plants and replace them with another invasive, indigenous, species.

If you want to go around banning things, how about asphalt and large expanses of concrete? At least plants are converting CO2 into something breathable! (Technically concrete does this for a while as well, but is nowhere near as efficient and sustaining as vegetation). And at least hemp can be collected and turned into food and fiber products by anyone.
 
"The first step is to reschedule marijuana, which the Administration can do unilaterally. "

But......how?

The Attorney General can ultimately remove marijuana from the scheduling list all together, but only after undergoing a gauntlet of nonsense which includes approval from agencies not under the direct control of the administration. It would hardly be a unilateral action by the president.

The planets would have to align for this to happen. The FDA, the HHS, and the Attorney General would all have to be on the same page.
 
As noted by US News and World Report, the 1970 law permits the attorney general to "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."

Wow, does it now? That leaves some scope for improvement, what on earth has taken so fucking long?

If you want to go around banning things, how about asphalt and large expanses of concrete? At least plants are converting CO2 into something breathable! (Technically concrete does this for a while as well, but is nowhere near as efficient and sustaining as vegetation). And at least hemp can be collected and turned into food and fiber products by anyone.

Nice one! How about we ban "obscene profiteering" & redress the global trade inbalance while we're at it! ;)
 
Last edited:
As noted by US News and World Report, the 1970 law permits the attorney general to "remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."
Wow, does it now? That leaves some scope for improvement, what on earth has taken so fucking long?

It doesn't sound like the attorney general is mandated to remove a drug from its scheduling if/when it no longer applies. Sounds completely optional, although it shouldn't be.

How about we ban "obscene profiteering" & redress the global trade inbalance while we're at it! ;)

Sounds good to me! Issues need to be solved at the roots, not the end of the branches.
 
executive order could do it..

It couldn't, though. An executive order could override the attorney general, but the process remains the same. In order to go the executive route, scheduled substances require review and approval from the FDA and/or the HHS to be descheduled, that's how the scheduling system works, it's based on officially approved medicinal value and abuse potential. Otherwise it would have to go through congress or the entire CSA would have to be struck down by the SCOTUS. Or if an international treaty were signed, the attorney general or the president would have unilateral power to remove it. Apparently there's also a clause in the CSA that allows for rescheduling by petitioning the DEA, which has failed every time since 1972. So there's really no current unilateral way to remove marijuana from the list.

Or am I missing something?

It seems to me that the most likely way it will become legal is on the state level. If every state follows Colorado and Washington's lead, all of these possible ways to deschedule marijuana become much more viable.
 
Last edited:
Damn, the CSA is a long ass document.

From what I gather:

NSFW:
The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule -

(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he -
(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and
(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or
(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.


Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5. Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General (1) on his own motion, (2) at the request of the Secretary, or (3) on the petition of any interested party.

So, the attorney general can initiate the process of descheduling a drug.

However:

NSFW:


812

(b) Placement on schedules; findings required

Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:

(1) Schedule I. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
(2) Schedule II. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
(3) Schedule III. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
(4) Schedule IV. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
(5) Schedule V. -
(A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
(B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
(C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

In order to complete the process, the drug must be determined to fit the criteria accordingly, which means approval from the secretary of the department of health and human services. The act doesn't seem to mention the FDA. As an already scheduled substance, that has already been determined to fit schedule I, this would mean he would need HHS review, right?
 
Top