Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by azrael on Saturday October 25 2014, @01:42AM   Printer-friendly
from the stop-making-sense dept.

Paul Armentano of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) blogs:

Testimony regarding the constitutionality of the federal statute designating marijuana as a Schedule I Controlled Substance will be taken on Monday, October 27 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in the case of United States v. Pickard, et. al., No. 2:11-CR-0449-KJM.

Members of Congress initially categorized cannabis as a Schedule I substance, the most restrictive classification available, in 1970. Under this categorization, the plant is defined as possessing "a high potential for abuse, ... no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, ... [and lacking] accepted safety for ... use ... under medical supervision."

Expert witnesses for the defense--including Drs. Carl Hart, Associate Professor of Psychology in the Department of Psychiatry and Psychology at Columbia University in New York City, retired physician Phillip Denny, and Greg Carter, Medical Director of St. Luke's Rehabilitation Institute in Spokane, Washington--will testify that the accepted science is inconsistent with the notion that cannabis meets these Schedule I criteria.

"It is my considered opinion that including marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is counter to all the scientific evidence in a society that uses and values empirical evidence," Dr. Hart declared. "After two decades of intense scientific inquiry in this area, it has become apparent the current scheduling of cannabis has no footing in the realities of science and neurobiology."

Related Stories

Substance Abuse Cure Enters Human Safety Trials 48 comments

BuzzFeed has a profile on the work of Dr. Stanley Glick, formerly of Albany Medical College. Dr. Glick has developed an experimental drug for curing addiction to recreational substances including narcotics, alcohol, and nicotine. Glick's drug, 18-MC (short for 18-methoxycoronaridine), resulted from his investigation of the alleged ability of ibogaine (a powder extracted from the roots of certain Central African plants) to cure addiction. The tip came from an ex-junkie (now deceased) who swore that ibogaine cured his addiction. To Glick's surprise, ibogaine did seem to be effective in curing substance addiction in rats. However, the US National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA) halted investigation into ibogaine as an over-the-counter medication long ago because of severe documented side effects, including fatal cardiac arrest. Glick and chemist Martin Kuehne tested various compounds to tweak ibogaine in an attempt to retain the anti-addictive power without the side effects; the result was 18-MC.

In simple terms — which Glick often has trouble using — 18-MC blocks the pleasurable effects of cocaine by “dampening the response” to dopamine. Glick pulls up several graphs that show the cocaine intake of addicted rats dropping precipitously after they receive 18-MC.

“What the rat is telling you here is, ‘The drug is getting in, I feel it, but it’s not giving me the kick that it used to,’” Glick says. “That’s really the essence of how we think 18-MC works. … No matter what dose of the addictive drug you take, it’s just not giving you the buzz it used to.”

After the successful experiments with rats, Glick entered a partnership with the pharmaceutical company Savant HWP, which has just begun human safety trials of the drug. However, the road to approval by the US Federal Drug Administration (FDA) will be long and arduous at best; for example, 18-MC could turn out to have the same difficulties with side effects as ibogaine.

The article also briefly sketches two competitors to 18-MC: a dopamine-regulator drug from Dr. Juan Canales of New Zealand in partnership with the Swiss pharmaceutical company Roche, and a cocaine vaccine from Dr. Ronald Crystal of Weill Cornell Medical College.

WP says Marijuana Legalization Makes World a Better Place 75 comments

Christopher Ingraham writes in the Washington Post that many countries are taking a close look at what's happening in Colorado and Washington state to learn lessons that can be applied to their own situations and so far, the news coming out of Colorado and Washington is overwhelmingly positive. Dire consequences predicted by reform opponents have failed to materialize. If anything, societal and economic indicators are moving in a positive direction post-legalization. Colorado marijuana tax revenues for fiscal year 2014-2015 are on track to surpass projections.

Lisa Sanchez, a program manager at México Unido Contra la Delincuencia, a Mexican non-profit devoted to promoting "security, legality and justice", underscored how legalization efforts in the U.S. are having powerful ripple effects across the globe: events in Colorado and Washington have "created political space for Latin American countries to have a real debate [about drug policy]". She noted that motivations for reform in Latin America are somewhat different than U.S. motivations - one main driver is a need to address the epidemic of violence on those countries that is fuelled directly by prohibitionist drug war policies. Mexico's president has given signs he's open to changes in that country's marijuana laws to help combat cartel violence. Sandeep Chawla, former deputy director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, notes that one of the main obstacles to meaningful reform is layers of entrenched drug control bureaucracies at the international and national levels - just in the U.S., think of the DEA, ONDCP and NIDA, among others - for whom a relaxation of drug control laws represents an undermining of their reason for existence: "if you create a bureaucracy to solve a particular problem, when the problem is solved that bureaucracy is out of a job".

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by nyder on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:22AM

    by nyder (4525) on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:22AM (#109790)

    The answer to that and most questions in Titles is No.

    But marijuana should of never been classified as a Schedule I Controlled Substance. This is what happens when lobbying is uncontrolled.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by cafebabe on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:28AM

      by cafebabe (894) on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:28AM (#109792) Journal

      If you read the Cannabis FAQ [erowid.org], the prohibition of cannabis occurred, in part, due to a mix of puritanism and racism.

      --
      1702845791×2
      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:43AM

        by Thexalon (636) on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:43AM (#109794)

        And it remains illegal for the same reasons: Pot is basically illegal only for non-white people, or for white people who the cops have decided to go after for unrelated reasons (e.g. criticizing the wrong politician or organization) but can't nab for anything else.

        To get an idea of how extreme this is, compare the experiences of two acquaintances of mine:
        - Black guy, who doesn't smoke anything: Stopped on his way to work (he's an IT guy) for an "unsafe lane change". Cop claims to smell dope, orders him from his car, tears the car up looking for the non-existent pot.

        - White girl, who does smoke marijuana: Stopped because the person who was driving her was drunk and weaving all over the road. Cop sees pot out on the seat, and says "Are you carrying anything else?" "No" "Ok, put that away right now and I'll pretend I didn't see it."

        So yes, these days it's mostly about oppressing black people (this is the main motivation for the Nixon and Reagan administrations' anti-drug pushes), with a side order of hippie-punching.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:47AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:47AM (#109795)

          Your story is not Black and White. It's Dog and Cat. Or Dick and Jane. Or Horny strait cop. It he (cop) was gay or female things might have been different.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by tibman on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:55AM

            by tibman (134) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:55AM (#109799)

            It was very thin on plot. I like my stories a little less predictable and at least an attempt at character development.

            --
            SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
            • (Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:42AM

              by M. Baranczak (1673) on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:42AM (#109822)

              How about this... some friends of a friend were driving through Alabama and got pulled over for DWH. And got busted for growing the weed. Apparently, they threw a pot seed into the trunk, forgot all about it, and there was enough dirt and moisture in the trunk for the seed to sprout and take root. There are two morals that we can draw from this story:

              1. Keep your car clean.
              2. Stay the fuck out of Alabama.

          • (Score: 2) by dcollins on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:03AM

            by dcollins (1168) on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:03AM (#109800) Homepage

            And while you engage in snarky literary criticism, upwards of a million black Americans rot in prison (40% of the prison population).

            There'll always be some damned reason to excuse it.

      • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:52AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:52AM (#109807) Journal

        Gee, that means the prosecution of cannabis is the end goal of eThanol-Feuded? I have suspected as much. But does he know?
        (engage cognitive dissonance device! Set dial to 11! )

      • (Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:28AM

        by SpockLogic (2762) on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:28AM (#109812)

        If you read the Cannabis FAQ, the prohibition of cannabis occurred, in part, due to a mix of puritanism and racism.

        The 1936 movie "Reefer Madness" sets the scene and warns of the terrible dangers of marijuana. Its an awful propaganda exploitation film with plenty of puritanism and racism. Calling it marijuana, a Mexican name, means it must be bad, or so the anti-pot brigade want you to believe.

        --
        Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
        • (Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:02PM

          by Jeremiah Cornelius (2785) on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:02PM (#109961) Journal

          Marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to dangerous contempt for authority.

          --
          You're betting on the pantomime horse...
          • (Score: 2) by cafebabe on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:27PM

            by cafebabe (894) on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:27PM (#110012) Journal

            Tobacco is the gateway drug which leads to marijuana.

            --
            1702845791×2
            • (Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:39PM

              by pnkwarhall (4558) on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:39PM (#110056)

              Life is the gateway experience that leads to drug use of all sorts.

              --
              Lift Yr Skinny Fists Like Antennas to Heaven
        • (Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday October 26 2014, @10:06AM

          by PinkyGigglebrain (4458) on Sunday October 26 2014, @10:06AM (#110202)

          A good read is "The Emperor Wears No Clothes", available online, if you want to know about the history of cannabis prohibition.

          http://www.jackherer.com/thebook/ [jackherer.com]

          If you ever wanted to know the facts, the whys, who's and hows that took what was called the first "Billion dollar agricultural crop" (in 1936!) to the current "50+ billion/year "War on Drugs" with well over 30 million people serving jail time for something The Founding Fathers of the USA did on their downtime the book is probably the best source.

          Read it. Think about it. Make your own opinion about it based on facts.

          --
          "Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
      • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Saturday October 25 2014, @09:19AM

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Saturday October 25 2014, @09:19AM (#109851) Homepage
        Maybe in the US. In the UK it was because of a mafia-style attempt to control the market. The medical profession became the only legal source of it.
        --
        Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:12AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:12AM (#109802)

      WTF does "should of" mean?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:06AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:06AM (#109808)

        You missed you chance to be didactic.
        Here, let me show you how to do that:

        "Should have" shortens to "should've".
        It sounds like "should of", but they're -not- the same thing.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:22AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:22AM (#109811)

          You missed you chance as well.

    • (Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:23PM

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:23PM (#109880)

      well, draconian laws about mj (and cocaine and opium) are the DIRECT result of purposefully instituted racist policies to jack up -mostly- blacks, browns, and chinese in some areas...
      at the same time ma and pa white america were enjoying their legal decoctions of cocaine or opium, chinese and blacks were being persecuted for the same drugs...
      marijuana was demonized to go after hispanics, blacks, and -of course- the dreaded jazz musicians... (those fuckers are always causing trouble...)
      we laugh at the weird propaganda of a 'Reefer Madness' these days, but back then, it was all part and parcel of a purposeful propaganda
      program to prepare proletariat proles for proper perspectives on personal propensities for consciousness altering drugs...

      (sorry, kind of petered out on the p alliteration...)

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:10AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:10AM (#109801)

    Decriminalization of possession of less than four ounces in one's private residence, or casual use in someone else's private residence.

    Let the states decide the laws for selling and distributing weed.

    Now, why not outright legalization? Personally I think weed is not conducive to a highly productive society, for left-brained activities such as engineering and banking for instance. We (the USA) are competing against the rest of the world, and I mean the entire rest of the world, not just India. So let's not encourage people to use it.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dcollins on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:51AM

      by dcollins (1168) on Saturday October 25 2014, @03:51AM (#109806) Homepage

      "So let's not encourage people to use it."

      Laws should not be about "encouraging" things one way or another. They should be: Does this harm another person? And is it severe enough to warrant N years of jail time, state expense, lost productivity, and lost social connections? Using laws as sloppy propaganda is what sent us down this sewer pipe in the first place.

    • (Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday October 25 2014, @11:12AM

      by Geotti (1146) on Saturday October 25 2014, @11:12AM (#109872) Journal

      weed is not conducive to a highly productive society, for left-brained activities such as engineering

      Your shit must be pretty mediocre, since everyone knows, you can't achieve true perfection without having a good look at your product... on weed [youtube.com] .

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:19PM (#109968)

      The war on drugs costs an enormous amount of money. Taxpayers (ultimately businesses since individuals derive their income from businesses) pay for it. From an economic perspective it is better to lower taxes by not fighting the war so that businesses can better invest their money on new advancements.

      • (Score: 3, Funny) by cafebabe on Saturday October 25 2014, @06:18PM

        by cafebabe (894) on Saturday October 25 2014, @06:18PM (#110026) Journal

        In Bill Hicks' Relentless [gavinsblog.com], he makes the argument that, socially, marijuana is less harmful than alcohol and gives the example that stoners less problematic than drunks. I was going to cite the relevant section but it is far more entertaining to read his full rant on tobacco, alcohol, marijuana, hard drugs and the effect on popular music:-

        I smoke, if this bothers anyone, I recommend you looking around the world in which we live and... shutting your fucking mouth. Either that or suffer a facial burn, your choice. After all this is America, land of freedom, so you have that option ahead of you. I now realize I smoke for simply one reason, and that is spite. I hate you non-smokers with all of my little black fucking heart, you obnoxious, self-righteous, whining little fucks, my biggest fear, if I quit smoking, is that I'll become one of you. Now don't take that wrong. How many non-smokers do we have here tonight? By round of applause, non-smokers. A few of you. Good, 'cause I have something to tell you. I do. I have something to tell you non-smokers, and this is for you and you only, because I know for a fact that you don't know this. And I feel it's my duty to pass on information at all times, so that we can all learn, evolve, and get the fuck off this planet. Non-smokers, this is for you and you only, ready? Non-smokers die every day. Sleep tight. See, I know you entertain some kind of eternal life fantasy because you do not smoke cigarettes. May I be the first to pop that little fucking bubble of yours, and send you hurtling back to the truth? You're dead too. Have a good evening. And you know what doctors say, "Shit, if only you smoked, we'd have the technology to help you! It's you people dying from nothing that are screwed." I got all sorts of neat gadgets waiting for me, man.

        Oxygen tent, iron lung-it's like going to Sharper Image! Major rationalizations. We live in such a weird culture, man. Does anyone remember this, when Yul Bryner died, and came out with that commercial after he was dead? I'm Yul Bryner and I'm dead now. What the fuck's this guy selling? I'm all ears. I'm Yul Bryner and I'm dead now, because I smoked cigarettes. Okay, pretty scary. But they coulda done that with anyone. They coulda done it with that Jim Fixx guy, too, remember that guy, that health nut who died while jogging? I don't remember seeing his commercial! I'm Jim Fixx and I'm dead now. And I don't know what the fuck happened. I jogged every day, ate nothing but tofu, swam five hundred laps every morning, and I'm dead. Yul Bryner drank, smoke, and got laid every night of his life. He's dead. Shit! Yul Bryner's smokin', drinkin', girls are sitting on his cueball noggin, every night of his life! I'm running around a dewy track at dawn. And we're both fucking dead. Yul used to pass me on his way home in the morning, big long limousine, two girls blowing him, cigarette in one hand, drink in the other. "One day that life is going to get to you, Yul." They're both dead.

        Yeah, but what a healthy looking corpse you were, Jim. Look at the hamstrings on that corpse! Look at the sloppy grin on Yul's corpse! Yul Bryner lived his life. Sure, he died a 78-pound stick figure, okay. There are certain drawbacks. People'll say the stupidest things sometimes too, "Hey, man, if you quit smoking you get your sense of smell back." I live in New York City, I got news for you - I don't want my fucking sense of smell back. (Sniffs) Is that urine? (Sniffs) I think I smell a dead guy! Honey, look, a dead guy! Covered in urine, check this out! Someone just pee'd on this guy, that's fresh. Just think, if I'd been smoking I never would have found him! A urine-covered dead fella, what're the odds? Thank God I quit smoking, now I can enjoy the wonders of New York, honey, look! I'm Bill Hicks and I'm dead now because I smoked cigarettes. Cigarettes didn't kill me, a bunch of non-smokers kicked the shit out of me one day. I tried to run, they had more energy than I. I tried to hide, they heard me wheezing. Many of them smelled me. (Sniffing sounds) "There he is, get him!" (Pants) "Oh, he's hardly fucking moving, this is pathetic!" (Pants) "Look, he's still trying to get away, he's like a roach, step on him!" (Pants) "Squash him!" "Let's kill him and pee on him. Yeah!" (Whistling wind) (Audience member: "You have a bad attitude") We've only just begun... I got all sorts of new dark shit for you, my man. You ever dance with the devil in the moonlight? I don't know what my attitude is, I'm trying to work on it all this time, you know. I'm drinking water tonight, that's pretty amazing, water, it's really weird how your life changes, you know what I mean, water.

        Four years ago - opium. Isn't that weird, I mean, really! Night and day, night and fucking day! Some of y'all may remember me, I was a drinker. I was a weekend drinker, you know, I'd start on Saturday, and end on Friday, and I thought I was controlling it there. I don't drink anymore, I don't do drugs anymore, either, than, I'd say the average touring funk band. I had to add it up. No, I don't do drugs anymore, either. But I'll tell you something about drugs, I used to do drugs, but I'll tell you something honestly about drugs, honestly, and I know it's not a very popular idea, you don't hear it very often anymore, but it is the truth - I had a great time doing drugs. Sorry. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife or kids, laughed my ass off, and went about my day. Sorry. Now, where's my commercial? Why don't I get a commercial? Why is it always that other guy that gets the commercial? "I lost my job, then my car, then my house, then my kids. Don't do drugs." Well, I'm definitely not doing them with you, fuck! Man, you're bumming me out, get him out of here! Who invited Mr. Doom over, get that guy out of here! That guy by the dip, he's bumming everyone out! He hasn't stopped talking, I wish he'd lose his fucking voice! I mean, I've lost my car before, okay. Found it the next day, you know, no biggie. I don't think that warranted a commercial. "I lost my car and uh... oh, there it is by that dumpster! Forget it! See you tomorrow! Honk, honk!" You know, I've lost stuff, I'm not saying that. I knew we were in trouble with that damn egg commercial, that guy. I knew that was the government's take on drugs, we're fucked, you know. "Here's your brain." I've seen a lot of weird shit on drugs, I have never ever ever ever ever looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain, not once, all right? I have seen UFO's split the sky like a sheet, but I have never ever ever looked at an egg and thought it was a fucking brain, not once. I have had seven balls of light come off of a UFO, lead me onto their ship, explain to me telepathically that we are all one and there is no such thing as death, but I have never ever ever ever ever looked at an egg, and thought it was a fucking brain. Now. Maybe I wasn't getting good shit. I admit it, I see that commercial, I feel cheated. Hey, where's the stuff that makes eggs look like brains? That sounds neat. Did I quit too soon? What is that, CIA stash? You see the guy in that commercial, that guy's got a beer gut - "All right, this is it. Look up, man. This is your brain. I ain't doing this again. That's your-" The guy's drunk and doing this fucking commercial. "Here's your brain." That's an egg! That's a frying pan, that's a stove, you're an alcoholic, dude, I'm tripping right now, and I still see that is a fucking egg, all right?

        I see the UFO's around it, but that is a goddamn egg in the middle. There's a hobbit eating it, but, goddamn it, that hobbit is eating a fucking egg. He's on a unicorn, but that dam-up-nup-oh-hop, that's a fucking egg, yeah. How dare you have a wino tell me not to do drugs. (From the audience) "Why did you quit?" Why did I quit? Because after you've been taken aboard a UFO, it's kind of hard to top that, all right. They have Alcoholics Anonymous, they don't have Alien Anonymous. I tell you what, though, going to AA meetings, which I have to do, but going there and hearing people talking about their fucking booze stories, you know. "You know, I love the taste of gin, it's so good, tastes-" Fuck you, I've been on a UFO, fuck off! I went drinking with aliens, you fucker, shut up! "I lost my wife-" I lost an alien culture who wanted to take me to the planet Arcturus, fuck you! I mean, I don't know if I've got the resentment, you know, forgiveness part down in the book, but... (singing) "One day at a time..." I just cannot, you know, believe in a war against drugs when they've got anti-drug commercials on TV all day long, followed by, "This Bud's for you." I got news for you, folks. A-1, alcohol is a drug, and B-2, and here's the real one, alcohol kills more people than crack, coke and heroin... combined each year. So, thanks for inviting me to your little alcoholic/drug den here tonight. You fine, upstanding citizens, you, wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Now. You know what, if I was going to have a drug be legal, it would not be alcohol, you know why? There's better drugs and better drugs for you. That's a fact, so you can stop your internal dialogue. Wait a minute, Bill, alcohol is an accepted form of social interaction which for thousands of years has been the norm under which human beings have congregated in the form of social events and... Shut the fuck up. Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you. Pot is a better drug than alcohol - fact, and I'll prove it. You're at a ballgame, you're at a concert, someone's really violent, aggressive and obnoxious, are they drunk or are they smoking pot? (Audience) Drunk!

        The one and only correct answer, tell them what they've won, Johnny. I have never seen people on pot get in a fight because it is fucking impossible! Hey, buddy. Hey, what? End of argument. Say you get in a car accident, and you've been smoking pot. You're only going four miles an hour. Vroom... CRASH. Shit, we hit something. Forgot to open the garage door, man. We got to get the garage door open so Domino's knows we're home! But I'll tell you the truth, I have never heard one reason that rang true why marijuana is against the law. That rang true, now, I'm not talking about the reasons the government tells us, because I hope you know this, I think you do, all governments are lying cocksuckers. I hope you know that. Good. I mean, marijuana grows everywhere, it serves a thousand different functions, all of them positive, to make marijuana against the law is like saying God made a mistake, you know what I mean? It's like God, on the seventh day, looked down on his creation and said, "There it is. My creation. Perfect and holy in all ways. Now, I can rest... Oh my me. I left fucking pot everywhere. I should never have smoked that joint on the third day. Shit. If I leave pot everywhere, that's gonna give people the impression they're supposed to use it. Shit. Now I have to create Republicans." So, you see, it's a vicious cycle. And I'm not promoting the use of drugs, believe me, I'm not. I've had bad times on drugs, I mean, just look at this haircut. Fuck. Tell you, I live in New York now, man, tell you, man, the war on drugs has taken a real cease fire there, it's, I mean, it's incredible. They sell drugs out loud on the street. "Heroin, heroin! Heroin, heroin!" "Coke, coke! Smoke, smoke!" "Heroin, heroin!" Those guys bug the shit out of me. I'm walking down the street one day, this guy's walking ahead of me, passes one of those dealers, he looks at him, he goes, "Heroin, heroin, heroin!" I pass him, he goes, "Glue!" I can afford heroin, you fucker. I'm doing laundry right now. Soon as my shirt's out of the cleaners, I'm coming back and buying some of that shit from you! I mean, he embarrassed me to death, I was mortified. Glue. Fucker. Where's a bank machine?

        C'mere! C'mere, Mr. Dealer, c'mere! I'm gonna show you my balance! Then I'm gonna buy heroin from that little kid across the street! Fuck you! New York's a rather tense town. See, I think drugs have done some good things for us, I really do. And if you don't believe drugs have done good things for us, do me a favor, go home tonight and take all your albums, all your tapes and all your CD's and burn them. Because, you know what, the musicians who made all that great music that's enhanced your lives throughout the years... rrrrrrrreal fucking high on drugs. Man, the Beatles were so high, they let Ringo sing a couple of tunes. Tell me they weren't partying. (singing) "We all live in a yellow submarine, yellow submarine." We all live in a-do you know how fucking high they were when they wrote that? They had to pull Ringo off the ceiling with a rake to sing that fucking song. (Beatle voices) John, get Ringo, he's in the corner. Ooh, look at him scoot, grab him! Hook his bellbottom, hook his bellbottom! He's got a song he wants to sing us. Something about living in a yellow tambourine or something. Ringo, Yoko's gone, come down, we can party again! They were real high, they wrote great music, drugs did have a positive effect.

        Okay, I'll tell you what else. I'm gonna extend the theory to our generation, now, so it's more plicable. The musicians today, who don't do drugs, and in fact speak out against it-"We're rockers against drugs" - boy, they suck. Suck. Ball-less, soul-less, spirit-less, corporate little bitches, suckers of Satan's cock, each and every one of them. (sucking noises into the microphone). Suckin' Satan's pecker, suck it! Put that big scaly pecker down your gullet! "We're rock against drugs, because that's what George Bush wants!" (sucking noises) That's what we want, isn't it? Government approved rock n' roll? Don't you want to be at a concert one night, look to your right and see Dan fucking Quayle right next to you, man? You know you're partying then, you know you're on the edge! "Fuck it, the Quayle-Monster's here, there ain't no going back! We might be up to eleven tonight, fuck this!" "We're rock stars who do Pepsi-Cola commercials!" (sucking) Luckily, Satan's dick has many heads, so all these little demon piglets can nuzzle up and suckle all at once. "Here comes a fella named Vanilla Ice!" (sucking) "Here comes M.C. Hammer!" (sucking) "Here's Madonna, with two heads!" (sucking) Suckin' Satan's pecker, suck it! It's only your dignity, suck it! It's only your dignity, suck it! M.C. Hammer - oh, I'm sorry, it's 'Hammer', he dropped the M.C. I can't wait till he drops the Hammer too. How about this, drop it all. Good. I am available for children's parties, by the way.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday October 25 2014, @06:15PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 25 2014, @06:15PM (#110024) Journal

      The only reason I can think of that it should not be decriminalized is to prevent advertizing it. There's probably another. I don't count the fact that a few people have what is essentially an allergic reaction.

      OTOH, it would be quite desireable to take the profit out of dealing in marahuana by making it legal if you could also prevent it being advertised.

      I feel the same way about distilled liquors. It shouldn't be legal to advertise it.

      Unfortunately, the only way under the US legal system to make it illegal to advertise something is to have the "something" itself be illegal. So have a de minimus penalty...say $1 per pound per offense. 0r $0.20.

      It should also be illegal for an adult to furnish it to a child that isn't his ward, or for purposes of resale, or to purchase it from a child (including his ward). I'd count that as minor child abuse, scaling up to major if the quanties involved became large (but be specific, don't leave it up to the judgement of the prosecutor of the judge).

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 1) by dave on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:07PM

        by dave (1351) on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:07PM (#110044)

        Unfortunately, the only way under the US legal system to make it illegal to advertise something is to have the "something" itself be illegal

        When was the last time you saw an ad for cigarets on US television?

        --
        Nothing about you is permanent.
        • (Score: 1) by dave on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:11PM

          by dave (1351) on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:11PM (#110045)

          ugh. cigarettes.

          --
          Nothing about you is permanent.
        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:42PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:42PM (#110059) Journal

          A point, but I, personally, consider that an example of overreach by the FCC. It's in a cause that I approve of, but the method is unsavory and, I believe, unconstitutional. (OTOH, I am not the supreme court.)

          Additionally, I want the advertising to be illegal, not just advertising through some particular channel. I want it to include print. A problem is that I want factual statements to remain legal, and the "justice" system is nortorious for ignoring that constraint.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:46PM

            by urza9814 (3954) on Wednesday October 29 2014, @03:46PM (#111206) Journal

            A point, but I, personally, consider that an example of overreach by the FCC. It's in a cause that I approve of, but the method is unsavory and, I believe, unconstitutional. (OTOH, I am not the supreme court.)

            I just gotta ask...how are you interpreting the constitution so that banning advertising of drugs would be unconstitutional, but banning the drugs themselves isn't?

            How about this: Legalize it, but restrict interstate sale via the commerce clause. Like maybe ban advertising on national networks. I'd say it's unconstitutional to ban advertising just on the local city-wide station, but on a national network that certainly qualifies for even a somewhat conservative definition of interstate commerce. Or maybe just ban sales that cross state lines. Nobody's going to care for individuals, just like nobody usually cares when people cross the border to buy liquor to avoid local taxes. But it'll prevent massive corporations from dominating the industry because they would need to rebuild the entire supply chain in every single state.

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:15PM

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 30 2014, @11:15PM (#111715) Journal

              I consider the baning of certain advertising prior restraint on free speech. And I consider most uses of the interstate commerce clause unconstitutional. I know it's been done for a long time, but that doesn't make it right. And corporations aren't people, either, despite what the law clerk decided the court said.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
              • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday October 31 2014, @01:13PM

                by urza9814 (3954) on Friday October 31 2014, @01:13PM (#111879) Journal

                Right, I agree with you there, I was just trying to tailor a less unconstitutional system than the current war on drugs, which itself rests entirely on an extremely broad interpretation of the commerce clause. One that doesn't get any better if you decriminalize -- it's still just as unconstitutional.

                Earlier you proposed:

                Unfortunately, the only way under the US legal system to make it illegal to advertise something is to have the "something" itself be illegal. So have a de minimus penalty...say $1 per pound per offense. 0r $0.20.

                So I'm just saying...if you're going to unconstitutionally ban the drug just to ban the advertising, you might as well save the trouble and unconstitutionally ban the advertising alone. And if you limit your ban to only *interstate* advertising, you're still possibly violating the First Amendment, but at least you're respecting the commerce clause. And the First Amendment *does* have some narrow exceptions for public safety and such...

                Plus consider that, compared to full legalization of everything, tight restrictions on interstate sale/advertising makes the market far less attractive to massive corporations, preventing some amount of regulatory capture and therefore it might actually protect some other rights. So it's not *entirely* unreasonable...just *mostly* unreasonable ;)

                • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday October 31 2014, @06:58PM

                  by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 31 2014, @06:58PM (#112000) Journal

                  But it's quite legal for the FDA to recommend that a drug be banned, and for the states to ban it. Which allows the advertising of it to be illegal within those states. Now whether the states would trust the FDA enough to go along with its recommendations...

                  --
                  Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Doctor on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:55AM

    by Doctor (3677) on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:55AM (#109816)

    Based on the definition of Schedule 1 drug, I'd say nope -- doesn't fit. Not that I am a proponent of drugs or marijuana in particular -- I don't really think that stuff is good for you. But I'm not your mommy and neither is the government. So, political bullshit aside, it seems pretty obvious that it should be reclassified.

    --
    "Anybody remotely interesting is mad in some way." - The Doctor
  • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:37PM

    by tathra (3367) on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:37PM (#110015)

    the real problem with putting stuff in schedule 1 - "no accepted medical use" - is that it puts a complete ban on research required to show potential uses. psychedelics, mdma especially, had a long history of proven medical use before being thrown in schedule 1. trials in the US have finally been allowed which have proven what has been known for decades, that mdma can cure PTSD; psychedelics can function as prophylactics for cluster headaches (headaches so bad you're ready to kill yourself for relief - i've had them and they really are that bad) and can also be used to cure drug addiction; and marijuana, because it functions like APAP (Tylenol, a fellow cannabinoid receptor agonist), has potential uses in pain relief, in addition to working as an appetite stimulant, and to ease nausea.

    the research ban from being in schedule 1 proves that its only political agendas behind putting stuff in schedule 1, because with no research being allowed to show uses and harms, the reason for being illegal sums up as "because we said so". prohibition only breeds contempt for the law. even law enforcement [www.leap.cc] recognizes the complete failure of, and dangers created by prohibition.

    • (Score: 2) by tathra on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:44PM

      by tathra (3367) on Saturday October 25 2014, @05:44PM (#110016)

      to anyone interested in some of the potential uses for schedule 1 drugs, check out MAPS [maps.org], the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. some new pending research trials include marijuana to treat PTSD, lsd to treat anxiety disorders, and ayahuasca (dmt) for drug addiction. most of the research has to be done outside of the US due to the total research ban on schedule 1 substances.

    • (Score: 2) by deimtee on Saturday October 25 2014, @11:54PM

      by deimtee (3272) on Saturday October 25 2014, @11:54PM (#110109) Journal

      the research ban from being in schedule 1 proves that its only political agendas behind putting stuff in schedule 1, because with no research being allowed to show uses and harms, the reason for being illegal sums up as "because we said so". prohibition only breeds contempt for the law. even law enforcement [www.leap.cc] recognizes the complete failure of, and dangers created by prohibition.

      I bet being an active member of LEAP is career ending in many places. (at least an end to any promotions, even if you manage to keep your job)

      --
      If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
  • (Score: 1) by JimmyCrackCorn on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:38AM

    by JimmyCrackCorn (1495) on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:38AM (#110141)

    If you want to see the truth. look up US patent 6,630,507B1. Oct 7, 2003