This Monday, the Drug Policy Alliance and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies released a report titled "The DEA: Four Decades of Impeding and Rejecting Science." Using case studies from 1972 to the present, the report argues the ways the US Drug Enforcement Administration has suppressed research on the positive benefits of marijuana for medical use.
The crux of the report is this: The DEA has worked to paint marijuana into an inescapable corner by both repeatedly (and falsely) stating that marijuana has no proven medical use and by systematically impeding clinical research that would prove such medical benefit. This refusal to either acknowledge or study the drug allows it to continue being classified as a Schedule I drug, the most heavily regulated illegal substance.
From the story:
"It's like giving the Highway Patrol the ability to set speed limits," Sean Dunagan, a former DEA senior intelligence research specialist, told VICE News. Dunagan, a member of Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, said DEA culture is vehemently anti-drug and "stuck in the 1980's rhetoric" of the war on drugs.
"The DEA is never going to approach scheduling decisions on the basis of science," said Dunagan. "It's necessarily skewed in one direction."
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @05:05PM
Where do I sign up?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Buck Feta on Monday June 16 2014, @05:43PM
Over behind that waterfall of fluorescent chihuahuas, there's a door shaped like Alabama. Go down the corridor for about 12 minutes until you get to a room filled with singing penguins. The moon will have your paperwork.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 4, Funny) by janrinok on Monday June 16 2014, @05:57PM
Oh, come on mods, lighten up. This follows on from the parent post and is not a troll. You might not like the sense of humour, but that doesn't mean it should be modded into oblivion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @06:11PM
If SoylentNews hasn't changed it then slashcode, at least as I recall from past comments somewhere else, funny mods don't help the karma damaged from down mods either. If that remains the case here then mods should also keep that in mind when making corrections to moderation.
Only from reading comments of course as I am now, always was and will be just another Anonymous Coward and thus have never applied the moderation system.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday June 16 2014, @07:38PM
Slashdot started adding karma for funny posts years ago, so if funny gets no karma it's old code indeed.
Either way it just doesn't matter. Don't mod someone up to give them karma, that's an abuse of moderation. If you think it's funny mod it funny, if they're trying to be funny but falling on their faces mod them overrated.
Mod the comment, not the poster.
And AC, your comment is invisible to anyone who reads at 1, AC comments start at 0.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 1) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Monday June 16 2014, @10:41PM
Obstructing research? Man...
As long as they don't obstruct my access to munchies. Then we have a problem, brother.
Hey. Was that the last of the Doritos?
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Informative) by NCommander on Tuesday June 17 2014, @03:45AM
We grant karma for funny, /. doesn't (and hasn't in years)
Still always moving
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @06:24PM
shiny...
(Score: 3) by davester666 on Monday June 16 2014, @05:47PM
No need. We are already watching you.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday June 16 2014, @06:39PM
FTFY.
Telepathy (from the Ancient Greek [unicode], tele meaning "distant" and [unicode], pathos or -patheia meaning "feeling, perception, passion, affliction, experience") [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Monday June 16 2014, @05:17PM
"released a report"
That's right up there with having a drumming circle in terms of effectiveness. Maybe they should up their game and make a post on reddit, unless that's being too activist for them.
My point is something like everything they say is probably true, but wake me when they actually do something, like file a suit or get an injunction or get it admitted as evidence in a trial ... well pretty much "do" anything at all.
I can "release a report" about American foreign policy in Ecuador. Won't have any effect whatsoever even if 70% or so of the population more or less agrees with me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @05:38PM
Reports are the tools by which the elite convince politicians to act.
They don't just hand over a bag of money, they use the money to gain access to the politicians and then they give them something plausible that the politician can use to justify supporting that group's goals. They need it when the anti-drug politicians fight back with citations to their own reports.
These guys are playing the game the way the big boys do it.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday June 16 2014, @05:43PM
I'm more hung on the concept that this is news. I'm to lazy and to preoccupied to do any searches on the subject, but I recall reading various articles over the years. The DEA and/or the DOJ, and/or other government agencies have come down hard on any research into cannabis. One fuzzy memory on my mind at the moment, involved some students doing research, whose laboratory was raided. The government demanded to see all the tons of cannabis that they should have on hand, when in fact, the net sum of all their stock both past and present was a couple pounds. The study was naturally shut down because the researchers couldn't account for all that grass that MUST have been sold on the streets for zillions of dollars.
The DEA has never tolerated any independent research.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday June 16 2014, @06:42PM
The solution seems easy: conduct the research in a country, where it is legal to do so.
(Score: 1) by Kromagv0 on Monday June 16 2014, @07:11PM
Why do you hate America.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Monday June 16 2014, @09:13PM
Why do you say so?
I'm critical of any government that is not acting in the best interest* of our species (i.e. all of 'em).
* best interest, as in we live in abundance of resources & can all do what we feel like.
(Score: 1) by Kromagv0 on Tuesday June 17 2014, @12:13PM
I actually wasn't trying to criticize you, but attempting to make a joke that fell flat.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Tuesday June 17 2014, @01:55PM
Oops, sorry : )
(Score: 1) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday June 18 2014, @07:40PM
Not a problem. I should probably be better about putting in sarcasm tags.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 1) by fadrian on Monday June 16 2014, @09:18PM
... conduct the research in a country where it is legal to do so.
But, but... America is exceptional! I learned that in my American Exceptionalism class. Research done in other countries is de facto invalid because... because... Freedom! Yeah! That's it. Freedom! Woooo! USA! USA!
That is all.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday June 17 2014, @05:47AM
Just what we need, more offshoring.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Tuesday June 17 2014, @05:13AM
They don't mind independent research into the negative affects of marijuana and will even sponsor it, but only if independent.
Wish I could use the sarcasm tag but the above seems to be how it works, lots of research on the bad affects that seems independent but actually has funding strings or done by an institution that is known for its results.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 16 2014, @06:11PM
You sure wanna sleep 'til the heat death of the Universe?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @05:18PM
Now, I don't know about the DEA but the Office of National Drug Control Policy [whitehouse.gov]:
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17 2014, @02:07AM
So in other words, Schedule I substances are Schedule I because there will never be allowed any research on it to show any kind of benefit, which is needed to move it to Schedule II, and anyone attempting to do any research without federal approval will be immediately raided by the DEA and put in prison forever.
And the worst part is that "Just Say NO!" and other similar nonsense has so successfully demonized drugs that even people who cry "privacy! / rights! / freedom!" are really saying "[...for everybody except drug users]". Its disgusting.
To anybody who wants the Constitution shredding to stop, it first must be stopped in the very first government agency which codified ignoring the Constitution on a regular basis - the DEA.
(Score: 2) by JeanCroix on Tuesday June 17 2014, @02:40PM
So in other words, Schedule I substances are Schedule I because there will never be allowed any research on it to show any kind of benefit, which is needed to move it to Schedule II, and anyone attempting to do any research without federal approval will be immediately raided by the DEA and put in prison forever.
Yossarian lives!
(Score: 1) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @05:59PM
Follow the money. How much proof exists as to the involvement in the paper, lumber, cotton etc industries efforts to completely remove hemp products from the competitive field? How much of the early growth in its use was related to these efforts, if only in a response similar to the prohibition response post making it illegal? How much profit and for who in its control? How much power does it generate for the Feds?
LSD gained wide use after numerous government funded and sometimes run research, government was interested in its uses as a mind control drug. The exploits of some of the test subjects might prove interesting to many.
Cocaine was(is?) used to fund CIA black ops, mostly off the record ones of course.
Just the tip of the iceberg.
(Score: 2) by AsteroidMining on Monday June 16 2014, @06:18PM
Sure it was. The hippies and the student protestors smoked marijuana, and Ronald Reagan built his political career around bashing hippies and student protestors.
That government mandated drug-tests could be used to funnel money to politically well-connected conservative "entrepreneurs" was just a nice bonus.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16 2014, @06:54PM
The "Marihuana(sic) Act" was from 1937 and the AMA (American Medical Association) was on record as objecting to its creation and passage at the time. The efforts to ban it were funded by Randolph Hearst, the DuPonts and others. Hearst also used his publishing empire to attack the "demon weed". The "hippies" were mostly not even born yet (heck some of their parents weren't out of diapers yet even) and Reagan still hadn't made a movie yet, much less got into politics.
Of course you can argue that those events in part helped "set the stage" for such targets of opportunity. The major reason for the modifications to the education system came from the fear produced in the government by the "rebellious hippies" led by those who had learned too well the lies offered for their actions by the government regarding Vietnam, South America and elsewhere.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday June 17 2014, @05:21AM
All true. As well there were government agencies (G-men) who had had a taste of power during prohibition and were happy to get it back.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Monday June 16 2014, @07:54PM
Reagan didn't start it, the original "war on drugs" was Nixon's. His was the administration that hated college students and hippies and demonstrators; I remember no demonstrations at all during Reagan's administration but they were almost daily from Johnson through Nixon. Pot became illegal in the 1930s (look up Harry Anslinger" on wikipedia).
Reagan's "war on drugs" was because he wanted to finance a war that Congress didn't want financed, so (as rumor had it at the time) he cracked down on pot and had the CIA import coke. It worked. Every time I wanted pot, the answer was "it's really dry, man. Want some coke?"
You can blame Reagan on the cocaine epidemic, freebasing, and the invention of crack.
I don't know about the eighties, but they couldn't detect pot in the seventies. You can blame the crack epidemic partly on drug testing; the cheap tests employers give can only detect cocaine for three days, but pot shows up for a month. I knew people personally who substituted crack for pot when they were looking for work, only to ruin their lives and become homeless. That shit's nasty. But the government lied about pot, why should anybody believe them about crack?
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 4, Informative) by PinkyGigglebrain on Monday June 16 2014, @07:34PM
Researchers could get grants if their proposed study was to "prove the detrimental effects" of cannabis but when a multi year study asked for another round of funding and reported that what they had found so far was that Cannabis was not as harmful as they thought the funding would get denied and the preliminary findings buried.
If you can find a copy read "The Emperor Wears No Cloths" (ISBN:1-878125-02-8) by Jack Herer. Very interesting read about the history of Cannabis prohibition starting in 1936 till today and just what you can really do with Hemp. Those "canvas covered wagons" the yanks are so proud of in the Old West, guess what canvas was made from back then (hint, "canvas" is Dutch for ... Guess what?")? Levis jeans where made from that same canvas, and lasted so long they would get passed down to their children. You can make paper from it that does NOT need sulfuric acid and can last for THOUSANDS of years. Then there are the medical uses that everyone is talking about now. And the list just goes on.
Sorry to rant, this is one of those topics that pisses me off when I hear people spouting off the Anti Drug rhetoric that they swallowed hook, line and sinker. And no wants to get the facts for themselves.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Monday June 16 2014, @07:57PM
The FBI is supposed to investigate Federal crimes. Why is there a DEA at all? And they certainly shouldn't be classifying drugs, the FDA should be doing that.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org