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
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.
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".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nyder on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:22AM
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
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
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.
"Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @02:47AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Tobacco is the gateway drug which leads to marijuana.
1702845791×2
(Score: 2) by pnkwarhall on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:39PM
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
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
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
WTF does "should of" mean?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 25 2014, @04:06AM
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
You missed you chance as well.
(Score: 2) by Geotti on Saturday October 25 2014, @10:53AM
As did you, since you should've just pointed to Muphry's Law [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by art guerrilla on Saturday October 25 2014, @12:23PM
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
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
"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
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
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
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:-
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday October 25 2014, @06:15PM
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
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
ugh. cigarettes.
Nothing about you is permanent.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday October 25 2014, @07:42PM
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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)
One job constant is that good employers have low turnover, so opportunities to join good employers are relatively rare.
(Score: 1) by JimmyCrackCorn on Sunday October 26 2014, @02:38AM
If you want to see the truth. look up US patent 6,630,507B1. Oct 7, 2003