Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday August 12 2016, @01:04PM   Printer-friendly
from the legalize-it dept.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has once again rejected attempts to reschedule cannabis and allow medical cannabis federally:

The Obama administration has denied a bid by two Democratic governors to reconsider how it treats marijuana under federal drug control laws, keeping the drug for now, at least, in the most restrictive category for U.S. law enforcement purposes. Drug Enforcement Administration chief Chuck Rosenberg says the decision is rooted in science. Rosenberg gave "enormous weight" to conclusions by the Food and Drug Administration that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States," and by some measures, it remains highly vulnerable to abuse as the most commonly used illicit drug across the nation.

"This decision isn't based on danger. This decision is based on whether marijuana, as determined by the FDA, is a safe and effective medicine," he said, "and it's not." Marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, alongside heroin and LSD, while other, highly addictive substances including oxycodone and methamphetamine are regulated differently under Schedule II of the law. But marijuana's designation has nothing to do with danger, Rosenberg said.

The Post article notes:

In the words of a 2015 Brookings Institution report, a move to Schedule II "would signal to the medical community that [the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health] are ready to take medical marijuana research seriously, and help overcome a government-sponsored chilling effect on research that manifests in direct and indirect ways."

However, the DEA will expand the number of locations federally licensed to grow cannabis for research from the current total of... 1: the University of Mississippi.

Related: Compassionate Investigational New Drug program


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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: 2, Disagree) by Francis on Friday August 12 2016, @02:31PM

    by Francis (5544) on Friday August 12 2016, @02:31PM (#387025)

    Well, no, there is no currently accepted use for marijuana in the US at the present. Because it's another federal agency that sets those rules. Whether or not there are any acceptable uses for marijuana is beside the point as the FDA hasn't found any yet. And they haven't found any yet in large part because they haven't really done any research on the matter.

    Also, homeopathic remedies aren't effective, but they are generally safe. The main risk there is withholding effective treatment. Which is the same as marijuana, but since there is an actual effective ingredient there's a possibility of some sort of interaction.

    Bottom line here is that we need more research to make appropriate changes to our drug policy. Allowing a bunch of stoners to throw a hissy fit isn't a replacement for proper research studies.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Disagree=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Friday August 12 2016, @02:34PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday August 12 2016, @02:34PM (#387026) Journal

    Allowing a bunch of stoners to throw a hissy fit isn't a replacement for proper research studies.

    In the words of a 2015 Brookings Institution report, a move to Schedule II "would signal to the medical community that [the Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health] are ready to take medical marijuana research seriously, and help overcome a government-sponsored chilling effect on research that manifests in direct and indirect ways."

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Whoever on Friday August 12 2016, @02:48PM

    by Whoever (4524) on Friday August 12 2016, @02:48PM (#387038) Journal

    Bottom line here is that we need more research to make appropriate changes to our drug policy. Allowing a bunch of stoners to throw a hissy fit isn't a replacement for proper research studies.

    Like studies that show lower rates of opioid abuse in states that allow medical marijuana [norml.org]? Let's not forget that the federal government has done much to suppress research on medical uses of marijuana, so calls for more research are a little disingenuous.

    That should be a clear indication of how wrong the current classification is. Limited legalization of marijuana results in reduced abuse of abuse of much more dangerous drugs. What it also shows is that the current classification of marijuana is based on politics, not science.

    Before you make assumptions about me: I have never taken any illegal drug.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday August 12 2016, @02:58PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday August 12 2016, @02:58PM (#387042) Journal

      Before you make assumptions about me: I have never taken any illegal drug.

      There's no such thing as an illegal drug!

      This post may or may not be a shitpost.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Friday August 12 2016, @03:43PM

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Friday August 12 2016, @03:43PM (#387060) Journal

      Let's not forget that the federal government has done much to suppress research on medical uses of marijuana, so calls for more research are a little disingenuous.

      Indeed. I don't think many people realize that the criminalization of marijuana at the federal level was mostly the work of the overbearing Harry Anslinger [wikipedia.org], who deliberately sought to distort public perception, medical studies, and just about anything that stood in his way in his quest against "the reefer." After J. Edgar Hoover, Anslinger probably deserves a prize as being one of the most overbearing thugs at the head of a government agency during the expansion of federal government power in the mid-1900s.

      As the first commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics [wikipedia.org] (then part of the Treasury Department), for some reason he chose marijuana as the way to "make his name" for the new bureau. (He had been involved in stings under alcohol prohibition, but with alcohol prohibition repealed, he needed a "new problem to solve," and he went after marijuana. Previously, he had not considered marijuana use to be a significant issue.) There are some conspiracy theories that say this all was driven by wealthy folks pressuring him and others in the government, e.g., paper producers who were worried that hemp fiber might become a cheap new competitor, clothing manufacturers, etc. I don't put a lot of stock in all that, though maybe it had some influence.

      Anyhow, back to the medical stuff -- it's really crazy if you look at the history of how this stuff became criminalized. Back then, the federal government didn't yet have authority under the enumerated powers to regulate drugs (hence the Constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol), so they instead sought to tax drugs and use other methods to suppress their use. Anslinger's first attack was with the organization of the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act [wikipedia.org] of 1934. (For those unfamiliar with earlier Constitutional history, "uniform acts" were Congressional acts passed with the intent of establishing consistent policies across all states -- the federal government couldn't force adoption, but the hope was that all the state legislatures would pass the same laws.)

      But the Uniform Act was a disaster. Only 9 states actually adopted it. People really didn't care about marijuana. It was not a major issue. And despite the fact the American Medical Association repeatedly recommended further study in the drafting of the legislation, the Uniform Act was passed without any scientific findings whatsoever. (In fact, at one point in the drafting process, the AMA recommended that marijuana be downgraded from the list of "habit forming drugs," due to lack of evidence.)

      So, Anslinger was stuck -- states didn't adopt the Uniform Act, and the AMA didn't seem to think marijuana was a problem. So he decided to make his case to the public in the form of completely bogus propaganda -- William Randolph Hearst (the newspaper mogul who was a big supporter of Anslinger) waged a huge media campaign implying that marijuana was this gateway drug to perdition, creating addicts who would commit murder, rape, and sometimes die of overdose. All of this was completely unsubstantiated in the scientific literature. (The campy film Reefer Madness [wikipedia.org] is a classic example of similar propaganda created by this hysteria.) A lot of this propaganda was fundamentally racist, implying that blacks and hispanics who used marijuana would do things like rape white people and spread STDs.

      In the wake of this hysteria, Anslinger lobbied hard for the passage of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 [wikipedia.org] to beef up federal regulations specifically on the drug. Once again, physicians were not consulted, and in fact the legislative counsel for the AMA said that many doctors were caught off-guard by this bill (which had been drafted without the AMA), since the term "marijuana" (or "marihuana" as in the title of the act) was not yet common, and many doctors didn't even realize that cannabis was being targeted.

      Subsequently, the LaGuardia Comittee [wikipedia.org] headed by the well-known New York mayor actually examined the existing science of the time. It concluded (in 1944!) that there was no evidence of marijuana being a gateway drug to worse narcotics nor that it caused the kind of addiction noted in other drugs. As in the 1930s, Anslinger's response was a report largely based on racism, noting that blacks who smoked the reefer apparently got upset about military segregation.

      Marijuana was put on Schedule I with the new Controlled Substances Act in 1970, whose passage followed soon after the overturning of the 1937 act in Leary v. United States [wikipedia.org]. The federal government obviously wanted to send a strong message on marijuana in replacing the old legislation (and also given the level of marijuana use among "hippies" and such at the time, who also could then be conveniently arrested if they created trouble as political dissidents), so it was placed on Schedule I, in accordance with the level of threat Anslinger had recommended decades before.

      Bottom line: The war on marijuana played a pivotal role in the establishment of federal drug policy, though it was never based substantively on medical evidence. Moving it out of Schedule I would require effectively admitting that the foundation of federal drug policy was basically created on a bunch of lies and propaganda -- not the mention the issue of what to do with the literally millions of people who have been arrested (and sometimes put in jail) over marijuana-related crimes. The ACLU estimates that half of all drug arrests in the US are related to marijuana. ANY weakness in marijuana policy would have MASSIVE implications.

      This has never been much about medical evidence.

      [Personal disclosure: I have NO interest in using marijuana or any other currently illegal drug.]

      • (Score: 1) by cmdrklarg on Friday August 12 2016, @06:13PM

        by cmdrklarg (5048) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 12 2016, @06:13PM (#387113)
        Considering the multitude of people profiting mightily from The War On Freedom^H^H^H Drugs, I am not at all surprised. What would surprise me is if they would actually act upon this injustice.
        --
        The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @06:36PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 12 2016, @06:36PM (#387118)

        > After J. Edgar Hoover, Anslinger probably deserves a prize as being one of the most overbearing thugs at the head of a government agency during the expansion of federal government power in the mid-1900s.

        Pretty sure Allen "Operation Sunrise" Dulles deserves a shoutout here too.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday August 12 2016, @11:31PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday August 12 2016, @11:31PM (#387246)

        Or, to summarize: Some powerful men in government decided to boost their own careers by locking up non-white men and occasionally annoying left-wing types by the millions (and conveniently legalizing discrimination against them for life) and declaring it was all for their health. That's all the War on Drugs has ever been.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 2) by Whoever on Saturday August 13 2016, @02:07AM

        by Whoever (4524) on Saturday August 13 2016, @02:07AM (#387316) Journal

        I am still puzzled about how it took a constitutional amendment to ban alcohol, but the Controlled Substances Act merely required approval by Congress and the President.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Friday August 12 2016, @04:14PM

    by sjames (2882) on Friday August 12 2016, @04:14PM (#387069) Journal

    The FDA is pointedly looking away from the massive body of existing evidence. They are not interested in evidence, they are only interested in having their boots licked.

    I firmly believe regulation of food and drugs is necessary, just not by the FDA. That organization needs to be chopped up for firewood and replaced by a new body that will stay on mission.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 12 2016, @06:14PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 12 2016, @06:14PM (#387114) Journal

      The "Chopped up and replaced" is a reasonable solution, but expecting an agency to "stay on mission" isn't reasonable. The only agencies that exhibit "staying on mission" are those that do not become centers of power. If they do, the controlling positions will be acquired by someone who desires to exercise power for the purpose of exercising power, with the official mission secondary if it's considered at all as anything other than a justifier.

      Note: If the FDA had no other power than granting an approval sticker, it would probably have done a much better job of "staying on mission". This is because it's only power then would be it's reputation, so nobody primarily interested in power would have found it attractive. (The approval sticker cannot be a requirement to allow sale, or this becomes invalid.)

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday August 12 2016, @07:12PM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday August 12 2016, @07:12PM (#387132) Journal

        Understood that agencies will tend over time to go off mission. That just means it's time to replace them. Fully agreed about restricting whatever would replace the FDA to approval stickers, though I would also allow warning stickers based of doubtful efficacy or actual danger to health. The FTC is better suited to making sure the product contents and purity match the label. That would make the drift take longer and cause less harm.

    • (Score: 1) by lgw on Friday August 12 2016, @09:24PM

      by lgw (2836) on Friday August 12 2016, @09:24PM (#387177)

      I feel exactly the same way about the EPA, for the same reason. Sure, the new ones will be just as bad in 50 years, but at least sanity will return for 30+ years.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday August 12 2016, @09:43PM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday August 12 2016, @09:43PM (#387190) Journal

        I would say government agencies fall under Twain's advice: “Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason.”

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday August 12 2016, @04:30PM

    by kurenai.tsubasa (5227) on Friday August 12 2016, @04:30PM (#387077) Journal

    I, for one, will be throwing a hissy fit at the ballot box this year and every year until cannabis is legal for recreational activity. As long as the D team seriously intends to explore the pathway towards legalization, they're worth voting for as far as I care. (May even yet have a change of heart and rethink my views about lizard people, but I remain a mammal supremacist for now.) This news does give me some pause, however. General advice to any reader who shares my sentiment is to remember to head over to NORML and check out how they rate your congress critters (can't give link since this is one site I do not go to at work). There are some R team who deserve a vote to further legalization and some D team that need to be voted out already (looking at Wasserman-Schultz at the moment, for a whole constellation of reasons including her position on the topic at hand).

    Many (most?) people are immune to information (yeah, guilty as charged on certain things), which is a big reason I'm a libertarian. I don't think all the links in the world to the new research that's overturning the decades of cargo cult “science” would convince you that the federal bureaucracy is objectively wrong here, but libertarianism offers a convenient way to simply agree to disagree with various people about various things. Authoritarianism takes that possibility off the table.

    Now, if you want a plant to ban, there's that jimson weed (datura) that AC was going on about a while back. Go ahead and ban that, seize the assets of anybody who has some, and exterminate it where it's found in the wild. Maybe it could be used for research into disassociative fugue? Robotripping is a better idea. I suppose I can't help myself at least giving yet another data point to underscore the absolute hypocrisy of the FDA and DEA, but take a gander over here [erowid.org]. It's not scheduled and is legal in all but a handful of states and the UK. I skimmed through the FAQ here [erowid.org] and perhaps I'm too harsh on datura based on the experience reports I've read (also on Erowid). I haven't experienced a hallucination I wasn't aware was simply a vivid daydream, but datura can apparently do that and can also make it impossible to tell the difference between waking reality and dreaming. That sounds fucking dangerous to me! (I would like to find an experienced lucid dreamer's take on that, though.)

    A fun one politically is nutmeg (not a fun experience imo but some people swear by it). Most of us would probably throw a hissy fit if that were illegal with cries of “they can take my pumpkin pie from my cold, dead hands!“ Yet, eat enough of it at once and its psychoactive effects last somewhere around 72 hours. (Do not do this unless you have at least 4 consecutive days with absolutely no responsibilities.)

    I also thought it was interesting that at one point everybody was having shit fits over yet another plant called salvia divinorum [wikipedia.org] and it was getting banned all over the place with people freaking the fuck out that it was turning their children to drugs and Satan and teenage rebellion and rock and roll probably too. (Gateway drug theory just will not die!) Salvia's length of experience is roughly 20 minutes tops but I never personally had any kind of reliable success with it (either immune or was doing it wrong).

    There. Two plants that are illegal, cannabis and salvia, despite being harmless and having durations measured in hours and minutes respectively alongside two plants that are legal, nutmeg and datura, but have durations measured in days and can cause other potentially dangerous side effects such as dehydration with both and an inability to tell the difference between dreams and reality with datura. I don't know how any thinking person can be capable of failing to see the problem here, but I suppose I wouldn't be surprised if, in my exuberance, I inadvertently convince somebody that nutmeg must be banned.

    As far as I go, I do just wanna get high. I would never be able to quantify exactly how it improves my life or why nothing else can do (or why psychologists and doctors can't fit me neatly into a diagnostic code or three). You'd need to have walked miles in my shoes to even begin to understand why or the underpinnings of my crazy.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Friday August 12 2016, @04:35PM

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 12 2016, @04:35PM (#387081) Journal

    > Also, homeopathic remedies aren't effective, but they are generally safe.

    Homeopathic remedies are extremely effective for treating people suffering from dehydration. Drinking pure water is exactly what those people need. And it is a safe. :-)

    --
    People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.