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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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.”