DEA Plans To Decide Whether To Reschedule Marijuana By Mid-Year

originally posted by: Jakal26
How many times are these criminals going to repeat the "we need to facilitate research" garbage?
How much money is made when doing all this "research" and who is pocketing it? There is absolutely no way they are blind to the vast amount of research already done. It's all lies, from the ground up.

The fact that cannabis was EVER schedule 1 is 110% proof of their criminal activities (denying many medicine and freedom, supporting certain industry over others...etc etc etc...blah blah blah)

The fact that these assholes can stand and claim that cannabis has no medicinal value, the fact they call medicinal cannabis "a joke".....with all the research firmly in place for many years, it's proof that these assholes are willfully blind and deaf to the truth because they profit from prohibition (in more ways than one)....

The fact that these assholes will claim these things to the faces of the suffering is not only sickening, it IS a crime against humanity.
....I, for one, demand their heads! They are traitors to the human race and should be treated as such, their worthless lives snuffed out of existence...point blank. F**k them!

There is not much in this world that angers me more (given my proximity to the issue)...so much pain and suffering left unchecked, so much pain and suffering caused...lives destroyed, over a plant that has killed no one, not EVER!....

Goddamned bunch of crooks.
Hang them!

..............
Was that straight forward and politically incorrect enough?

..............
All the while, the industries that kill so many and destroy so much (alcohol, tobacco...others) march on, completely "legal" and within your rights to suicide yourself with (I say this as a drinker and a tobacco smoker)...

....grrrr, I'm going to shut up now....getting pissed for no good reason, and it's too early for that sh*t.

Completely agree and good rant. Alcohol is related to 25 - 30% of violent crimes. It's also related to approximately 36% of hospitalized assaults and 21% of all injuries, and is the most used substance when researching sexual assault.

Source

If people are serious about righting this wrong, they need to look for and find the discrepancies, and outdated opinions, that are now supported by facts, from the DEA itself.

www.dea.gov...

From the link ^

Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Schedule I drugs are the most dangerous drugs of all the drug schedules with potentially severe psychological or physical dependence. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide ('___'), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote

Medical and psychological professionals are the the ones who need to draft petitions to prove the highlighted text wrong as they are the only one's who can ultimately prove it..

www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov...

From the link ^

(32)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), the term "controlled substance analogue" means a substance— (i) the chemical structure of which is substantially similar to the chemical structure of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; (ii) which has a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II; or (iii) with respect to a particular person, which such person represents or intends to have a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system that is substantially similar to or greater than the stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system of a controlled substance in schedule I or II.

Subsections i ii and iii can easily be debunked by comparing the effects on the nervous systems by simple comparisons. Comparisons carried out by respected members of the medical community which then, again, need to draft the petitions. Poke enough holes in the definitions of what constitutes a schedule 1 drug and, by their own definitions, they will have to re-classify it. If they want to amend the criteria for what constitutes schedule 1 drugs, they would have to amend all drugs on that list. Those are their only choices.

Did I also hear something about money? Taxes from sales are only a part of the revenue the government would get from the legalization of cannabis. As pharmaceutical companies would eventually put this product in their inventory, their companies would be worth more. More taxes garnered from their worth. More worth placed on publicly traded pharmaceuticals would mean a higher stock value. Tell me people in Washington don't own stocks with this asset. Tell me they wouldn't make money hand over fist.

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Should have never been classified as a schedule 1 substance to begin with. You mean to tell me cannabis is more dangerous than coke? Than Meth? I never was able to buy that one...

I agree that it is stupid, and it should be at least "down-scheduled" (realistically, of course, fully legalized, as everyone with any sense knows), but the schedule isn't exactly a bad-to-worst categorization. The reason cannabis is schedule I, while coke and meth are not, is that coke and meth have recognized medical uses. Cocaine, for example, is (ironically) sometimes used to stop profuse nosebleeds in emergency rooms. Meth (go figure) can help morbidly obese people lose weight (with the added bonus of being able to cut their entire lawn with a pair of scissors late at night!)

In all seriousness, these are very heavily controlled drugs, with coc aine, as far as I know, only being used in medical settings (ER/OR at a hospital) and meth being RARELY prescribed, in extreme cases, under very close supervision. The sentencing guidelines for illegal posession of coke and meth are still MUCH heavier than for marijuana, despite being lower on the schedule. So the schedule, based on what it is meant to depict, does make sense, if you buy into the lie that marijuana has no medical use (the DEA still "believes" that, based on their official analysis to date.)

The below long-winded denial (at link) gives a pretty good idea of what needs to be overcome to change the classification. It should be easy at this point, but there is still a lot of nonsense to overcome.

Silly DEA Response from 2001

a reply to: Krazysh0t

it should probably be de-scheduled altogether, but that won't happen

Reclassify or face a revolution....its that simple....we no longer believe in the government lies....and they bloody well know it.....
Investigate the whole damn DEA for corruption while youre at it.....we already have proof the government is behind the massive drug trafficking into the country....
The war on drugs is a war on the citizens, and a money grab for the PTB.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The best reading I've come across from a policy perspective is this paper: Federal-State Marijuana Train Wreck

He saw this very issue being the wedge that would, ironically, assert state's rights at the behest of marijuana legalization. It's a done deal. Really, the single best win for state's rights advocates will be weed legalization. It takes a minute to let it sink in...

a reply to: FamCore

Agreed. Marijuana isn't dangerous enough to warrant being scheduled in the first place.

a reply to: butcherguy

No doubt. I was operating under the condition of discussing solely controlled substances. I think the majority of us know by now that alcohol and tobacco are demons masquerading as safe and legal options.



But as far as drugs are concerned cannabis is
still the safest choice. IF one chooses to go that way to begin with and of course we now know that cannabis does have medicinal value. Which is why humans come pre-packaged with cannabinoid receptors in the first place.

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah but with everyone getting all agitated lately, and all the evidence that's pro marijuana, they need to give us something to calm us down, and they are losing this fight anyway. Legalizing weed would be a great way to pacify a lot of agitated people. It might be a necessary sacrifice for them to help maintain the status quot. Seems the best option to me.

You do know that there is no correlation between legalization and increase in use, right?

People who use will continue to use, people who don't, won't.

originally posted by: rockintitz

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: butcherguy

Yeah but with everyone getting all agitated lately, and all the evidence that's pro marijuana, they need to give us something to calm us down, and they are losing this fight anyway. Legalizing weed would be a great way to pacify a lot of agitated people. It might be a necessary sacrifice for them to help maintain the status quot. Seems the best option to me.

You do know that there is no correlation between legalization and increase in use, right?

People who use will continue to use, people who don't, won't.

I'm not certain that's true - it depends on the situation, and I think it's more that legalization doesn't necessarily encourage those with no interest to take it up. Maybe it's mostly accurate and it's a negligible percentage, but I know myself and several others I know whose use will increase (from zero to some) once it's legalized. I certainly wouldn't pick up a 6-pack of beer from the "beer guy" if beer was illegal, knowing if I was caught with it on my way home, I could end up spending the night in jail.

I wouldn't mind an occasional "night-cap" if it was legal, but, being illegal, I won't risk the acquisition or transport, because, with a wife and kids (and a mortgage, etc.), I can't afford fines, court time, potentially jail time if I were to be arrested. If it became legal, I would become an occasional user. I wouldn't start shooting heroin or eating "bath salts" if they were to be made legal.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I believe that many folk who want to legalize cannabis are doing so because they want to sail through the Scottish mist legally-if you catch my drift. Yes hemp it is a robust fiber and yes it is does have medicinal purposes however like every other mind altering substance it will cause harm if abused.

Conversely in small doses Cannabis is not only beneficial but potentially life changing. All the great musicians have had 'inspiration' the Beatles being the prime example. IMO Cannabis and other drugs are healthy if used sparingly because they can open the mind but too much can ruin the mind.

a reply to: dogstar23

 I certainly wouldn't pick up a 6-pack of beer from the "beer guy" if beer was illegal, knowing if I was caught with it on my way home, I could end up spending the night in jail. 

Prohibition

Most people would. Ill take your argument the other way and say that maybe prohibiting a substance might stop a minute amount of users, most people will just continue to do their thing.

Prohibition is costly and leaves the door open for criminals.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I believe that many folk who want to legalize cannabis are doing so because they want to sail through the Scottish mist legally-if you catch my drift.

And if they are, so what? What's wrong with wanting to catch a buzz just because? I'm not going to hide my goals. I want weed to be legal because I like it. I'm not ashamed of this fact either. Different stroke for different folks, right?

a reply to: rockintitz

I agree with you about prohibition, which I think is stupid. What I'm saying is that, based on my personal beliefs and that of many people I know, usage would certainly increase in response to legalization. Wondering whether I was an exceptionally rare exception, I took to the Googles just now, and am mostly finding supporting research/polling. There's nothing wrong with that - it means legalization would be freeing people to do something harmless to others which they have previously been oppressed out of doing.

HuffPo/YouGov Poll

Results show that 26 percent of Americans say they would buy marijuana at least on rare occasions if it was legal in their state, compared to 9 percent who said they buy it at least on rare occasions now. The percentage who said they would buy marijuana often, jumped from 1 percent who do so now to 4 percent who would buy if it was legal.

150% higher rate of Canadian partakers if legal

Almost two out of every 10 Canadians reported having consumed marijuana in the past year, but more than 30 per cent of poll respondents said they would do so in the next year if it were legal.

Colorado - Increases since legalization

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I have sad the same thing since I joined the fight. I won't cover up the real reason I want cannabis legal. I don't want to have to fear incarceration simply because I enjoy using cannabis. That's not to say that marijuana doesn't have medical uses, because it DOES, its just that that is part of the fight as well. I'll cover my bases, sure, but I wont lie about my other motives either.

Btw, Krazysh0t, I'm glad to see you're still fighting this particular aspect of the proverbial "good fight".

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I believe that many folk who want to legalize cannabis are doing so because they want to sail through the Scottish mist legally-if you catch my drift.

And if they are, so what? What's wrong with wanting to catch a buzz just because? I'm not going to hide my goals. I want weed to be legal because I like it. I'm not ashamed of this fact either. Different stroke for different folks, right?

I have to back this up, I've always found this argument against it to be misguided, and very anti-American. I still to this day find it strange that Democrats and Independents have strong majorities in favor of legalization, while the Republican party - bastions of freedom and government non-interference still have a substantial majority in favor of the government deciding for people what they can and cannot consume. It's absolutely bizarre.

To be fair, early on in the past couple decades working toward legalization, proponents focused on the industrial uses and related benefits (environmental and economic) and medical uses. They're all GREAT reasons, though to a large degree, they were focused on mainly because anything else was taboo and certain to harm the argument, rather than help it. To be perfectly honest, I thought "medical marijuana" was mostly just an excuse until the past couple years, where we now know full well that it goes far beyond relieving headaches and glaucoma pressure.

The oppressors in our government, and those who support them, would frankly do better in a dictatorship than in a democracy (Republic) supposedly rooted in FREEDOM.

What else is there to do?!?! I want to know who is going to be held responsible for all the deaths from cancer? I believe without a doubt Nixon and his team knew all about MJ.........

originally posted by: CagliostroTheGreat
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Btw, Krazysh0t, I'm glad to see you're still fighting this particular aspect of the proverbial "good fight".

The war on drugs, its creation, and its on going effects, is one of the biggest conspiracy theories holding our country back as a nation. It's not something created by a single set of evil madmen either. It is a result of racism, bled into bureaucracy, bled into corruption, bled into complacency all mixed together to create a perfect storm of a cluster#.

a reply to: dogstar23

Hell yeah man. If you are going to argue in favor of something socially unacceptable that should be something socially acceptable then own it even while everyone else looks down on you for it.