Marijuana to Remain a Schedule 1 Drug

[CheddarJack]

that graph looks like it was made for grade 9 health class

Either way, as you can see, cannabis has 1.5 dependences and 1 physical harm so clearly it shouldn't be classified as schedule 1

 

[CheddarJack]

Also, is the DEA responsible for outlawing or creating drug laws, or just enforcing them?

Enforcing. It's in the name. Lawmakers make the laws.

 

[TheHamburglar]

Probably. But this is a discussion about why weed is schedule 1. And according to the current guidelines, I very much understand why it is ranked schedule 1.

I see your point. I agree with someone who said it all comes down to money- there's huge profiteering from weed being illegal, and those making the dough are pushing agendas to keep it illegal (imo, I have no definitive proof)

While we're on the topic, live resin is the shit, and pressed rosin is the shit. anyone ever press a fresh crop?

 

[californiagrown]

Enforcing. It's in the name. Lawmakers make the laws.

You sure they do not have a role in policy making?

Either way, I don't think they are the main culprit here. They are given a mandate, and they are duty-bound to carry out that mandate.

If folks want change, start electing people who support that change... and that means city councils, mayor's, and state legislators.

 

[TheHamburglar]

Either way, as you can see, cannabis has 1.5 dependences and 1 physical harm so clearly it shouldn't be classified as schedule 1

see, I don't get how someone can generalize the amount of physical harm, is that from smoked marijuana? and how much is being smoked? from an asthmatic with COPD, I can definitely tell you smoked marijuana causes physical harm greater than, say, LSD, which is rated higher on the list

 

[humpty]

Way to go, government. As an avid reefer, I'm past the point of caring. Nothing we can do will change things, and the government can't stop me from smoking weed.

i just act like its legal

 

[Gods_Father]

When you use weed to get high, you are abusing weed.

How so? Getting high is not "bad" and causes no harm to anyone. When you use coffee for the high, are you not abusing that drug too? Are you fine with alcohol being legal, if using your logic, anyone who drinks alcohol must be abusing it since they are drinking to feel intoxicated.

 

[californiagrown]

How so? Getting high is not "bad" and causes no harm to anyone. When you use coffee for the high, are you not abusing that drug too? Are you fine with alcohol being legal, if using your logic, anyone who drinks alcohol must be abusing it since they are drinking to feel intoxicated.

If you're drinking to get drunk, yes you're abusing alcohol. If youre drinking coffee to the point of being jittery, yes you are abusing it.

But again, we are talking about why weed is a schedule 1. Not why other drugs are not.

 

[Gods_Father]

If you're drinking to get drunk, yes you're abusing alcohol. If youre drinking coffee to the point of being jittery, yes you are abusing it.

But again, we are talking about why weed is a schedule 1. Not why other drugs are not.

No, talking about how using weed to get high is abuse. Getting a high from smoking cannabis is just one of the many uses of the plant. How is it abuse, it is not bad and does no harm? You get high when you drink coffee, it's not bad and causes no harm, that is the same and should be considered abuse?

 

[californiagrown]

No, talking about how using weed to get high is abuse. Getting a high from smoking cannabis is just one of the many uses of the plant. How is it abuse, it is not bad and does no harm? You get high when you drink coffee, it's not bad and causes no harm, that is the same and should be considered abuse?

Da fuck kind of coffee are you using to get high? Lol

 

[Gods_Father]

Da fuck kind of coffee are you using to get high? Lol

Coffee is a drug that gets you high. Let's use a different example then. When someone experiences a high after running for a long period of time, are they abusing that drug(running)?

 

[californiagrown]

Coffee is a drug that gets you high. Let's use a different example then. When someone experiences a high after running for a long period of time, are they abusing that drug(running)?

Does your average coke user abuse coke?

Are you saying that you have to be an addict to abuse something?

How would you define abuse?

 

[Gods_Father]

Does your average coke user abuse coke?

Are you saying that you have to be an addict to abuse something?

How would you define abuse?

You said simply by using a drug to get high you are abusing it. I'd define it as something that is used for a bad effect or for a bad purpose.

 

[californiagrown]

You said simply by using a drug to get high you are abusing it. I'd define it as something that is used for a bad effect or for a bad purpose.

So recreational use of heroin, meth, blow etc 4-5 days a week is not abuse?

 

[Gods_Father]

So recreational use of heroin, meth, blow etc 4-5 days a week is not abuse?

Duno, depends on the individual. Is the drug use having a negative effect on their life? But you said just using the drug to get high is abuse, not using it 4-5 days a week.

 

[californiagrown]

Duno, depends on the individual. Is the drug use having a negative effect on their life? But you said just using the drug to get high is abuse, not using it 4-5 days a week.

Yeah, i think that people using a drug to get high is abuse. You can drink alcohol without getting drunk. You can drink coffee without getting super jittery. But drinking either to get high or drunk is abuse IMO.

I was asking how you would define abuse, and you seem to have a lot of trouble defining it. I guess you dont think that there exists a schedule 1 drug?

 

[Gods_Father]

Yeah, i think that people using a drug to get high is abuse. You can drink alcohol without getting drunk. You can drink coffee without getting super jittery. But drinking either to get high or drunk is abuse IMO.

I was asking how you would define abuse, and you seem to have a lot of trouble defining it. I guess you dont think that there exists a schedule 1 drug?

Alright, so I guess people drinking coffee to feel awake are drug abusers and so are runners who get a runners high. I have trouble defining abuse?

"I'd define it as something that is used for a bad effect or for a bad purpose."

 

[californiagrown]

Alright, so I guess people drinking coffee to feel awake are drug abusers and so are runners who get a runners high. I have trouble defining abuse?

"I'd define it as something that is used for a bad effect or for a bad purpose."

correct me if i am wrong, but i do not believe running is a drug. lol

people drinking coffee to help wake up would be using it for medicinal purposes. Not to mention coffee is an extremely healthy drink in moderate dosages.

If you would not consider using heroin, meth, or blow multiple times per week to get high abuse of those drugs, then we have fundamentally different views on what constitutes abuse in this world. And that is okay. But if you want this world to more accurately reflect your views, you need to actively change this country's policies. Do you vote in your local elections? Help out, and donate to candidates whose views jive with yours? Write and call your state congressman? Im not the one you need to convince.

 

[Gods_Father]

correct me if i am wrong, but i do not believe running is a drug. lol

people drinking coffee to help wake up would be using it for medicinal purposes. Not to mention coffee is an extremely healthy drink in moderate dosages.

If you would not consider using heroin, meth, or blow multiple times per week to get high abuse of those drugs, then we have fundamentally different views on what constitutes abuse in this world. And that is okay. But if you want this world to more accurately reflect your views, you need to actively change this country's policies. Do you vote in your local elections? Help out, and donate to candidates whose views jive with yours? Write and call your state congressman? Im not the one you need to convince.

Change the policies of what lol?Where'd that come from? All I was asking you was why you would consider it abuse to use a drug one time to get high? And yes, running is a drug. Using your logic, a person using coffee to get high is a drug abuser.

 

[californiagrown]

Change the policies of what lol?Where'd that come from? All I was asking you was why you would consider it abuse to use a drug one time to get high? And yes, running is a drug. Using your logic, a person using coffee to get high is a drug abuser.

The policies and interpretation of what is considered a high abuse drug. You seem passionate about this issue.

Running is not a drug, it is an activity/sport. The enorphins it can release could potentially be considered drugs.

coffee to get high, would absolutely qualify as abuse. coffee to help wake up in the morning would be considered medicinal/theraputic.

Any more questions?

 

[Gods_Father]

The policies and interpretation of what is considered a high abuse drug. You seem passionate about this issue.

Running is not a drug, it is an activity/sport. The enorphins it can release could potentially be considered drugs.

coffee to get high, would absolutely qualify as abuse. coffee to help wake up in the morning would be considered medicinal/theraputic.

Any more questions?

No more passionate than you?

So how is it abuse to use a drug one time to get high? Running is a drug, buddy, you get high from it. Coffee waking you up is you being high.

 

[californiagrown]

No more passionate than you?

So how is it abuse to use a drug one time to get high? Running is a drug, buddy, you get high from it. Coffee waking you up is you being high.

i completely disagree with you. there is a difference between a therapeutic level of a drug, and abuse to get high.

the fact you believe running is a drug and cling to that statement is making me think of that old saying "never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". haha

 

[Gods_Father]

i completely disagree with you. there is a difference between a therapeutic level of a drug, and abuse to get high.

the fact you believe running is a drug and cling to that statement is making me think of that old saying "never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". haha

How is it abuse to use a drug one time to get high?

skiing is a drug too.

 

[Gods_Father]

Someone could use cannabis daily as an appetite stimulant, sleep aid, stress reliever, pain reliever. How is that abuse if it's therapeutic?

 

[californiagrown]

Someone could use cannabis daily as an appetite stimulant, sleep aid, stress reliever, pain reliever. How is that abuse if it's therapeutic?

If they need medicine to treat a lack of appetite, insomnia, anxiety, and chronic pain, then yes. That would be medical marijuana.

More questions?

 

[Gods_Father]

If they need medicine to treat a lack of appetite, insomnia, anxiety, and chronic pain, then yes. That would be medical marijuana.

More questions?

"According to the law, weed has no beneficial uses. Therefore, people who use it to get high would be abusing it as compared to those using it for medical purposes. "

But smoking cannabis to get High is therapeutic....the high is therapeutic.

 

[californiagrown]

"According to the law, weed has no beneficial uses. Therefore, people who use it to get high would be abusing it as compared to those using it for medical purposes. "

yes. which is why i understand why the government has it as a schedule 1 drug.

more questions?

 

[Gods_Father]

Hahaha

 

[onenerdykid]

I think over use is abuse. That's how most people use the word. When you overuse a company car, you are abusing your privileges. When you use Robitussin to robotrip, you are abusing Robitussin. When you use weed to get high, you are abusing weed.

Drug use - simple usage of a drug (of which there can be degrees, for good and bad)

Drug misuse - not using the drug as it was intended

Drug abuse - prolonged and repeated use that leads to self-harm and/or the harm of others

These words & definitions exist because it's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. There is a spectrum of use, some/much of which is not good. And that spectrum, especially of what constitutes acceptable use, can change per drug (see my next point below).

No, talking about how using weed to get high is abuse. Getting a high from smoking cannabis is just one of the many uses of the plant. How is it abuse, it is not bad and does no harm? You get high when you drink coffee, it's not bad and causes no harm, that is the same and should be considered abuse?

Yeah, i think that people using a drug to get high is abuse. You can drink alcohol without getting drunk. You can drink coffee without getting super jittery. But drinking either to get high or drunk is abuse IMO.

I was asking how you would define abuse, and you seem to have a lot of trouble defining it. I guess you dont think that there exists a schedule 1 drug?

I do agree with you, California, that you can drink alcohol without getting drunk. This would be what is considered a virtuous usage of alcohol- the right amount for you. It's not too little, it's not too much, it's the right amount. I can have a little bit and still retain my rational capacity as a human being or my free will or other such faculties. This is what your argument seems to revolve around. If we apply this to other drugs, such as heroin, I would most likely agree with you that there is no way to virtuously do heroin since the simple usage of it is not like that of alcohol. We can say the same for many drugs, perhaps included in that is marijuana.

So I think it is helpful and meaningful to clarify between virtuous drug use, non-virtuous drug use, and drug abuse. And again, there may be drugs that we cannot do virtuously but that does not equate to it being abused. Actual drug abuse is a result of prolonged over use that leads to self-harm and/or the harm of others. It is therefore a far worse thing than non-virtuous drug use and this is why a drug's potential for abuse ranks so importantly within the drug scheduling system.

 

[DayMan]

Really hoping that the amendment passes in November to make it legal in Florida for medical use. There's already a dispensary where I live but to go there you have to be diagnosed with a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than one year, which is complete nonsense.

 

[arnie_grape]

both your arguments are shit. go home.

 

[arnie_grape]

There's already a dispensary where I live but to go there you have to be diagnosed with a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than one year, which is complete nonsense.

I could give you aids

 

[CheddarJack]

Really hoping that the amendment passes in November to make it legal in Florida for medical use. There's already a dispensary where I live but to go there you have to be diagnosed with a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than one year, which is complete nonsense.

How much business could that possibly get without anyone cheating the system...

 

[qazwsxedc34]

Honestly, marijuana should not be labeled as a schedule 1 drug. It can prevent the growth of certain tumors and that in and of itself completely contradicts the definition of a schedule 1 drug. Obviously, there are health concerns and abuse potential with smoking the substance but to ignore its medicinal properties is ludicrous. Kratom is another example of a substance that has recently come into legislative light. Yes, it has the potential for abuse but it also can be used to help patents suffering from CFS, Lyme disease and can also ween off heroin users. I have taken Kratom because I have debilitating joint pain from Lyme disease and I do not want to have to take synthetic pharmaceuticals based on a legality issue. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm an adult, leave me the fuck alone.

[img=]http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/files/1-medical-marijuana-images/ranking-20-drugs-and-alcohol-by-overall-harm.png[/img]

 

[californiagrown]

Drug use - simple usage of a drug (of which there can be degrees, for good and bad)

Drug misuse - not using the drug as it was intended

Drug abuse - prolonged and repeated use that leads to self-harm and/or the harm of others

These words & definitions exist because it's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. There is a spectrum of use, some/much of which is not good. And that spectrum, especially of what constitutes acceptable use, can change per drug (see my next point below).

I do agree with you, California, that you can drink alcohol without getting drunk. This would be what is considered a virtuous usage of alcohol- the right amount for you. It's not too little, it's not too much, it's the right amount. I can have a little bit and still retain my rational capacity as a human being or my free will or other such faculties. This is what your argument seems to revolve around. If we apply this to other drugs, such as heroin, I would most likely agree with you that there is no way to virtuously do heroin since the simple usage of it is not like that of alcohol. We can say the same for many drugs, perhaps included in that is marijuana.

So I think it is helpful and meaningful to clarify between virtuous drug use, non-virtuous drug use, and drug abuse. And again, there may be drugs that we cannot do virtuously but that does not equate to it being abused. Actual drug abuse is a result of prolonged over use that leads to self-harm and/or the harm of others. It is therefore a far worse thing than non-virtuous drug use and this is why a drug's potential for abuse ranks so importantly within the drug scheduling system.

It sucks that it is a semantics game based upon subjective definitions... but such is life.

Honestly, marijuana should not be labeled as a schedule 1 drug. It can prevent the growth of certain tumors and that in and of itself completely contradicts the definition of a schedule 1 drug. Obviously, there are health concerns and abuse potential with smoking the substance but to ignore its medicinal properties is ludicrous. Kratom is another example of a substance that has recently come into legislative light. Yes, it has the potential for abuse but it also can be used to help patents suffering from CFS, Lyme disease and can also ween off heroin users. I have taken Kratom because I have debilitating joint pain from Lyme disease and I do not want to have to take synthetic pharmaceuticals based on a legality issue. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm an adult, leave me the fuck alone.

[img=]http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/files/1-medical-marijuana-images/ranking-20-drugs-and-alcohol-by-overall-harm.png[/img]

Again, precise dosing and isolating the specific therapeutic compounds is the issue. Till that happens, the FDA will never approve weed as actual medicine. Those are key criteria in the approval process.

I'm a big fan of legalization, personally. But that mostly has to do with the tax benefits to the state. At the end of the day, it's a recreational drug for the vast majority... so pretty damn low on my priority list of social issues, middle of the road for economic issues.

 

[Gods_Father]

I'm a big fan of legalization, personally. But that mostly has to do with the tax benefits to the state. At the end of the day, it's a recreational drug for the vast majority... so pretty damn low on my priority list of social issues, middle of the road for economic issues.

At the end of the day, it is a vegetable.

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

Honestly, marijuana should not be labeled as a schedule 1 drug. It can prevent the growth of certain tumors and that in and of itself completely contradicts the definition of a schedule 1 drug. Obviously, there are health concerns and abuse potential with smoking the substance but to ignore its medicinal properties is ludicrous. Kratom is another example of a substance that has recently come into legislative light. Yes, it has the potential for abuse but it also can be used to help patents suffering from CFS, Lyme disease and can also ween off heroin users. I have taken Kratom because I have debilitating joint pain from Lyme disease and I do not want to have to take synthetic pharmaceuticals based on a legality issue. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm an adult, leave me the fuck alone.

I'll reiterate what I said in a post above:

The reason you do not see a lot of "herbal" extracts used in medicines is due to the fact that they cannot be dosed appropriately/their efficacy is under question in a clinical setting. The FDA will NEVER let a drug, no matter the benefits, be approved if dosage levels, efficacy, and long-term safety results are not understood.

For example, there is a drug for a rare and fatal muscular dystrophy disease called Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) that has shown the ability to produce dystrophin (for some), therefore prolonging the lifespan of those affected (they live till 25). However, because of the trial design and the resulting data, it has not been approved despite pressure from politicians, patients, and patient-advocate groups.

The FDA has the responsibility to make sure no drug comes to the market that can do more harm than good, and if the FDA does not understand/approve of the dosage, efficacy, or safety profiles, it will not be approved. That is why you see marijuana, Kratom, and a whole host of other biologics and small molecules that are not approved for use in the USA.

Of course, with the marijuana side of things, companies are restricted by laws surrounding its usage for studies. That being said, you are seeing some cannabinoid-related drugs come through clinical trials, like GW Pharma's Epidiolex (CBD -based) or Insys's drug. Still, you have seen a host of others that have failed trials because they failed to meet their primary endpoints.

 

[californiagrown]

At the end of the day, it is a vegetable.

Same with the coca plant, and opium poppies etc.

I'll reiterate what I said in a post above:

The reason you do not see a lot of "herbal" extracts used in medicines is due to the fact that they cannot be dosed appropriately/their efficacy is under question in a clinical setting. The FDA will NEVER let a drug, no matter the benefits, be approved if dosage levels, efficacy, and long-term safety results are not understood.

For example, there is a drug for a rare and fatal muscular dystrophy disease called Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) that has shown the ability to produce dystrophin (for some), therefore prolonging the lifespan of those affected (they live till 25). However, because of the trial design and the resulting data, it has not been approved despite pressure from politicians, patients, and patient-advocate groups.

The FDA has the responsibility to make sure no drug comes to the market that can do more harm than good, and if the FDA does not understand/approve of the dosage, efficacy, or safety profiles, it will not be approved. That is why you see marijuana, Kratom, and a whole host of other biologics and small molecules that are not approved for use in the USA.

Of course, with the marijuana side of things, companies are restricted by laws surrounding its usage for studies. That being said, you are seeing some cannabinoid-related drugs come through clinical trials, like GW Pharma's Epidiolex (CBD -based) or Insys's drug. Still, you have seen a host of others that have failed trials because they failed to meet their primary endpoints.

I believe it should be an over the counter supplement similar to any other herbal remedy. No FDA regulations or oversight there. But I also think there should be an age restriction of 21.

Just gotta get folks to legalize it. It's a slow process, but the dominoes are certainly falling

 

[.MASSHOLE.]

Same with the coca plant, and opium poppies etc.

I believe it should be an over the counter supplement similar to any other herbal remedy. No FDA regulations or oversight there. But I also think there should be an age restriction of 21.

Just gotta get folks to legalize it. It's a slow process, but the dominoes are certainly falling

Correct me if I am wrong here, but most OTC Supplements do not (knowingly) alter mental capacity or impair judgement in any shape or form.

 

[qazwsxedc34]

I'll reiterate what I said in a post above:

The reason you do not see a lot of "herbal" extracts used in medicines is due to the fact that they cannot be dosed appropriately/their efficacy is under question in a clinical setting. The FDA will NEVER let a drug, no matter the benefits, be approved if dosage levels, efficacy, and long-term safety results are not understood.

For example, there is a drug for a rare and fatal muscular dystrophy disease called Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) that has shown the ability to produce dystrophin (for some), therefore prolonging the lifespan of those affected (they live till 25). However, because of the trial design and the resulting data, it has not been approved despite pressure from politicians, patients, and patient-advocate groups.

The FDA has the responsibility to make sure no drug comes to the market that can do more harm than good, and if the FDA does not understand/approve of the dosage, efficacy, or safety profiles, it will not be approved. That is why you see marijuana, Kratom, and a whole host of other biologics and small molecules that are not approved for use in the USA.

Of course, with the marijuana side of things, companies are restricted by laws surrounding its usage for studies. That being said, you are seeing some cannabinoid-related drugs come through clinical trials, like GW Pharma's Epidiolex (CBD -based) or Insys's drug. Still, you have seen a host of others that have failed trials because they failed to meet their primary endpoints.

I agree, of course but restricting its usage in studies bankrolls finite companies to allocate research to be used for future patents. When we restrict independent, transparent research we merely set ourselves up for a consortium on a product. Comparably, when we look at infections such as Lyme disease we see that scientists withhold findings and diagnostics for profit. This merely leads to the common person and the doctors relying on unsubstantial and outdated research. Firstly, the funds for research need to be placed in the right hands, cleared from any collusion. I do think herbal extracts/supplements need to be better regulated and tested third-party for chemicals.

Lets try to avoid another Vioxx, although I do not think any of these substances would be half as dangerous as some synthetic drugs approved by the FDA.

 

[qazwsxedc34]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but most OTC Supplements do not (knowingly) alter mental capacity or impair judgement in any shape or form.

Kava kava certainly does.

 

[onenerdykid]

It sucks that it is a semantics game based upon subjective definitions... but such is life.

Definitions that help us to better understand the world around us. And it all isn't subjective- you assume these words have an objective meaning, otherwise they wouldn't make the least bit of sense to you.

 

[californiagrown]

Correct me if I am wrong here, but most OTC Supplements do not (knowingly) alter mental capacity or impair judgement in any shape or form.

Melatonin, caffeine, ephedrine, alcohol, salvia and spice for a while there, then there are supps that play with hormones etc.

Supplements are the wild west- anything goes.

 

[californiagrown]

Definitions that help us to better understand the world around us. And it all isn't subjective- you assume these words have an objective meaning, otherwise they wouldn't make the least bit of sense to you.

Definitions are subjective. Take abuse as an example whose definition we do not agree on. It is a small disagreement sure, but important in this context. I think the definition is much broader and overarching than you do.

Kinda like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. I define abuse as a rectangle while you define it as a square.

 

[onenerdykid]

Definitions are subjective. Take abuse as an example whose definition we do not agree on. It is a small disagreement sure, but important in this context. I think the definition is much broader and overarching than you do.

Kinda like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. I define abuse as a rectangle while you define it as a square.

Just because you define something differently, it doesn't mean you are right about your definition. You could think the definition of a cat is animal belonging to the reptile family, but you'd be wrong about what defines a cat. No matter how much you want to define a cat as a reptile, you would be wrong. There are objective touch points and reasons that give a word meaning, or meanings.

Likewise, you can disagree with me and medical community about the definition of substance abuse, but simply because you disagree it doesn't mean that your different definition is actually correct.

 

[arnie_grape]

Just because you define something differently, it doesn't mean you are right about your definition. You could think the definition of a cat is animal belonging to the reptile family, but you'd be wrong about what defines a cat. No matter how much you want to define a cat as a reptile, you would be wrong. There are objective touch points and reasons that give a word meaning, or meanings.

Likewise, you can disagree with me and medical community about the definition of substance abuse, but simply because you disagree it doesn't mean that your different definition is actually correct.

like I said before, america is the land of "if I believe it it's true".

half of them still think climate change is phony liberal propaganda.

 

[OregonDead]

Da fuck kind of coffee are you using to get high? Lol

That Organic rain forest blend from Rogers Family. I brew it up in the french press. Just bought 6 pounds of it yesterday.

Weed laws are just more bullshit created by some Emperors New Clothes wearing assholes.

 

[californiagrown]

Just because you define something differently, it doesn't mean you are right about your definition. You could think the definition of a cat is animal belonging to the reptile family, but you'd be wrong about what defines a cat. No matter how much you want to define a cat as a reptile, you would be wrong. There are objective touch points and reasons that give a word meaning, or meanings.

Likewise, you can disagree with me and medical community about the definition of substance abuse, but simply because you disagree it doesn't mean that your different definition is actually correct.

Sure, in a medical context it is defined that way. But what is relevant to this discussion is how the DEA defines it... and in that case, a cat is a reptile.

 

[WoFIowz]

Marijuana to Remain a Schedule 1 Drug
http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/12434378/marijuana-schedule-1-dea

Now, I don't smoke pot and this doesn't affect me in the least, but that the government thinks that marijuana has the same addictive traits that heroin has and has no medicinal benefit strikes me as totally absurd. Especially when drugs like cocaine, PCP, and meth are considered Schedule 2, and therefore less likely to be abused and with more medicinal benefit. Seriously? Marijuana is "worse" than meth?

This was disappointing when they made that statement. But your poll is flawed. For marijuana to ever be legalized for recreational use without a prescription, it needs to not be controlled at all.

However if they were to downgrade the scheduling, I'd vote it to be a III or IV based on the definitions for each schedule. What boggles my mind about that press release is that by keeping it at schedule I, they say it has no medical benefit, which is obviously false. They could have at least dropped it to increase ease of access for research.

 

[Casey]

This was disappointing when they made that statement. But your poll is flawed. For marijuana to ever be legalized for recreational use without a prescription, it needs to not be controlled at all.

However if they were to downgrade the scheduling, I'd vote it to be a III or IV based on the definitions for each schedule. What boggles my mind about that press release is that by keeping it at schedule I, they say it has no medical benefit, which is obviously false. They could have at least dropped it to increase ease of access for research.

Yeah, my main problem with the schedule 1 designation is that having a prescription from your doctor is basically not worth the paper it's printed on in terms of the law, employers, drug tests etc. I know a lot of people say oh medical is just a cover for people trying to get high, but I really don't believe that is the case. If you are sick and in need of relief the government should not be persecuting you.