http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=751&e=1&u=/nm/20040910/hl_nm/health_cannabis_dc How on earth is marijuana still scheduleI? Which means it has NO potential for medicinal benefits. Even crack cocaine is only schedule II!!
The DEA and NIDA constantly claim that it has no medical benefits. So, it's still classified as Schedule I.
I agree it should be legalized.... But the reason for cocaine being sched II is that it has been, still is used as a anesthetic. Seems crazy, but thats just how it is.
simple. the dea and these other government groups are too naive to pull their heads outa their asses and just admit that they're wrong and they've been publishing false information. they'll never do it.
They do this (keep it illegal) for unknown reasons or because they may have discovered something really good about it long ago, and decided they wanted it secret, so outlawed it all of a sudden in the 30s when it had been legal for thousands of years all around the world. This is just like why they faked the pentagon strike (i think they did, see the other thread).
Well, yes, cocaine is used as an anasthetic, but does this somehow nullify Mairjuana's proven medicinal effects? The 1970 Controlled Substances act clearly states that a schedule 1 drug is that with no proven medicinal purpose and has a high-risk for physical addiction. Neither of these are true. Because none of the receptors of T.H.C. are found in the V.T.A., Marijuana has been shown to have no chance for physical addiction, whereas when rats are injected with a cocaine "by-product" they continue to inject themselves until the drug runs out, or the scientist retracts the substance. This is because receptors for this particular drug is found in the 3 main parts of the reward system. Beyond that, a schedule 2 drug is still classified at "high-risk of physical addiction". Why is it, then, that the government won't drop Marijuana to a schedule 2 drug? Plainly and simply, they're stubborn. They don't want to admit past mistakes. Studies from all over the world are given to the N.I.D.A, but they either dont subsequently pass those statistics over to the Department of Health and Human Services who can then pass it over to the D.E.A., or the D.E.A. just plain doesn't care when the N.I.D.A. presents such facts.
What difference does it make if marijuana is schedule I or II? It's still illegal, either way. I mean, face it, most of us don't have a real claim for using marijuana medically, not in the sense that it would be allowed as a schedule II drug.
Trippin', I believe in principle. This is a matter of principle. To be declared a schedule 2 drug is to be declared to be on the same level as medicinal drugs. Beyond that, a schedule 2 claim is one closer step to legislation reform. Baby-steps.
Yeah, I don't disagree to that. I hate it when people accuse me of using sick people to get my pet drug legalized. I suppose that's why I'm wary of making the connection.
Yeah, I've been told that so crassly by a few "Bill O'Reillys" out there. I just tell them that I'm not using the sick for a staple-peice in my real argument for Marijuana's legitimacy. I tell them that Marijuana is simply able to be used as medicine, which is more than you can say for alcohol, and that this fact is one that very much supports my argument that Marijuana is more legitimate a drug than alcohol in any sense, and this, simply, is the reason why I mention the sick in my argument. People are very stupid, on average. If they see a drug is schedule 1, on the same level as L.S.D., they believe it IS L.S.D, and they don't believe that it's on any legitimate level.
At your doctors office. It's called darbinol, or marinol. Give it a shot. I doubt you'll get certified, but hey, you never know.
The reason it's still so illegal even for medicine in many cases is because people still think that the synthetic THC works (marinol), when it is obviously crap. You cant recreate precious THC. (And guy, if you want it to get high, it doesnt get you high, thats why they made it) And cuz Stoners = Hippies and everyone loves hating "Dirty smelly hippies" MusicMan: Did you know that it's concidered TREASON to sell LSD?
Good thing it hardly exists anymore. Dude MM your posts always blow me away. Anyway I move for the non-admitance issue. See if the goverment admits to making a mistake that makes people think "Could they be wrong about other things?" and this is bad for the goverment. Admission of being human is a serious loss of power.
Ive said that exact same thing many times here. Im glad other people are figuring it out too. The non-admitance issue is true, as well as the fact that there is too much money to be lost by too many people for it to be legal. Its almost as if a large portion of our economy is dependent on it being illegal....Sadly.
Yeah, Eddie, you're totally right. It's been since the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act that the stuff has been illegal and it was something like 7 years before that act that the United States department of Agriculture developed a way of tripling the speed of hemp production. Why would someone like Lamont Dupont - a man who owned the Dupont Chemicals and Synthetics company - want something out there that can be used for the same use as his product but could be produced at 3 times the rate of his own? Why would William Randolph Hearst - owner of 6 paper-mills, and magazine & film mogul - want something out there that can be produced at 3 times the rate of his own product? In 1936 the movie "Reefer Madness" came out, depicting young, white kids who smoke Marijuana and end up killing people. The movie was produced under one of Hearst's film companies and was directed in its original form by Louis Gasnier. The movie was pure propaganda, but what can one expect from a movie produced by a sensationalist, nazi-sympathizer, attempting to protect his precious nickels and dimes? In 1937, Harry J. Anslinger, the head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics (now the D.E.A.) and this country's first drug-czar, put before congress the Marihuana tax act. Anslinger played to the scared white men on the hill by saying that Marijuana makes "Darkies feel Equal to white men" and went as far as to say that with "one Marijuana cigarette smoked, one is in danger of killing one's own brother". The Marihuana Tax Act was ostensibly merely an act for taxing Marijuana. But, when one reads the full text of the act, one begins to see the real purpose of the act. After the act, in order to buy Marijuana legally, one had to first purchase a $1.00 tax stamp. If the stamp was not aquired, the penalty was a $2,000 fine or 5 years' imprisonment. The excessive jump in penalty if a stamp was not purchased falls under cruel and unusual and was obviously meant simply as a deterrent to smoking or buying Marijuana. Because the government wasn't going to make very much revenue off of the stamps, its also safe to assume that they were just the best thing Anslinger could come up with that looked legitimate in front of congress (as if anything needs to be legitimate in front of the House). Later provisions of the tax act made buying all out illegal and made selling the drug to minors a federal offense, holding a life-sentence. After looking at all the things that happened from 1930-1937, it's fairly easy for one to realize that Marijuana's prohibition was just another scam, lobbied by corperations looking to protect their own private interests. The sad part of all of it is that we've not evolved past the point where people like Hearst can appeal to their friends in government, lobby for a few months and have anything they want changed to fit their vested interest. I don't think our forefathers set the government up to be a bureaucratic puppet. It's disturbing. Atleast you get fairly well represented in parliamentary systems. I'm off to Canada...someday.
