Federal Government Reaffirms ‘Flat Earth’ Position Regarding Medical Cannabis - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Norml.org] Earlier today, United States DEA Administrator Michele Leonhart reaffirmed in the Federal Register the administration’s ‘flat Earth’ position regarding the medical properties of cannabis. Responding to a nine-year-old petition to reclassify marijuana under federal law filed by a coalition of advocacy groups, including NORML and California NORML, Leonhart stated, “[T]here is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from schedule I.” A summary of Ms. Leonhart’s ‘reasoning’ is below. (Read the DEA’s full response here.) [QUOTE]DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Drug Enforcement Administration 21 CFR Chapter II [Docket No. DEA–352N] Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana AGENCY: Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Department of Justice. ACTION: Denial of petition to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana. (1) Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. The DHHS evaluation and the additional data gathered by DEA show that marijuana has a high potential for abuse. (2) Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. According to established case law, marijuana has no ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ because: The drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available. (3) Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At present, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication. Marijuana does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy[/QUOTE] Coalition advocates will be appealing Leonhart’s decision in federal court. NORML had previously filed a similar rescheduling petition with the DEA in 1972, but was not granted a federal hearing on the issue until 1986. In 1988, DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled that marijuana did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn rejected Young’s determination, a decision the D.C. Court of Appeals eventually affirmed in 1994. A subsequent petition was filed by former NORML Director Jon Gettman in 1995, but was rejected by the DEA in 2001. [/QUOTE] The idiocy is overwhelming. [url]http://blog.norml.org/2011/07/08/federal-government-reaffirms-flat-earth-position-regarding-medical-cannabis/[/url]

Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't? EDIT: To put it on topic, I question the legitimacy of that source. If the source is okay, then that's fucked up. The DEA are a bunch of paranoid weirdos.

[QUOTE=Dabu;31242688]Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't? [/QUOTE] lobbyists

The source is 100% legit.

Some people just don't get it.

Would be nice if it was legalized, but I guess I'll have to wait until I'm old enough to not care anyways. [QUOTE=Dabu;31242688]Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't? EDIT: To put it on topic, I question the legitimacy of that source. If the source is okay, then that's fucked up. The DEA are a bunch of paranoid weirdos.[/QUOTE] [url=http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/]Here is why.[/url]

Blogs are not sources. This thread is invalid as a news thread.

[QUOTE=Dabu;31242688]Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't? EDIT: To put it on topic, I question the legitimacy of that source. If the source is okay, then that's fucked up. The DEA are a bunch of paranoid weirdos.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=lulzbocksV2;31242912]Blogs are not sources. This thread is invalid as a news thread.[/QUOTE] The blog however is referring to a [url=http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/CRC_Petition_DEA_Answer.pdf]release from the government regarding it though[/url]. Even if the blog itself is not a "source", it's still covering a legitimate topic. The document they have uploaded is not a fabrication, you can find it on a quick search on the Federal Register- which I found in a few seconds- [url=http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NsVtQP/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve]right here[/url]. I don't see why it can't be discussed.

[QUOTE=Dabu;31242688]Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't?[/QUOTE] We tried banning alcohol in the late 19th century and it was an absolute disaster. Coupled with the usual rise in drug-related crime that results from banning something, it was in high demand by the upper class, including government officials, and the people who provided it to them were usually mobsters. Nobody knew Tobacco was bad for you until after the prohibition of alcohol was repealed, and at that point cigarettes were still a high class drug, much like many alcoholic drinks Tobacco probably would've been banned at some point if it weren't for the fact that nobody know how bad smoking was for you until long after prohibition had ended, and because it was still a "high class drug" like certain alcoholic drinks at the time when this happened, people probably didn't want it banned. You know how smokers make a huge uproar when even the tiniest bit of legislation is passed to fight smoking? Imagine how they'd react to a flat out ban.

again, the idea of medical marijuana is ridiculous and there are legitimate reasons for it not to be classified as a medicinal drug

[QUOTE=Sanius;31243917]again, the idea of medical marijuana is ridiculous and there are legitimate reasons for it not to be classified as a medicinal drug[/QUOTE] If they classify it as recreational and legalize it, those that want to use it for medicinal reasons can still do so.

yes which is what should happen. fighting for medical marijuana is pointless

[quote] marijuana has no ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ because: The drug’s chemistry is not known and [b]reproducible[/b][/quote] Yeah and if was then it wouldn't be illegal and big Pharmacy companies would patent and make killings off it.

I would say the chemistry is fairly well understood, we can produce things like JWH-018 artificially.

[img]http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/4354/ss20110721095047.png[/img]

[QUOTE=Sanius;31243917]again, the idea of medical marijuana is ridiculous and there are legitimate reasons for it not to be classified as a medicinal drug[/QUOTE] No. I don't know where people get this idea, but it's just wrong. Even reports that do not recommend marijuana as a medicinal treatment do so on the basis of ingestion, the issue isn't that the drug does not have medicinal properties. [QUOTE=Sanius;31244066]yes which is what should happen. fighting for medical marijuana is pointless[/QUOTE] No it isn't because it is very useful for so many people with horrible illnesses. [QUOTE=counterpo0;31244357]Yeah and if was then it wouldn't be illegal and big Pharmacy companies would patent and make killings off it.[/QUOTE] Except that the US government already has a patent on it. [QUOTE=kebab52;31244851]I would say the chemistry is fairly well understood, we can produce things like JWH-018 artificially.[/QUOTE] To some extent it is in that synthetic cannabinoids have been made, but to another there are many issues with them. Marinol is a good example of a cannabinoid made for medicinal use that should work well, but has flopped in comparison to marijuana. The issue with most synthetic cannabinoids is that they act as a full agonist which leads to different health dangers as opposed to the cannabinoids in marijuana which are just partial agonist.

I don't get it. replace marijuana in her reasoning with cigarettes, and then it'd make a bit more sense. Why is this still an issue.

[QUOTE=MercZ;31243288]The blog however is referring to a [url=http://americansforsafeaccess.org/downloads/CRC_Petition_DEA_Answer.pdf]release from the government regarding it though[/url]. Even if the blog itself is not a "source", it's still covering a legitimate topic. The document they have uploaded is not a fabrication, you can find it on a quick search on the Federal Register- which I found in a few seconds- [url=http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/PDFgate.cgi?WAISdocID=NsVtQP/0/2/0&WAISaction=retrieve]right here[/url]. I don't see why it can't be discussed.[/QUOTE] Odd, it seems the link in the government archive breaks. I put the new one in there. I think this news also complements the earlier bit about the Department of Justice reaching the same conclusion: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?p=31033842[/url]

[QUOTE=Dabu;31242688]Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't?[/QUOTE] because alcohol and cigarettes can't hurt you but just one joint can kILL YOU DEAD

[QUOTE=kebab52;31244851]I would say the chemistry is fairly well understood, we can produce things like JWH-018 artificially.[/QUOTE] The only thing they have in common is that they bind to cannabinoid receptors. Otherwise, they are completely different.

Y'know the reason marijuana was banned in the first place was because paper and plastic companies could go out of business, because hemp is way more efficient at making papers and plastics.

I dont see why people are so upset about this, if there is insufficient evidence on cannabis as a medicine, then surely you should wait until more research is done which can show that its good for you, instead of just going "yeah sure, do whatever"?

[QUOTE=Icedshot;31250478]I dont see why people are so upset about this, if there is insufficient evidence on cannabis as a medicine, then surely you should wait until more research is done which can show that its good for you, instead of just going "yeah sure, do whatever"?[/QUOTE] There is plenty of evidence supporting cannabis. It was banned simply because it threatened corporate profits in the form of hemp paper, racism, and that idiotic stigma that drugs are always bad for you. You can't overdose on it like most modern medicines. You'd probably pass out before that. Any effects are very temporary. The only reason it's still banned is because pharmaceutical companies know it has health benefits and don't want it threatening their profits. Fuck corporations.

[QUOTE=Dabu;31242688]Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't?[/QUOTE] Something about hemp being a really cheap clothes and paper material and corporations didn't like that. At least that's what I've heard. Also unlike alcohol and cigars, marijuana never got wide spread use before being banned, else banning it would have been like the alcohol ban in the 30's.

I like the name 'Flat-Earth' position- It goes to show just how stupid the government are being by not looking at the genuine uses of cannabis and hemp.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;31250665]There is plenty of evidence supporting cannabis. It was banned simply because it threatened corporate profits in the form of hemp paper, racism, and that idiotic stigma that drugs are always bad for you. You can't overdose on it like most modern medicines. You'd probably pass out before that. Any effects are very temporary. The only reason it's still banned is because pharmaceutical companies know it has health benefits and don't want it threatening their profits. Fuck corporations.[/QUOTE] No, thats not it at all. As i posted in the other thread, there have been quite a few studies done on cannabis, which range from "its harmful", to "eh, not really sure", to "it might have some benefit, but not if you smoke it". There is much [i]conflicted[/i] evidence, both for and against Edit: By the way, any effects are [b]potentially[/b] not just temporary, i made a massive post about all of this before in another thread

No medical use? Not safe to use without supervision? Goddamn retards, they say cannabis is bad, yet they don't bat an eye at tobbaco and alcohol abuse.

[QUOTE=Dabu;31242688]Okay, I know it's not relating to medical usage, but can someone please remind my why Marijuana is illegal but alcohol and cigarettes aren't? EDIT: To put it on topic, I question the legitimacy of that source. If the source is okay, then that's fucked up. The DEA are a bunch of paranoid weirdos.[/QUOTE] They banned it because it was popular among black people (esp. scary jazz musicians) in like, the 1930s (give or take a few decades, I don't remember). Since then the reasons they originally banned it have become less and less admissible so they've just dug themselves a deeper and deeper hole of bullshit trying to rationalize it. And since the majority of people have been told it's terrible for decades by the government, and there's no corporations invested in it because it's illegal, there's not much reason to legalize it. Fewer and fewer people actually believe it's that bad, though, and as older generations die off and younger people take their place as the majority of voters it'll probably get legalized sooner or later. The fact that some of the more liberal states are trying to do it already is kind of a bellwether.

There's no good reason for it to be illegal, at least for recreational use, as long as alcohol and cigarettes are legal. And we all know what a disaster it would be if those were banned. When it comes to medicinal use I think that more genuine research is required on actual effects as well as proper delivery methods. Of course that would be much easier if if it were legal and if we didn't have entire government organizations that are making it their sole objective to demonize the stuff. I mean really it's pretty ridiculous at this point.

i agree with frozstock.[img]http://3.vu/abIwn[/img]