11 ms·

FDA approves first marijuana-derived drug and it may spark DEA rescheduling

150 points by mikece 8y ago

freeone3000 8y ago
Researchers having trouble due to Schedule 1 status in the states seems weird, when Canada just legalized recreational use. What has this war on drugs given America?
- TrashQuestion 8y ago
  The honest answer is that it gives conservatives the ability to be racist and imprison minorities for minor offenses.
  - Fjolsvith 8y ago
    That's just your honest opinion...
    - TrashQuestion 8y ago
      "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." — John D. Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide, interview with Dan Baum Yup; thats just my opinion.... it also happens to be factual history. Can't HN be less sterile and accept the facts of history and reality; we don't exist in a vacuum.
  - dang 8y ago
    Taking HN threads into flamewar is not allowed here. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't. The effects on the community are destructive and basically always the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - King-Aaron 8y ago
      It should be noted that the above comment is likely far less trying to incite a flame war, and more likely referencing the alleged reasoning for the 'war on drugs' was to directly marginalise African Americans and 'hippies'. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." — John D. Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide, interview with Dan Baum
      - TrashQuestion 8y ago
        This is what i was going for, i should have cited my source
- doubt_me 8y ago
  http://www.maps.org/research/mmj http://www.maps.org/research/mmj https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000256 https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questio... War on drugs has way to much history to answer that question on HN. The answers are endless and not satisfactory to anyone that doesn't understand how complex the entire web of politics actually can get. What we have at the end of the day is a mental health crisis, an opiod crisis, depression and suicide is more prevalent than ever, we are practically number 1 at jailing people in the world, the amount of money collected and spent fighting drugs in this country could have most likely solved the homeless problem, paid for education for generations, kept our infrastructure updated more than it is today, organized crime would probably still be organized but not profitable enough to topple entire sections of the planet (south and Central America as an example), our veterans wouldnt be in as much pain as they are in today, etc etc...(without even accounting for black market profits) I am not saying the war on drugs is a specific tool to jail minorities because that ruins the entire conversation by pointing at one issue and not looking at anything else. Yes minorities are jailed in alarming numbers for a variety of reasons. But people not in jail are dying everyday because of the drug war via organized crime, street crime (gangs), overdoses, and suicides. The war on drugs isn't responsible for all of societies problems in America but it sure as hell created most of them.
  - YvetteBrooks 8y ago
    Well, while looking through the history of LSD, it was banned, since people became more spiritual and harder to control. Not going to wars and being happy with working simple jobs. While it is not the exact case for marihuana, the effects and outcome might be close.
- okmokmz 8y ago
  >What has this war on drugs given America? Mass incarceration, militarized police forces, and a public health crisis
  - driverdan 8y ago
    Don't forget asset forfeiture and increased tax rates / deficit spending.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
- rayiner 8y ago
  Canada was late to the party. It was already legal for recreational use in 9 U.S. states, including in the capital. 4th & K NW reeks of it.
  - 8note 8y ago
    it's pretending to be legal in those states, whereas in canada, it will actually be legal.
spruciefic399 8y ago
The current drug regulation regime strikes me as backwards--it seems that the more appropriate assumption should be to not regulate a substance, until it can be shown to be harmful (I'm not talking about label accuracy; I see that as more of a truth-in-labeling issue). To me, cannabis illustrates how absurd the current drug regulation paradigm is. The idea that it would be classified as a Schedule I substance is ridiculous. But to get the FDA to change anything, you have to have people engaging in illegal behavior, to create a demand for specific legislative action about a specific substance, to drive a market for a derivative chemical, to petition to the FDA, to begrudgingly change the scheduling. I've come to the conclusion that drug scheduling and the war on drugs is an economic failure, leads to police abuse and socioeconomic injustices, and acts to reinforce monopolies in the health care market, by ceding power over access to specific providers.
- cjmoran 8y ago
  Welcome to choir practice, father.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  > it seems that the more appropriate assumption should be to not regulate a substance, until it can be shown to be harmful How are you going to stop people from dying when I sell arsenic as a baldness cure?
  - AstralStorm 8y ago
    It is not just about harm. FDA rules on medical products also in fitness of purpose. If you can show that your arsenic preparation is effective and safe, it will be allowed on the market. Likewise MDMA preparations and cannabis preparations for specific purposes. (They cannot because it is schedule I. ) DEA governs the drug schedule, not FDA. That should be don from almost strictly criminal point of view, with major politicization.
    - gumby 8y ago
      > It is not just about harm. FDA rules on medical products also in fitness of purpose. This is because most drugs aren't really that good for you, however in the context of some illness, the disease may be worse than the unwanted effects of the drug. A good example is methotrexate (MTX): wow, it really clears up its patients' arthritis, but it's so toxic that it's only administered to patients who are more at risk of dying of cancer than of the MTX. I've appeared before the FDA (in pursuit of drug approval) and in my experience they're actually more than fair. The biggest problem is the assholes who try to game the system, which just gums up the works for everyone. edit: I'm no longer in that biz so have nothing to gain by praising or condemning the FDA. The approval process is far from perfect but I honestly think it's pretty good overall.
trisimix 8y ago
Wait sched 1? I can buy it at the vape shop nextdoor in detroit.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- freehunter 8y ago
  It's legal/decriminalized in some states/cities but that is in spite of federal law, not because of it. It's still illegal at the federal level.
king_nothing 8y ago
Marijuana is only schedule 1 because of Nixon attacks against his “enemies,” hippies and blacks, as cooberated by Ehrlichman. And as the 1920’s and Portugal prove, Prohibition always backfires and helps criminals.
GordonS 8y ago
Perhaps someone from the US could help me understand the federal vs state legality of cannabis in the USA? Can a state override any federal law? Could federal-level law enforcement theoretically charge someone in a cannabis-legal state for drug offenses?
- RandallBrown 8y ago
  I don't think state laws override federal laws, they're just enforced by different agencies. Yes. You can get in trouble in a National Park in any of the legal states, since those are federal land and the rangers are federal law enforcement.
- taejo 8y ago
  > Can a state override any federal law? No, by the "Supremacy clause" of the Constitution. > Could federal-level law enforcement theoretically charge someone in a cannabis-legal state for drug offenses? Yes. Because people interact much more with local police than federal police, it makes a big difference whether or not the local police enforce these laws. The Obama administration also chose not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states with less restrictive state laws. But both of these relate to enforcement rather than legality.
  - kevin_b_er 8y ago
    The supremacy clause combined with interstate commerce clause. Because any action might have a ripple-of-butterfly-wings effect on commerce, the federal law can claim interstate commerce would be affected. So it can supersede many state laws. You'll find various claims of "State's Rights" where politically convenient vs supremacy clause where convenient depending on political scores.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    Actually, IIRC/IANAL, SINCE recreational use is legal in D.C., federally the government's hands are tied, because I believe what is legal in D.C. is legal in all federal jurisdictions (except where state laws says otherwise), so Federally, I believe Marijuana is no longer prosecutable per se, I could be wrong -- but states that still ban it can prosecute since it's their state law.
gwbas1c 8y ago
Most important quote: > We’ll continue to support rigorous scientific research on the potential medical uses of marijuana-derived products and work with product developers who are interested in bringing patients safe and effective, high-quality products. But, at the same time, we are prepared to take action when we see the illegal marketing of CBD-containing products with serious, unproven medical claims. Marketing unapproved products, with uncertain dosages and formulations, can keep patients from accessing appropriate, recognized therapies to treat serious and even fatal diseases. I can't believe the number of ridiculous statements I've seen and heard about medical marijuana. It's our modern-day equivalent of the witch doctor. Looks like the FDA is finally going to allow legitimate research and medicine. [Edit] This will reign in all the unproven claims that marijuana is essentially a cure-all. [Edit] I support complete legalization of marijuana for recreational use.
refurb 8y ago
THC is already an approved drug in the US under the name nabilone. It’s schedule 2. This newly approved drug is CBD. There is no need for the DEA to reschedule marijuana. They’ve already been ok with this contradictory scheduling for over a decade.
- 24gttghh 8y ago
  >THC is already an approved drug in the US under the name nabilone. It’s schedule 2. Nabilone is a THC analog, with a slightly different molecular makeup than THC extracted from Cannabis. So no, THC is not schedule 2 under US law, as it is explicitly listed schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act. Granted, the WHO recommends it be listed schedule III or IV, which I agree with...
  - refurb 8y ago
    Good point on nabilone being an analogue, not THC itself. I guess my point is that the DEA doesn’t require it’s scheduling to be logical at all.
    - joveian 8y ago
      There is also GHB/sodium oxybate. It would be nice if this approval caused a major shift, but I tend to doubt it.
  - beefman 8y ago
    Marinol was approved in 1985 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dronabinol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dronabinol
    - refurb 8y ago
      Thank you! That was the drug I was thinking of, not nabilone. It’s THC, the same as in marijuana.

150 points by mikece 8y ago

Researchers having trouble due to Schedule 1 status in the states seems weird, when Canada just legalized recreational use. What has this war on drugs given America?

TrashQuestion 8y ago
The honest answer is that it gives conservatives the ability to be racist and imprison minorities for minor offenses.
- Fjolsvith 8y ago
  That's just your honest opinion...
  - TrashQuestion 8y ago
    "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." — John D. Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide, interview with Dan Baum Yup; thats just my opinion.... it also happens to be factual history. Can't HN be less sterile and accept the facts of history and reality; we don't exist in a vacuum.
- dang 8y ago
  Taking HN threads into flamewar is not allowed here. We ban accounts that do this, so please don't. The effects on the community are destructive and basically always the same. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - King-Aaron 8y ago
    It should be noted that the above comment is likely far less trying to incite a flame war, and more likely referencing the alleged reasoning for the 'war on drugs' was to directly marginalise African Americans and 'hippies'. "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." — John D. Ehrlichman, former Nixon aide, interview with Dan Baum
    - TrashQuestion 8y ago
      This is what i was going for, i should have cited my source
doubt_me 8y ago
http://www.maps.org/research/mmj http://www.maps.org/research/mmj https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000256 https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questio... War on drugs has way to much history to answer that question on HN. The answers are endless and not satisfactory to anyone that doesn't understand how complex the entire web of politics actually can get. What we have at the end of the day is a mental health crisis, an opiod crisis, depression and suicide is more prevalent than ever, we are practically number 1 at jailing people in the world, the amount of money collected and spent fighting drugs in this country could have most likely solved the homeless problem, paid for education for generations, kept our infrastructure updated more than it is today, organized crime would probably still be organized but not profitable enough to topple entire sections of the planet (south and Central America as an example), our veterans wouldnt be in as much pain as they are in today, etc etc...(without even accounting for black market profits) I am not saying the war on drugs is a specific tool to jail minorities because that ruins the entire conversation by pointing at one issue and not looking at anything else. Yes minorities are jailed in alarming numbers for a variety of reasons. But people not in jail are dying everyday because of the drug war via organized crime, street crime (gangs), overdoses, and suicides. The war on drugs isn't responsible for all of societies problems in America but it sure as hell created most of them.
- YvetteBrooks 8y ago
  Well, while looking through the history of LSD, it was banned, since people became more spiritual and harder to control. Not going to wars and being happy with working simple jobs. While it is not the exact case for marihuana, the effects and outcome might be close.
okmokmz 8y ago
>What has this war on drugs given America? Mass incarceration, militarized police forces, and a public health crisis
- driverdan 8y ago
  Don't forget asset forfeiture and increased tax rates / deficit spending.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
rayiner 8y ago
Canada was late to the party. It was already legal for recreational use in 9 U.S. states, including in the capital. 4th & K NW reeks of it.
- 8note 8y ago
  it's pretending to be legal in those states, whereas in canada, it will actually be legal.

spruciefic399 8y ago

The current drug regulation regime strikes me as backwards--it seems that the more appropriate assumption should be to not regulate a substance, until it can be shown to be harmful (I'm not talking about label accuracy; I see that as more of a truth-in-labeling issue). To me, cannabis illustrates how absurd the current drug regulation paradigm is. The idea that it would be classified as a Schedule I substance is ridiculous. But to get the FDA to change anything, you have to have people engaging in illegal behavior, to create a demand for specific legislative action about a specific substance, to drive a market for a derivative chemical, to petition to the FDA, to begrudgingly change the scheduling. I've come to the conclusion that drug scheduling and the war on drugs is an economic failure, leads to police abuse and socioeconomic injustices, and acts to reinforce monopolies in the health care market, by ceding power over access to specific providers.

cjmoran 8y ago
Welcome to choir practice, father.
saagarjha 8y ago
> it seems that the more appropriate assumption should be to not regulate a substance, until it can be shown to be harmful How are you going to stop people from dying when I sell arsenic as a baldness cure?
- AstralStorm 8y ago
  It is not just about harm. FDA rules on medical products also in fitness of purpose. If you can show that your arsenic preparation is effective and safe, it will be allowed on the market. Likewise MDMA preparations and cannabis preparations for specific purposes. (They cannot because it is schedule I. ) DEA governs the drug schedule, not FDA. That should be don from almost strictly criminal point of view, with major politicization.
  - gumby 8y ago
    > It is not just about harm. FDA rules on medical products also in fitness of purpose. This is because most drugs aren't really that good for you, however in the context of some illness, the disease may be worse than the unwanted effects of the drug. A good example is methotrexate (MTX): wow, it really clears up its patients' arthritis, but it's so toxic that it's only administered to patients who are more at risk of dying of cancer than of the MTX. I've appeared before the FDA (in pursuit of drug approval) and in my experience they're actually more than fair. The biggest problem is the assholes who try to game the system, which just gums up the works for everyone. edit: I'm no longer in that biz so have nothing to gain by praising or condemning the FDA. The approval process is far from perfect but I honestly think it's pretty good overall.

trisimix 8y ago

Wait sched 1? I can buy it at the vape shop nextdoor in detroit.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
freehunter 8y ago
It's legal/decriminalized in some states/cities but that is in spite of federal law, not because of it. It's still illegal at the federal level.

king_nothing 8y ago

Marijuana is only schedule 1 because of Nixon attacks against his “enemies,” hippies and blacks, as cooberated by Ehrlichman. And as the 1920’s and Portugal prove, Prohibition always backfires and helps criminals.

GordonS 8y ago

Perhaps someone from the US could help me understand the federal vs state legality of cannabis in the USA? Can a state override any federal law? Could federal-level law enforcement theoretically charge someone in a cannabis-legal state for drug offenses?

RandallBrown 8y ago
I don't think state laws override federal laws, they're just enforced by different agencies. Yes. You can get in trouble in a National Park in any of the legal states, since those are federal land and the rangers are federal law enforcement.
taejo 8y ago
> Can a state override any federal law? No, by the "Supremacy clause" of the Constitution. > Could federal-level law enforcement theoretically charge someone in a cannabis-legal state for drug offenses? Yes. Because people interact much more with local police than federal police, it makes a big difference whether or not the local police enforce these laws. The Obama administration also chose not to enforce federal marijuana laws in states with less restrictive state laws. But both of these relate to enforcement rather than legality.
- kevin_b_er 8y ago
  The supremacy clause combined with interstate commerce clause. Because any action might have a ripple-of-butterfly-wings effect on commerce, the federal law can claim interstate commerce would be affected. So it can supersede many state laws. You'll find various claims of "State's Rights" where politically convenient vs supremacy clause where convenient depending on political scores.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  Actually, IIRC/IANAL, SINCE recreational use is legal in D.C., federally the government's hands are tied, because I believe what is legal in D.C. is legal in all federal jurisdictions (except where state laws says otherwise), so Federally, I believe Marijuana is no longer prosecutable per se, I could be wrong -- but states that still ban it can prosecute since it's their state law.

gwbas1c 8y ago

Most important quote: > We’ll continue to support rigorous scientific research on the potential medical uses of marijuana-derived products and work with product developers who are interested in bringing patients safe and effective, high-quality products. But, at the same time, we are prepared to take action when we see the illegal marketing of CBD-containing products with serious, unproven medical claims. Marketing unapproved products, with uncertain dosages and formulations, can keep patients from accessing appropriate, recognized therapies to treat serious and even fatal diseases. I can't believe the number of ridiculous statements I've seen and heard about medical marijuana. It's our modern-day equivalent of the witch doctor. Looks like the FDA is finally going to allow legitimate research and medicine. [Edit] This will reign in all the unproven claims that marijuana is essentially a cure-all. [Edit] I support complete legalization of marijuana for recreational use.

refurb 8y ago

THC is already an approved drug in the US under the name nabilone. It’s schedule 2. This newly approved drug is CBD. There is no need for the DEA to reschedule marijuana. They’ve already been ok with this contradictory scheduling for over a decade.

24gttghh 8y ago
>THC is already an approved drug in the US under the name nabilone. It’s schedule 2. Nabilone is a THC analog, with a slightly different molecular makeup than THC extracted from Cannabis. So no, THC is not schedule 2 under US law, as it is explicitly listed schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act. Granted, the WHO recommends it be listed schedule III or IV, which I agree with...
- refurb 8y ago
  Good point on nabilone being an analogue, not THC itself. I guess my point is that the DEA doesn’t require it’s scheduling to be logical at all.
  - joveian 8y ago
    There is also GHB/sodium oxybate. It would be nice if this approval caused a major shift, but I tend to doubt it.
- beefman 8y ago
  Marinol was approved in 1985 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dronabinol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dronabinol
  - refurb 8y ago
    Thank you! That was the drug I was thinking of, not nabilone. It’s THC, the same as in marijuana.