6 ms·

But still in Schedule I with cocaine, heroin, methadone, morphine & opium. Isn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel

But still in Schedule I with cocaine, heroin, methadone, morphine & opium. Isn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel the need to append this disclaimer) but for God's sake at this point I think pretty much everyone recognizes where it lies on the harm spectrum and we still treat it like a deadly narcotic. The baby stepping toward doing something that seems to extraordinarily black-and-white - particularly in countries that have laws that allow cigarettes and alcohol - is really quite absurd.

Scoundreller 6y ago
> I think pretty much everyone recognizes This “vote” was 27-25. The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. And stop any funding to it too.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cmdshiftf4 6y ago
  >The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. And stop any funding to it too. Anyone with a brain realized it's best to ignore the UN as an entity quite some time ago. I guess this time around the strongly worded letters will be what? In support of asking people to perhaps (please) reconsider their legislative approach to or classification of cannabis?
  - throwaway894345 6y ago
    I tend to be pretty interested in opinions that go against the grain when they're interesting, but when it's just "anyone with a brain"--that's just rhetoric and not even very artful rhetoric at that.
    - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
      Is it even going against the grain? The trope of the UN and their strongly worded letters has existed and been popularized for at least as long as I can remember. Is it really "against the grain" to simply make a call to their ineffectual, flaccid and outright farcical nature? And if one really wants to debate their farcical nature, one need only look at their most recent candidates for election to the Human Rights Council. Or their recent Universal Periodic Review where some of the worst modern assailants on human rights lined up for the 2 minutes hate in the name of virtue toward the USA. If someone is willing to defend the UN and prove they're anything but a farce, I'm all ears.
- hansjorg 6y ago
  This is one way the 27 can influence the 25. What do you think the UN is?
  - Scoundreller 6y ago
    I don’t see the 25 changing their stance because they lost a vote. This committee exists to take away people’s rights, not to give them any. I look forward to a UN vote on mandatory mask requirements (will never happen).
    - free_rms 6y ago
      The UN isn't a government, it's a meeting forum.
      - Scoundreller 6y ago
        Not a government, but they do vote on where to send troops and step in when governments fail and decide who gets sent food, who gets loans.
        free_rms 6y ago
        In rare cases, when no major or regional power is interested, they do that as the humanitarian backstop, yes. I'm pretty sure East Timor is the only case of their stepping in for a government. Could be wrong? Other examples?
        bigbubba 6y ago
        From what I have gathered from Wikipedia, East Timor has not been governed by the UN since 2002. However the UN still governs the Cyprus Buffer Zone, part of the Golan Heights, and Kosovo. In the past they have also governed Western New Guinea, Cambodia, and part of what is today eastern Croatia. Their administration of Cambodia in the early 90s seems particularly full fledged: > The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)[3] was a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1992–93 formed following the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. It was also the first occasion on which the UN had taken over the administration of an independent state, organised and run an election (as opposed to monitoring or supervising), had its own radio station and jail, and been responsible for promoting and safeguarding human rights at the national level.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. Several of the 27 (sufficient to deny any of them a majority) voted against other loosening recommendations on marijuana, so I'm not sure that voting to move it from “like heroin” to “like cocaine” means much.
enriquto 6y ago
Drug classification does not depend on the harm they do, but on a complex net of economic and political causes. There are very harmful drugs that are legal and regulated (like alcohol) and also many substances that are not explicitly regulated, regardless of how harmful they may be.
- nkozyra 6y ago
  Schedule 1 is specifically classified as: "contains the substances considered the most addictive and harmful."
  - enriquto 6y ago
    The name does not mean anything. What is the official name of North Korea again?
    - nkozyra 6y ago
      I have no idea what this is supposed you mean. You told me: > Drug classification does not depend on the harm they do I'm telling you that's explicitly the opposite of how they intend to classify drugs.
      - enriquto 6y ago
        What I mean is that: what they intend and what they say to intend are two completely different things.
  - leetcrew 6y ago
    that's also true of schedule II. the key difference between I and II is whether there is any accepted medical use.
    - Retric 6y ago
      That’s not quite it either as opioids and pot have medical uses. The list is in effect arbitrary. (a) Schedule I shall consist of the drugs and other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated, listed in this section. Each drug or substance has been assigned the DEA Controlled Substances Code Number set forth opposite it. (b) Opiates. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation (for purposes of 3-methylthiofentanyl only, the term isomer includes the optical and geometric isomers):
colonwqbang 6y ago
There was a story some time ago about a high-profile politician in my country. She had shared a link to a parody newspaper article about teenagers at a party who died from "marijuana overdose". From her comment it was obvious that she didn't understand that the article was a fake, didn't understand that nobody ever died from a marijuana overdose.
- emteycz 6y ago
  Contrary to poular belief, you can get "marijuana" (cannabidiol) overdose, albeit it's rare. It manifests with vomiting, abdomen cramps and feeling of serious sickness, which could be fatal (other drugs that can cause a fatal overdose often are not fatal by itself but by the secondary effect of suffocating with vomit or other). I'm speaking from experience. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482175/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482175/
  - boogies 6y ago
    (Not that you can’t die from a Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication.)
    - boogies 6y ago
      (Not that I'm for recreational drug legalization, I may get downvoted to death¹ but I don’t actually think Prohibition was necessarily a bad idea, perhaps just badly implemented — it should have been phased in over decades like the Founding Fathers had hoped to do with slavery, and a local issue.) ¹Edit: interesting, about ten minutes after my higher post and 4 after this, this still has 1 point but its parent lost ⅓ of its peak 6.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > it should have been phased in over decades like the Founding Fathers had hoped to do with slavery The founding fathers were a mix of people who thought slavery today, tomorrow, and forever was the plan, people that wanted it gone ASAP, and everything in between. The compromise they came up with was to lock on it for a few decades absolutely plus give enormous power advantages to the people that economically depended on it to protect it going forward; there might have been some who hoped, or at least expected, it would be phased out over time after the lock in period, but for the most part even they would have been hoping future generations might overcome the barriers they set up that made they difficult, it's not like they built any foundation for it.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
aphextron 6y ago
>Isn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel the need to append this disclaimer) but for God's sake at this point I think pretty much everyone recognizes where it lies on the harm spectrum and we still treat it like a deadly narcotic. Not many people realize this yet, but weed is already legal in the US. With the legalization of "industrial hemp" [0], you can now buy cannabis sativa flower in all 50 states 100% legally. The law requires that it contain less than 0.3% THC by mass, so the strains you can get are selectively bred for that, but it actually isn't a big deal. CBD, and all the other cannabinoids in cannabis that aren't THC still absolutely get you high. You can also create extracts and cook with it for all the same effects as "regular" (high THC) weed. It's essentially like being able to buy beer but not liquor at this point. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/14/the-farm-bill-hemp-and-cbd-explainer/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/14/the-farm-bi...
- bigyikes 6y ago
  More like the difference between beer and kombucha, no? Liquor would be more akin to THC concentrates. I don’t think the effects of CBD are comparable to THC with respect to getting “high”, though I don’t know much about the other cannabinoids. Are you speaking from firsthand experience?
  - jgrowl 6y ago
    I've tried CBD before and it mainly made me tired and slightly headachey. I can confirm Delta-8-THC at least will definitely get you very high. It feels slightly different than D9 but it is honestly hard to describe exactly how. Some describe it as being better for people that get anxious on d9 but I have also heard the opposite. I have seen some reports of people having really bad times from eating a ton of candies. Similar problems as with normal edibles, so regulators will feel compelled to step in. Mixing in a little bit of cbd or other cannabinoids seems to enhance the experience and make it more like normal flower.
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >"I don’t think the effects of CBD are comparable to THC with respect to getting “high”, though I don’t know much about the other cannabinoids." It's not just about CBD. CBD is one of hundreds of cannabinoids contained in whole-flower cannabis sativa. The synergistic effect of them is what causes the effects of marijuana. THC is just one of many. >"Are you speaking from firsthand experience?" Absolutely, from someone who used medicinally for years in California.
Reedx 6y ago
> Isn't this kind of silly at this point? Yes. Fortunately we're almost there. In the US we have majority support (68%) and is just a matter of time before it's fully legalized. https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...

Scoundreller 6y ago

> I think pretty much everyone recognizes This “vote” was 27-25. The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. And stop any funding to it too.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cmdshiftf4 6y ago
>The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. And stop any funding to it too. Anyone with a brain realized it's best to ignore the UN as an entity quite some time ago. I guess this time around the strongly worded letters will be what? In support of asking people to perhaps (please) reconsider their legislative approach to or classification of cannabis?
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  I tend to be pretty interested in opinions that go against the grain when they're interesting, but when it's just "anyone with a brain"--that's just rhetoric and not even very artful rhetoric at that.
  - cmdshiftf4 6y ago
    Is it even going against the grain? The trope of the UN and their strongly worded letters has existed and been popularized for at least as long as I can remember. Is it really "against the grain" to simply make a call to their ineffectual, flaccid and outright farcical nature? And if one really wants to debate their farcical nature, one need only look at their most recent candidates for election to the Human Rights Council. Or their recent Universal Periodic Review where some of the worst modern assailants on human rights lined up for the 2 minutes hate in the name of virtue toward the USA. If someone is willing to defend the UN and prove they're anything but a farce, I'm all ears.
hansjorg 6y ago
This is one way the 27 can influence the 25. What do you think the UN is?
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  I don’t see the 25 changing their stance because they lost a vote. This committee exists to take away people’s rights, not to give them any. I look forward to a UN vote on mandatory mask requirements (will never happen).
  - free_rms 6y ago
    The UN isn't a government, it's a meeting forum.
    - Scoundreller 6y ago
      Not a government, but they do vote on where to send troops and step in when governments fail and decide who gets sent food, who gets loans.
      - free_rms 6y ago
        In rare cases, when no major or regional power is interested, they do that as the humanitarian backstop, yes. I'm pretty sure East Timor is the only case of their stepping in for a government. Could be wrong? Other examples?
        bigbubba 6y ago
        From what I have gathered from Wikipedia, East Timor has not been governed by the UN since 2002. However the UN still governs the Cyprus Buffer Zone, part of the Golan Heights, and Kosovo. In the past they have also governed Western New Guinea, Cambodia, and part of what is today eastern Croatia. Their administration of Cambodia in the early 90s seems particularly full fledged: > The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)[3] was a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1992–93 formed following the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. It was also the first occasion on which the UN had taken over the administration of an independent state, organised and run an election (as opposed to monitoring or supervising), had its own radio station and jail, and been responsible for promoting and safeguarding human rights at the national level.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. Several of the 27 (sufficient to deny any of them a majority) voted against other loosening recommendations on marijuana, so I'm not sure that voting to move it from “like heroin” to “like cocaine” means much.

enriquto 6y ago

Drug classification does not depend on the harm they do, but on a complex net of economic and political causes. There are very harmful drugs that are legal and regulated (like alcohol) and also many substances that are not explicitly regulated, regardless of how harmful they may be.

nkozyra 6y ago
Schedule 1 is specifically classified as: "contains the substances considered the most addictive and harmful."
- enriquto 6y ago
  The name does not mean anything. What is the official name of North Korea again?
  - nkozyra 6y ago
    I have no idea what this is supposed you mean. You told me: > Drug classification does not depend on the harm they do I'm telling you that's explicitly the opposite of how they intend to classify drugs.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      What I mean is that: what they intend and what they say to intend are two completely different things.
- leetcrew 6y ago
  that's also true of schedule II. the key difference between I and II is whether there is any accepted medical use.
  - Retric 6y ago
    That’s not quite it either as opioids and pot have medical uses. The list is in effect arbitrary. (a) Schedule I shall consist of the drugs and other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated, listed in this section. Each drug or substance has been assigned the DEA Controlled Substances Code Number set forth opposite it. (b) Opiates. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation (for purposes of 3-methylthiofentanyl only, the term isomer includes the optical and geometric isomers):

colonwqbang 6y ago

There was a story some time ago about a high-profile politician in my country. She had shared a link to a parody newspaper article about teenagers at a party who died from "marijuana overdose". From her comment it was obvious that she didn't understand that the article was a fake, didn't understand that nobody ever died from a marijuana overdose.

emteycz 6y ago
Contrary to poular belief, you can get "marijuana" (cannabidiol) overdose, albeit it's rare. It manifests with vomiting, abdomen cramps and feeling of serious sickness, which could be fatal (other drugs that can cause a fatal overdose often are not fatal by itself but by the secondary effect of suffocating with vomit or other). I'm speaking from experience. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482175/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482175/
- boogies 6y ago
  (Not that you can’t die from a Dihydrogen Monoxide overdose as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication.)
  - boogies 6y ago
    (Not that I'm for recreational drug legalization, I may get downvoted to death¹ but I don’t actually think Prohibition was necessarily a bad idea, perhaps just badly implemented — it should have been phased in over decades like the Founding Fathers had hoped to do with slavery, and a local issue.) ¹Edit: interesting, about ten minutes after my higher post and 4 after this, this still has 1 point but its parent lost ⅓ of its peak 6.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > it should have been phased in over decades like the Founding Fathers had hoped to do with slavery The founding fathers were a mix of people who thought slavery today, tomorrow, and forever was the plan, people that wanted it gone ASAP, and everything in between. The compromise they came up with was to lock on it for a few decades absolutely plus give enormous power advantages to the people that economically depended on it to protect it going forward; there might have been some who hoped, or at least expected, it would be phased out over time after the lock in period, but for the most part even they would have been hoping future generations might overcome the barriers they set up that made they difficult, it's not like they built any foundation for it.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

aphextron 6y ago

>Isn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel the need to append this disclaimer) but for God's sake at this point I think pretty much everyone recognizes where it lies on the harm spectrum and we still treat it like a deadly narcotic. Not many people realize this yet, but weed is already legal in the US. With the legalization of "industrial hemp" [0], you can now buy cannabis sativa flower in all 50 states 100% legally. The law requires that it contain less than 0.3% THC by mass, so the strains you can get are selectively bred for that, but it actually isn't a big deal. CBD, and all the other cannabinoids in cannabis that aren't THC still absolutely get you high. You can also create extracts and cook with it for all the same effects as "regular" (high THC) weed. It's essentially like being able to buy beer but not liquor at this point. [0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/14/the-farm-bill-hemp-and-cbd-explainer/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/14/the-farm-bi...

bigyikes 6y ago
More like the difference between beer and kombucha, no? Liquor would be more akin to THC concentrates. I don’t think the effects of CBD are comparable to THC with respect to getting “high”, though I don’t know much about the other cannabinoids. Are you speaking from firsthand experience?
- jgrowl 6y ago
  I've tried CBD before and it mainly made me tired and slightly headachey. I can confirm Delta-8-THC at least will definitely get you very high. It feels slightly different than D9 but it is honestly hard to describe exactly how. Some describe it as being better for people that get anxious on d9 but I have also heard the opposite. I have seen some reports of people having really bad times from eating a ton of candies. Similar problems as with normal edibles, so regulators will feel compelled to step in. Mixing in a little bit of cbd or other cannabinoids seems to enhance the experience and make it more like normal flower.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >"I don’t think the effects of CBD are comparable to THC with respect to getting “high”, though I don’t know much about the other cannabinoids." It's not just about CBD. CBD is one of hundreds of cannabinoids contained in whole-flower cannabis sativa. The synergistic effect of them is what causes the effects of marijuana. THC is just one of many. >"Are you speaking from firsthand experience?" Absolutely, from someone who used medicinally for years in California.

Reedx 6y ago

> Isn't this kind of silly at this point? Yes. Fortunately we're almost there. In the US we have majority support (68%) and is just a matter of time before it's fully legalized. https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-inches-new-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...