10 ms·

DEA Still Insists Marijuana Has No ‘Accepted Medical Use'

75 points by DocFeind 5y ago

mark_l_watson 5y ago
What bullshit. I have a prescription for a cream containing CBD and THC that has almost totally removed arthritis pain in my hands. Really life changing for me.
- lambdaba 5y ago
  Do you find (or know) that the THC is contributing to this effect on top of the CBD?
  - roflc0ptic 5y ago
    not saying you're claiming otherwise, but both THC and CBD are derived from marijuana! edit: this comment is wrong.
    - jjcon 5y ago
      Cbd is generally derived from hemp (which is legal federally in the us) not marijuana
      - roflc0ptic 5y ago
        oh, true. found some pro marijuana sites that said it came from marijuana, but per more reputable sites it's just contained in marijuana, but derived from hemp. Thanks!
        ncmncm 5y ago
        The difference between "marijuana" and "hemp" is only legal, not biological, so a distinction without a difference. Hemp growers use a variety bred to have little THC in it. The species is the same.
        roflc0ptic 5y ago
        Well now I’m doubly wrong.
        jjcon 5y ago
        The species is the same but it is a biological difference, in the same way that a Chihuahua and a Wolf are genetically the same species but in fact quite different.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      Hemp is marijuana. It is also found in the buds that you can smoke to get high. I believe they are somewhat competing components and their concentration depends on when you harvest a plant. It has either more THC/CBD depending on the time chosen. Didn't know doctors prescribe it. Hemp is relatively closely related to nettles, which are also used for some therapies for arthritis. Maybe there is another component that helps? Could be a coincidence of course.
  - mark_l_watson 5y ago
    I told my Doctor that I was using over the counter CBD ointment. He told me that prescription CBD + THC ointment would be more effective, and he was correct!
- jkmcf 5y ago
  Would you mind sharing the brand/product name?
- stooliepidgin 5y ago
  Placebo effect. CBD and THC are not well absorbed topically and there's no data on transdermal bioavailability, so the effective dosage would be unscientific and unknown. The majority of CBD creams fall within the category of snake oil to dupe consumers into spending money just as they do on beauty products. THC absorption by the skin is very low. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12100860/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12100860/
  - risedotmoe 5y ago
    While some CBD products I do believe to be snake oil, what basis do you have for products containing both CBD and THC to only being effective as a placebo? CBD isn’t truly effective without THC and the THC is what basically turns the snake oil into a legitimately effective product. Additionally, everyone’s sensitivity to marijuana differs and while skin absorption may be “low” that does not mean none and even the effects of a low amount can be felt.
    - stooliepidgin 5y ago
      > what basis do you have for products containing both CBD and THC to only being effective as a placebo Read the article. Because without carrier molecules, cannabinoids cannot be effectively absorbed to do much more than provide minor, dermal-area effects. There's no getting high, and not much deep penetration of anything. > CBD isn’t truly effective without THC. Truly what? Based on what evidence? 10 mg of pure CBD in a lipid sublingual tincture is calming if you've ever tried it. Easily distinguishable from placebo.
cwkoss 5y ago
Hard to think of a government agency with less credibility than the DEA. $5 says the average DEA agent uses more drugs than the average American.
- marmaduke 5y ago
  Not even five bucks, just the old saying “it takes one to know one”
- Ancapistani 5y ago
  > Hard to think of a government agency with less credibility than the DEA Ah, then allow me to introduce you to the ATF..
luigibosco 5y ago
appetite stimulant?
cheeseomlit 5y ago
I'm curious as to why did they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol, but they didn't need to amend it for the war on drugs
- hbrav 5y ago
  If I understand correctly, the answer is "they probably did need to, but didn't bother". You'll sometimes see articles say "these states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal at the federal level". If the DEA did choose to try and enforce marijuana prohibition in one of these states, the state would be able to sue, making the argument that the US constitution does not give this power to the federal government. The federal government would probably argue that it did have this power under the Commerce Clause. My understanding is that the DEA has avoided putting itself in a position where this could be litigated.
  - Cycl0ps 5y ago
    DEA raiding dispensaries has been a thing since CA first legalized marijuana. I'm not local but it looks like it was ruled in federal court that the DEA isn't authorized to raid a business operating within state law. Not sure how this effects things regarding amendments, but thought it was worth sharing https://time.com/4080110/dea-medical-marijuana-california-ruling/ https://time.com/4080110/dea-medical-marijuana-california-ru...
  - _moof 5y ago
    The US Supreme Court found in 2005 that the federal government is within its rights to criminalize the growing of marijuana for personal use via the commerce clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich As for why an amendment was needed in 1920 but not 1971, apparently the commerce clause didn't become the anything clause until after 1937. If this all sounds hopelessly inconsistent and/or hypocritical, well, I would agree with you.
    - wayoutthere 5y ago
      All the more reason to dispense with the current constitution that enshrines slavery and violence as protected rights. We nominally took back the slavery part but then recreated it with the prison system.
thatswrong0 5y ago
Yet another artifact of our gerontocracy
eigengrau5150 5y ago
<sarcasm>You know, if we legalize cannabis we'll have to legalize driving while black next. How will we legally enslave black people by convicting them of crimes and forcing them to engage in prison labor without laws we can selectively enforce against them?</sarcasm>
the_only_law 5y ago
I knew a guy who assumed that if marijuana would be legalized, the streets would be consumed by masses constantly walking and driving around stoned. Props to him though, for at least having some level of consistency. The same person also admitted to me he was strongly against alcohol and wish prohibition had succeeded.
- acomjean 5y ago
  As someone who rides a bike in a state where Pot is legal, there are a fair number of people who are smoking and driving, many more than before legalization. And the homeless population seems to have embraced pot as well. The sky hasn't fallen, but when riding I give a wide berth. There is a lot of inconsistency, but the lines between "drug" and "Recreational substance" are certainly blurred, be it for Opiates or Pot. On one hand our food and drug administration couldn't figure out why in some places they're distributing more opioids than there are people, and voters went from "pot is a medicine" to "pot is recreational". Regulation of anything was a total failure so maybe another plan.. So legalize and pay for treatment.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    The only thing I am afraid of people driving high on weed is me getting stuck behind someone going too slow, most likely increasing safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The risk factors are probably ranked something like alcohol > using mobile/driving while sleep deprived > eating/applying makeup >>>>>>> talking to someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>high on weed.
    - acomjean 5y ago
      I actually know of someone who was hit by a high driver. Hurt pretty bad. One of the problems is there is not a way to prove pot impairment, so reporting doesn’t really exist (no breathalyzer for pot). Maybe they think they’re driving slow but I haven’t seen any change in speed. Is it worse than texting and driving? probably not, but I suspect it isn’t great either. Pot today is very potent.
EastOfTruth 5y ago
They claim that for increased job security... What they don't understand is that they could get a more productive job somewhere else... If they would defund the DEA now, how far could they push back the shutdown?
- adminscoffee 5y ago
  that's actually a really good idea. if people want to defund systematic racism. defund the dea.
NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
Perhaps we could redirect the DEA towards enforcing responsible use of antibiotics? You don't have to dismantle the Agency and we can do something about the antibiotic-resistant bacteria problem.
leafygreene 5y ago
Those “Congratulations to Drugs for Winning the War on Drugs” bumper stickers must really bite if you're a DEA agent.
- QuercusMax 5y ago
  You mean "Congrats to Drugs", right? (You put "The War on Drugs" twice, which doesn't make sense)
  - LeifCarrotson 5y ago
    Congrats to the war profiteers for winning the budget to fight the war on drugs. Congrats to drugs for winning the war on drugs.
  - leafygreene 5y ago
    I did. Too much bud threw my grammar aside. Corrected.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - 1MachineElf 5y ago
    In spite of being nonsensical, I appreciate the former because it echoes the sentiment that up to today, it seems like the war profiteers have won more than any particular side in this insane "War on Drugs." Also, the circular logic of the statement fits with the theme of insanity.
tinus_hn 5y ago
Which is true, as long as they accept no medical use!
aerostable_slug 5y ago
And they will continue to do so until directed otherwise by the White House, in this administration or the next (or the next, or the next...).
- aksss 5y ago
  I think both the Trump admin and the Biden admin have revealed how the White House is not as powerful an influence over the unelected bureaucracy as we have hitherto imagined. Many, many influences and vested interests at work in the executive branch that watch presidents come and go.
  - nate_meurer 5y ago
    In this case it doesn't matter. Biden has been a dedicated drug warrior throughout his whole political career, and he probably ain't gonna go soft now.
bborud 5y ago
Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?
- happyjack 5y ago
  You took the words from my mouth. Isn't this obvious?
- NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
  This. We should by default oppose all expansions of bureaucracy. Only when it is impossible to not expand should it happen.
  - arcanon 5y ago
    The bureaucracy kills a lot of idiotic ideas from the popularity contests that promise the world but break the bank, though.
    - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
      I suppose an indiscriminate damping mechanism could be a good thing in comparison to nothing at all
- drc500free 5y ago
  As Upton Sinclair wrote: > It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
- robbedpeter 5y ago
  Organization, sure, but the question is better posed to the humans in that organization. So, why would DEA agents want to undermine their agency's funding? Ethics. Morality. The desire to not be a horrible excuse for a human being inflicting needless pain and suffering and destroying the lives of the people their agency is ostensibly charged with serving. Not perpetuating the horrible status quo that's corrupted the spirit of their mission and accepting the will of the people.
bpodgursky 5y ago
I think it's OK say that Marijuana should be legal but acknowledge that the concrete proven medical benefits attributed to it are pretty marginal.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  That seems fair, certainly the "it's natural, it cures everything" kind of arguments are tissue-paper thin, but you'd think there'd be some acknowledgement of its common use for pain-management, and there are even FDA-approved medications derived from cannabis[1]. 1: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-drug-comprised-active-ingredient-derived-marijuana-treat-rare-severe-forms https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  If you are counting THC and CBD extracts as part of it's medical benefits, they are fairly wide.
- handrous 5y ago
  It's better for certain types of pain management than opioids (and way less risky than them), seems to be at least fairly effective as an anti-anxiety drug (look into stats on the percentage of Americans who are on prescription anti-anxiety meds—it's probably more than you expect), and, from my own experience, is vastly better than any of the prescription or OTC sleep aids I've tried, with less-scary common side effects as a bonus on top of the greater efficacy and better results the next morning (zero extra grogginess/hangover, provided I get the dose right). [EDIT] I may be understating the sleep-aid thing—just knowing that I've got a bag of gummies and that if I pop one a couple hours before bed I will fall asleep quickly that night, with minimal ill effects, does wonders for my state of mind throughout the day. Even having prescription pills for it before didn't, both because their effects felt more like "being drugged", so, seemed scarier/more-harmful, and because I knew I'd wake up the next morning feeling like shit, even if I got a full night's sleep. Actually, here's another thing: it's almost certainly less harmful to your health to get high semi-regularly than to get drunk semi-regularly. Even if all cannabis did was replace a measurable percentage of alcohol use, I'd be very surprised if that didn't improve population-wide health markers, and that's just from its recreational use. Not a medicinal use, but still an improvement to population health.
subpixel 5y ago
I am reminded, from time to time, that one of my high school classmates is living out a 25-year federal sentence after being convicted on marijuana conspiracy charges. On the other hand, I can get marijuana delivered to my house.
- gruez 5y ago
  > I am reminded, from time to time, that one of my high school classmates is living out a 25-year federal sentence after being convicted on marijuana conspiracy charges. There has to be more to this right? Trafficking tons of the stuff? Repeat offender? Violent history? enhancements? see also: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... edit, since people clearly are against this comment: I'm not arguing that that the "more to this" justifies the 25 years, only that "25 years for a marijuana conspiracy" isn't the whole story and we'd all benefit if we were able to judge the whole story rather than some person's stylized version of the story.
  - subpixel 5y ago
    they were allegedly involved in a project that moved marijuana across the south by truck, and they were the only defendants who did not plead guilty and agree to a deal, and were subsequently the only ones sent away for real time. my partial understanding is that they were involved in the laundering and/or obfuscation of funds, they probably had strong suspicions about what was going on, but there was enough easy money that they did not demand answers. they felt insulated from the crimes about which they had no concrete knowledge. claims were made at trial that were demonstrably false, but they refused to admit to things in a plea that they did not do or have knowledge of. which was the wrong call under the circumstances.
    - dTal 5y ago
      >they refused to admit to things in a plea that they did not do or have knowledge of. which was the wrong call What a sickening system. No better than the inquisition. Confess and repent, or suffer torture. At least the inquisition let you change your mind.
mountainriver 5y ago
Marijuana as schedule 1 is one of the dumbest things we have ever done. The fact that it remains in the modern era speaks to how incompetent the US has become.
- cronix 5y ago
  Right. Here's another branch of the same government that holds a patent for "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" from 2003 (filed in '99). Abstract: Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH 3 , and COCH 3. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6630507-B1 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6630507-B1 Patent showing medical value in one hand, "no accepted medical use" in the other.
- tro7ghor4 5y ago
  Not sure I'd call it "incompetent". Maybe something more like diabolical? Overt government disinformation, giving federal "authorities" the right to raid and plunder any person or organization involved in harboring plant material.
- Accujack 5y ago
  >The fact that it remains in the modern era speaks to how incompetent the US has become More racist than incompetent. The Nixon era war on weed was driven by hatred of blacks.
- imglorp 5y ago
netizen-936824 5y ago
"Anti-research clowns deny the results of research" Is anyone surprised?
atok1 5y ago
What use is the DEA to normal, everyday Americans?
exabrial 5y ago
Considering there are not FDA approved treatments that have gone through clinical trials, this is in fact true, and should be treated as such until this changes. If we want recreational use, just legalize for recreational use rather than backdoor the medical system. This would unclog a criminal justice system, reduce police encounters, and a host of other benefits that I think are desirable.
twirlock 5y ago
But remember, our government loves science and uses scientific evidence for policy decisions, and you should never ever "do your own research."
throwaway745686 5y ago
Just to point out, the "war on drugs" is just slightly veiled systemic racism in both who is targeted and for how long they are put away. Just another way for a person of color to lose their voting rights by becoming a felon. If the US really wanted to fight the war on drugs it would take a recovery approach and treat addiction like a disease.
nate_meurer 5y ago
Anyone who's shocked at the government's anti-scientific and immoral posturing about drugs is missing the point. This isn't about science or ethics or justice. It's about money. The US government uses drug laws to take billions of dollars from citizens every year, without having to convict or even charge them with any crime. Civil asset forfeiture allows the government to take your money, car, house, or anything else they want for any reason, and all they have to do is say they suspect your property was somehow connected to a drug crime. Law enforcement agencies at all levels are on the take, from local cops and sheriffs on up, and the feds give kickbacks to local agencies when they contribute their loot to the feds in return for less accountability and restrictions. This naked corruption is all you need to understand why the feds so desperately want to keep these drug laws in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://reason.com/2021/06/11/when-is-a-civil-forfeiture-based-on-drug-offenses-excessive-always/ https://reason.com/2021/06/11/when-is-a-civil-forfeiture-bas... https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asse...

75 points by DocFeind 5y ago

What bullshit. I have a prescription for a cream containing CBD and THC that has almost totally removed arthritis pain in my hands. Really life changing for me.

lambdaba 5y ago
Do you find (or know) that the THC is contributing to this effect on top of the CBD?
- roflc0ptic 5y ago
  not saying you're claiming otherwise, but both THC and CBD are derived from marijuana! edit: this comment is wrong.
  - jjcon 5y ago
    Cbd is generally derived from hemp (which is legal federally in the us) not marijuana
    - roflc0ptic 5y ago
      oh, true. found some pro marijuana sites that said it came from marijuana, but per more reputable sites it's just contained in marijuana, but derived from hemp. Thanks!
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        The difference between "marijuana" and "hemp" is only legal, not biological, so a distinction without a difference. Hemp growers use a variety bred to have little THC in it. The species is the same.
        roflc0ptic 5y ago
        Well now I’m doubly wrong.
        jjcon 5y ago
        The species is the same but it is a biological difference, in the same way that a Chihuahua and a Wolf are genetically the same species but in fact quite different.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    Hemp is marijuana. It is also found in the buds that you can smoke to get high. I believe they are somewhat competing components and their concentration depends on when you harvest a plant. It has either more THC/CBD depending on the time chosen. Didn't know doctors prescribe it. Hemp is relatively closely related to nettles, which are also used for some therapies for arthritis. Maybe there is another component that helps? Could be a coincidence of course.
- mark_l_watson 5y ago
  I told my Doctor that I was using over the counter CBD ointment. He told me that prescription CBD + THC ointment would be more effective, and he was correct!
jkmcf 5y ago
Would you mind sharing the brand/product name?
stooliepidgin 5y ago
Placebo effect. CBD and THC are not well absorbed topically and there's no data on transdermal bioavailability, so the effective dosage would be unscientific and unknown. The majority of CBD creams fall within the category of snake oil to dupe consumers into spending money just as they do on beauty products. THC absorption by the skin is very low. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12100860/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12100860/
- risedotmoe 5y ago
  While some CBD products I do believe to be snake oil, what basis do you have for products containing both CBD and THC to only being effective as a placebo? CBD isn’t truly effective without THC and the THC is what basically turns the snake oil into a legitimately effective product. Additionally, everyone’s sensitivity to marijuana differs and while skin absorption may be “low” that does not mean none and even the effects of a low amount can be felt.
  - stooliepidgin 5y ago
    > what basis do you have for products containing both CBD and THC to only being effective as a placebo Read the article. Because without carrier molecules, cannabinoids cannot be effectively absorbed to do much more than provide minor, dermal-area effects. There's no getting high, and not much deep penetration of anything. > CBD isn’t truly effective without THC. Truly what? Based on what evidence? 10 mg of pure CBD in a lipid sublingual tincture is calming if you've ever tried it. Easily distinguishable from placebo.

cwkoss 5y ago

Hard to think of a government agency with less credibility than the DEA. $5 says the average DEA agent uses more drugs than the average American.

marmaduke 5y ago
Not even five bucks, just the old saying “it takes one to know one”
Ancapistani 5y ago
> Hard to think of a government agency with less credibility than the DEA Ah, then allow me to introduce you to the ATF..

luigibosco 5y ago

appetite stimulant?

cheeseomlit 5y ago

I'm curious as to why did they needed to amend the constitution to ban alcohol, but they didn't need to amend it for the war on drugs

hbrav 5y ago
If I understand correctly, the answer is "they probably did need to, but didn't bother". You'll sometimes see articles say "these states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal at the federal level". If the DEA did choose to try and enforce marijuana prohibition in one of these states, the state would be able to sue, making the argument that the US constitution does not give this power to the federal government. The federal government would probably argue that it did have this power under the Commerce Clause. My understanding is that the DEA has avoided putting itself in a position where this could be litigated.
- Cycl0ps 5y ago
  DEA raiding dispensaries has been a thing since CA first legalized marijuana. I'm not local but it looks like it was ruled in federal court that the DEA isn't authorized to raid a business operating within state law. Not sure how this effects things regarding amendments, but thought it was worth sharing https://time.com/4080110/dea-medical-marijuana-california-ruling/ https://time.com/4080110/dea-medical-marijuana-california-ru...
- _moof 5y ago
  The US Supreme Court found in 2005 that the federal government is within its rights to criminalize the growing of marijuana for personal use via the commerce clause: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich As for why an amendment was needed in 1920 but not 1971, apparently the commerce clause didn't become the anything clause until after 1937. If this all sounds hopelessly inconsistent and/or hypocritical, well, I would agree with you.
  - wayoutthere 5y ago
    All the more reason to dispense with the current constitution that enshrines slavery and violence as protected rights. We nominally took back the slavery part but then recreated it with the prison system.

thatswrong0 5y ago

Yet another artifact of our gerontocracy

eigengrau5150 5y ago

<sarcasm>You know, if we legalize cannabis we'll have to legalize driving while black next. How will we legally enslave black people by convicting them of crimes and forcing them to engage in prison labor without laws we can selectively enforce against them?</sarcasm>

the_only_law 5y ago

I knew a guy who assumed that if marijuana would be legalized, the streets would be consumed by masses constantly walking and driving around stoned. Props to him though, for at least having some level of consistency. The same person also admitted to me he was strongly against alcohol and wish prohibition had succeeded.

acomjean 5y ago
As someone who rides a bike in a state where Pot is legal, there are a fair number of people who are smoking and driving, many more than before legalization. And the homeless population seems to have embraced pot as well. The sky hasn't fallen, but when riding I give a wide berth. There is a lot of inconsistency, but the lines between "drug" and "Recreational substance" are certainly blurred, be it for Opiates or Pot. On one hand our food and drug administration couldn't figure out why in some places they're distributing more opioids than there are people, and voters went from "pot is a medicine" to "pot is recreational". Regulation of anything was a total failure so maybe another plan.. So legalize and pay for treatment.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  The only thing I am afraid of people driving high on weed is me getting stuck behind someone going too slow, most likely increasing safety for bicyclists and pedestrians. The risk factors are probably ranked something like alcohol > using mobile/driving while sleep deprived > eating/applying makeup >>>>>>> talking to someone >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>high on weed.
  - acomjean 5y ago
    I actually know of someone who was hit by a high driver. Hurt pretty bad. One of the problems is there is not a way to prove pot impairment, so reporting doesn’t really exist (no breathalyzer for pot). Maybe they think they’re driving slow but I haven’t seen any change in speed. Is it worse than texting and driving? probably not, but I suspect it isn’t great either. Pot today is very potent.

EastOfTruth 5y ago

They claim that for increased job security... What they don't understand is that they could get a more productive job somewhere else... If they would defund the DEA now, how far could they push back the shutdown?

adminscoffee 5y ago
that's actually a really good idea. if people want to defund systematic racism. defund the dea.

NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago

Perhaps we could redirect the DEA towards enforcing responsible use of antibiotics? You don't have to dismantle the Agency and we can do something about the antibiotic-resistant bacteria problem.

leafygreene 5y ago

Those “Congratulations to Drugs for Winning the War on Drugs” bumper stickers must really bite if you're a DEA agent.

QuercusMax 5y ago
You mean "Congrats to Drugs", right? (You put "The War on Drugs" twice, which doesn't make sense)
- LeifCarrotson 5y ago
  Congrats to the war profiteers for winning the budget to fight the war on drugs. Congrats to drugs for winning the war on drugs.
- leafygreene 5y ago
  I did. Too much bud threw my grammar aside. Corrected.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 1MachineElf 5y ago
  In spite of being nonsensical, I appreciate the former because it echoes the sentiment that up to today, it seems like the war profiteers have won more than any particular side in this insane "War on Drugs." Also, the circular logic of the statement fits with the theme of insanity.

tinus_hn 5y ago

Which is true, as long as they accept no medical use!

aerostable_slug 5y ago

And they will continue to do so until directed otherwise by the White House, in this administration or the next (or the next, or the next...).

aksss 5y ago
I think both the Trump admin and the Biden admin have revealed how the White House is not as powerful an influence over the unelected bureaucracy as we have hitherto imagined. Many, many influences and vested interests at work in the executive branch that watch presidents come and go.
- nate_meurer 5y ago
  In this case it doesn't matter. Biden has been a dedicated drug warrior throughout his whole political career, and he probably ain't gonna go soft now.

bborud 5y ago

Why would any organization fighting for funding be inclined to undermine their reason for existing? And why would any rational person be interested in what they have to say about a topic that is well outside their area of expertise (medicine)?

happyjack 5y ago
You took the words from my mouth. Isn't this obvious?
NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
This. We should by default oppose all expansions of bureaucracy. Only when it is impossible to not expand should it happen.
- arcanon 5y ago
  The bureaucracy kills a lot of idiotic ideas from the popularity contests that promise the world but break the bank, though.
  - NoImmatureAdHom 5y ago
    I suppose an indiscriminate damping mechanism could be a good thing in comparison to nothing at all
drc500free 5y ago
As Upton Sinclair wrote: > It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.
robbedpeter 5y ago
Organization, sure, but the question is better posed to the humans in that organization. So, why would DEA agents want to undermine their agency's funding? Ethics. Morality. The desire to not be a horrible excuse for a human being inflicting needless pain and suffering and destroying the lives of the people their agency is ostensibly charged with serving. Not perpetuating the horrible status quo that's corrupted the spirit of their mission and accepting the will of the people.

bpodgursky 5y ago

I think it's OK say that Marijuana should be legal but acknowledge that the concrete proven medical benefits attributed to it are pretty marginal.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago
That seems fair, certainly the "it's natural, it cures everything" kind of arguments are tissue-paper thin, but you'd think there'd be some acknowledgement of its common use for pain-management, and there are even FDA-approved medications derived from cannabis[1]. 1: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-drug-comprised-active-ingredient-derived-marijuana-treat-rare-severe-forms https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...
vorpalhex 5y ago
If you are counting THC and CBD extracts as part of it's medical benefits, they are fairly wide.
handrous 5y ago
It's better for certain types of pain management than opioids (and way less risky than them), seems to be at least fairly effective as an anti-anxiety drug (look into stats on the percentage of Americans who are on prescription anti-anxiety meds—it's probably more than you expect), and, from my own experience, is vastly better than any of the prescription or OTC sleep aids I've tried, with less-scary common side effects as a bonus on top of the greater efficacy and better results the next morning (zero extra grogginess/hangover, provided I get the dose right). [EDIT] I may be understating the sleep-aid thing—just knowing that I've got a bag of gummies and that if I pop one a couple hours before bed I will fall asleep quickly that night, with minimal ill effects, does wonders for my state of mind throughout the day. Even having prescription pills for it before didn't, both because their effects felt more like "being drugged", so, seemed scarier/more-harmful, and because I knew I'd wake up the next morning feeling like shit, even if I got a full night's sleep. Actually, here's another thing: it's almost certainly less harmful to your health to get high semi-regularly than to get drunk semi-regularly. Even if all cannabis did was replace a measurable percentage of alcohol use, I'd be very surprised if that didn't improve population-wide health markers, and that's just from its recreational use. Not a medicinal use, but still an improvement to population health.

subpixel 5y ago

I am reminded, from time to time, that one of my high school classmates is living out a 25-year federal sentence after being convicted on marijuana conspiracy charges. On the other hand, I can get marijuana delivered to my house.

gruez 5y ago
> I am reminded, from time to time, that one of my high school classmates is living out a 25-year federal sentence after being convicted on marijuana conspiracy charges. There has to be more to this right? Trafficking tons of the stuff? Repeat offender? Violent history? enhancements? see also: https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/ https://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentenc... edit, since people clearly are against this comment: I'm not arguing that that the "more to this" justifies the 25 years, only that "25 years for a marijuana conspiracy" isn't the whole story and we'd all benefit if we were able to judge the whole story rather than some person's stylized version of the story.
- subpixel 5y ago
  they were allegedly involved in a project that moved marijuana across the south by truck, and they were the only defendants who did not plead guilty and agree to a deal, and were subsequently the only ones sent away for real time. my partial understanding is that they were involved in the laundering and/or obfuscation of funds, they probably had strong suspicions about what was going on, but there was enough easy money that they did not demand answers. they felt insulated from the crimes about which they had no concrete knowledge. claims were made at trial that were demonstrably false, but they refused to admit to things in a plea that they did not do or have knowledge of. which was the wrong call under the circumstances.
  - dTal 5y ago
    >they refused to admit to things in a plea that they did not do or have knowledge of. which was the wrong call What a sickening system. No better than the inquisition. Confess and repent, or suffer torture. At least the inquisition let you change your mind.

mountainriver 5y ago

Marijuana as schedule 1 is one of the dumbest things we have ever done. The fact that it remains in the modern era speaks to how incompetent the US has become.

cronix 5y ago
Right. Here's another branch of the same government that holds a patent for "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" from 2003 (filed in '99). Abstract: Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention. A particular disclosed class of cannabinoids useful as neuroprotective antioxidants is formula (I) wherein the R group is independently selected from the group consisting of H, CH 3 , and COCH 3. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6630507-B1 https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-6630507-B1 Patent showing medical value in one hand, "no accepted medical use" in the other.
tro7ghor4 5y ago
Not sure I'd call it "incompetent". Maybe something more like diabolical? Overt government disinformation, giving federal "authorities" the right to raid and plunder any person or organization involved in harboring plant material.
Accujack 5y ago
>The fact that it remains in the modern era speaks to how incompetent the US has become More racist than incompetent. The Nixon era war on weed was driven by hatred of blacks.
imglorp 5y ago

netizen-936824 5y ago

"Anti-research clowns deny the results of research" Is anyone surprised?

atok1 5y ago

What use is the DEA to normal, everyday Americans?

exabrial 5y ago

Considering there are not FDA approved treatments that have gone through clinical trials, this is in fact true, and should be treated as such until this changes. If we want recreational use, just legalize for recreational use rather than backdoor the medical system. This would unclog a criminal justice system, reduce police encounters, and a host of other benefits that I think are desirable.

twirlock 5y ago

But remember, our government loves science and uses scientific evidence for policy decisions, and you should never ever "do your own research."

throwaway745686 5y ago

Just to point out, the "war on drugs" is just slightly veiled systemic racism in both who is targeted and for how long they are put away. Just another way for a person of color to lose their voting rights by becoming a felon. If the US really wanted to fight the war on drugs it would take a recovery approach and treat addiction like a disease.

nate_meurer 5y ago

Anyone who's shocked at the government's anti-scientific and immoral posturing about drugs is missing the point. This isn't about science or ethics or justice. It's about money. The US government uses drug laws to take billions of dollars from citizens every year, without having to convict or even charge them with any crime. Civil asset forfeiture allows the government to take your money, car, house, or anything else they want for any reason, and all they have to do is say they suspect your property was somehow connected to a drug crime. Law enforcement agencies at all levels are on the take, from local cops and sheriffs on up, and the feds give kickbacks to local agencies when they contribute their loot to the feds in return for less accountability and restrictions. This naked corruption is all you need to understand why the feds so desperately want to keep these drug laws in place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#Statistics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... https://reason.com/2021/06/11/when-is-a-civil-forfeiture-based-on-drug-offenses-excessive-always/ https://reason.com/2021/06/11/when-is-a-civil-forfeiture-bas... https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asset-forfeiture-7-things-you-should-know https://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2014/03/civil-asse...