4 ms·

While I agree that the headline is click-baity, and the stats are a bit suspect, I still want to see headlines like these in the mainstream press, because it ra

While I agree that the headline is click-baity, and the stats are a bit suspect, I still want to see headlines like these in the mainstream press, because it raises questions about why MJ is classified as a Schedule-I drug after all? I'm not a smoker (maybe once or twice a year, at most?). But the blatant lying by the government (that MJ has no medicinal value and is more dangerous than meth), which flies in the face of science, _and_ the governments prohibition on research, really bothers me. Are we a theocracy? Shouldn't we let science inform our decisions?? Edit: gah! I meant Schedule-I, not Schedule-III ! Edited.

mycroft-holmes 12y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, marijuana is a Schedule I drug. https://www.google.com/search?q=schedule+1+drugs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=schedule+1+drugs&ie=utf-8&oe...
- masklinn 12y ago
  You're correct, schedule I is "high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use and unsafe to use even under medical supervision". Schedule III would be "less potential for abuse than I and II, accepted medical use, abuse may lead to high psychological dependence or low to moderate physical dependence" (Schedule II is for high abuse potential and severe physical or psychological dependence drugs which nonetheless have accepted medical use e.g. cocaine, amphetamines, morphine). A problematic side effect of I is that being allowed to study them is extremely difficult, so getting enough data to move a drug from schedule I to schedule II is near-impossible.
  - shawabawa3 12y ago
    > schedule I is "high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use and unsafe to use even under medical supervision" I think even the most vocal marijuana opponents would agree schedule 1 classification is insane. Stricter control than cocaine? Really?
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > I think even the most vocal marijuana opponents would agree schedule 1 classification is insane. The most vocal marijuana opponents frequently publicly proclaim (perhaps with different wording) all three elements of Schedule I classification, so I doubt that. > Stricter control than cocaine? I would expect that the only disagreement many of those vocal marijuana opponents would have with that is that Cocaine should also be Schedule I, not that marijuana should not be schedule I.
    - mycroft-holmes 12y ago
      Yet it's legal to smoke, with a license, at our nation's capital.
      - ska 12y ago
        I don't think anyone, regardless of their own take on the issues, would argue that current drug policy in the U.S. is internally consistent.
        mycroft-holmes 12y ago
        True. I wasn't necessarily trying to imply that anybody does. It was more to illustrate that we live in one of those countries now. In most of the US, you could get thrown into jail but it's fine as long as you're where all the politicians are.
        discardorama 12y ago
        > but it's fine as long as you're where all the politicians are. Though, to be fair: the DC MJ laws were changed by the voters of DC, despite threats from Republicans to repeal that law. The Congress did not vote itself a puff-puff-pass law. Also: you cannot toke up in the federal areas of DC (a large chunk of DC is under the feds, including national parks and monuments), despite what the DC law says.
        imgabe 12y ago
        Unless you mean local DC politicians, that doesn't make sense. The Congressmen/women are the ones who are trying to keep it illegal in DC. Pot legalization in DC has nothing to do with it being where "the politicians" are.
- jevinskie 12y ago
  Except in the UN schedule where it is Schedule II: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances#Schedule_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub...
- discardorama 12y ago
  You are right. I corrected my comment.
poolpool 12y ago
Racism
- CalRobert 12y ago
  A discussion of the history of drug legislation and its intended target (Chinese immigrants in SF, for instance) would lend more weight to your comment.
- dyeje 12y ago
  It's a shame that this is being downvoted, as the prohibition of marijuana was in fact very racially motivated [1]. 1. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/collsp21&div=22&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/c...
Synaesthesia 12y ago
We don't really let science inform our policy decisions. They are driven by other motives, most frequently business lobbying. Not a Theocracy, more of an Oligarchy.

mycroft-holmes 12y ago

Unless I'm mistaken, marijuana is a Schedule I drug. https://www.google.com/search?q=schedule+1+drugs&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=schedule+1+drugs&ie=utf-8&oe...

masklinn 12y ago
You're correct, schedule I is "high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use and unsafe to use even under medical supervision". Schedule III would be "less potential for abuse than I and II, accepted medical use, abuse may lead to high psychological dependence or low to moderate physical dependence" (Schedule II is for high abuse potential and severe physical or psychological dependence drugs which nonetheless have accepted medical use e.g. cocaine, amphetamines, morphine). A problematic side effect of I is that being allowed to study them is extremely difficult, so getting enough data to move a drug from schedule I to schedule II is near-impossible.
- shawabawa3 12y ago
  > schedule I is "high potential for abuse, no accepted medical use and unsafe to use even under medical supervision" I think even the most vocal marijuana opponents would agree schedule 1 classification is insane. Stricter control than cocaine? Really?
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I think even the most vocal marijuana opponents would agree schedule 1 classification is insane. The most vocal marijuana opponents frequently publicly proclaim (perhaps with different wording) all three elements of Schedule I classification, so I doubt that. > Stricter control than cocaine? I would expect that the only disagreement many of those vocal marijuana opponents would have with that is that Cocaine should also be Schedule I, not that marijuana should not be schedule I.
  - mycroft-holmes 12y ago
    Yet it's legal to smoke, with a license, at our nation's capital.
    - ska 12y ago
      I don't think anyone, regardless of their own take on the issues, would argue that current drug policy in the U.S. is internally consistent.
      - mycroft-holmes 12y ago
        True. I wasn't necessarily trying to imply that anybody does. It was more to illustrate that we live in one of those countries now. In most of the US, you could get thrown into jail but it's fine as long as you're where all the politicians are.
        discardorama 12y ago
        > but it's fine as long as you're where all the politicians are. Though, to be fair: the DC MJ laws were changed by the voters of DC, despite threats from Republicans to repeal that law. The Congress did not vote itself a puff-puff-pass law. Also: you cannot toke up in the federal areas of DC (a large chunk of DC is under the feds, including national parks and monuments), despite what the DC law says.
        imgabe 12y ago
        Unless you mean local DC politicians, that doesn't make sense. The Congressmen/women are the ones who are trying to keep it illegal in DC. Pot legalization in DC has nothing to do with it being where "the politicians" are.
jevinskie 12y ago
Except in the UN schedule where it is Schedule II: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Substances#Schedule_II https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Psychotropic_Sub...
discardorama 12y ago
You are right. I corrected my comment.

poolpool 12y ago

Racism

CalRobert 12y ago
A discussion of the history of drug legislation and its intended target (Chinese immigrants in SF, for instance) would lend more weight to your comment.
dyeje 12y ago
It's a shame that this is being downvoted, as the prohibition of marijuana was in fact very racially motivated [1]. 1. http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/collsp21&div=22&id=&page= http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/c...

Synaesthesia 12y ago

We don't really let science inform our policy decisions. They are driven by other motives, most frequently business lobbying. Not a Theocracy, more of an Oligarchy.