DEA to reschedule marijuana?

[Jhhnn]

I feel as though legalization of marijuana is inevitable.

Although, I am puzzled as to why so many people clamor for it to happen. Legalization of an addictive substance benefits who exactly?

It benefits all of us because we live in a relatively free society where govt intrusion into people's lives must be justified by much greater issues of public health & safety, of the general welfare.

Anti-cannabis law has never served those ends. It's always been wedge issue authoritarianism based on false premises of reefer madness & whatever else could be made to seem plausible.

It's a stupid reason to have swat teams stick guns in otherwise law abiding citizens' faces at 3 AM with the aim of putting them in prison. Beyond that, it engenders disrespect for the law in general.

 

[Sonikku]

LOL, Colorado did it, and we aren't anything special.

I'll bet Obama won't do it, because he loves being in control. He's a Socialist.

-John

And if he does will you eat crow? :hmm:

 

[crashtech]

I hope Obama does this. If Democrats focused more on social issues and less on class warfare, I could see myself joining them.

 

[Ken g6]

I don't expect them to "deschedule" it. I'm guessing they'll move it to schedule 3, or maybe schedule 2.

 

[K1052]

At most I think they'll shift it down a slot. Even money that they do nothing though.

 

[IronWing]

DEA to reschedule marijuana?

It's not at 420 anymore? Dude, no one's gonna remember that.

 

[interchange]

marijuana isn't addictive so the basis for your point is null.

Your experience treating addictive disorders is what exactly? The opinions of any actual medical organization on the addictive potential of marijuana are what?

Well, if you don't want to trust the experts on addiction, you could at least trust the experts on getting high:
http://www.hightimes.com/read/5-signs-you’re-smoking-too-much-marijuana

You might then want to look at the DSM-5 criteria for cannabis use disorder and be shocked to find out that everyone agrees, pot can be addictive.

 

[alien42]

Your experience treating addictive disorders is what exactly? The opinions of any actual medical organization on the addictive potential of marijuana are what?

Well, if you don't want to trust the experts on addiction, you could at least trust the experts on getting high:
http://www.hightimes.com/read/5-signs-you’re-smoking-too-much-marijuana

You might then want to look at the DSM-5 criteria for cannabis use disorder and be shocked to find out that everyone agrees, pot can be addictive.

believe what you want but that won't change reality.

the Mayo Clinic says "Marijuana may be addictive."

the National Institute of Drug Abuse says "30 percent of marijuana users may have some degree of marijuana use disorder"


do you hear anyone saying that alcohol and tobacco may be addictive?

sex may be addictive, driving fast may be addictive, anything may be addictive. i have enough personal experience with addiction to know the truth.

 

[interchange]

Anybody who gets caught in the war on drugs. We have hundreds of thousands of people in our prisons over this crap. And thousands of people in northern Mexico die every year. And thousands die in other countries over the drug trade.

For cannabis? That seems pretty much restricted to people who are:
1. knowingly and intentionally violating the law in order to profit from illegal enterprise
2. suffering from an addiction so severe that they are willfully or negligently putting themselves in dangerous situations to feed an addiction

Still, it's not a lot of people.

If protecting #1 was of any value, then we should just go to anarchy. The nature of the law is wholly irrelevant on that basis unless the law is so intrusive as to abridge our basic freedoms. Making it illegal to produce and distribute cannabis in no way does this.

#2 is a problem, although use of cannabis does not fall into your argument since the laws for it do not cause anyone who only uses cannabis from such a result. Nonetheless, addiction that is sufficient to cause more serious illegal activity (e.g. distribution, prostitution, robbery) is not appropriately managed in our legal system. Imprisonment is ineffective and costly. There are better solutions such as drug treatment programs with contingency (i.e. drug court). Still, making cannabis production/distribution legal would only facilitate addiction.

 

[interchange]

believe what you want but that won't change reality.

the Mayo Clinic says "Marijuana may be addictive."

the National Institute of Drug Abuse says "30 percent of marijuana users may have some degree of marijuana use disorder"


do you hear anyone saying that alcohol and tobacco may be addictive?

sex may be addictive, driving fast may be addictive, anything may be addictive. i have enough personal experience with addiction to know the truth.

Well, screw that. I'll clarify. Marijuana is an addictive substance, and ~30% of users meet criteria for substance use disorder. 30% of people having sex or driving do not meet criteria for an addictive disorder. Nonetheless, there exists with little controversy, treatment for both sex addiction and road rage. There are laws against prostitution and rape and reckless driving. There are a variety of ways in which criminal or civil actions may be exercised for the consequences of either of those addictions.

Don't get me wrong, if marijuana were legal to start with (as is alcohol), I would not be pushing to criminalize it. I'm not pushing to criminalize alcohol, although many use this as a counterexample to MJ because of it's addictive potential -- still, if stats are to be believed, there is a 7% prevalence of alcohol use disorder in adults, and being really conservative in saying 50% of adults use alcohol, that would make it only half as addictive as marijuana. Now, there will be no argument from me that the consequences of alcohol intoxication and addiction are, overall, more severe than those of marijuana.

In any event, we have only discussed the harm side of the equation. I am more interested in the benefit. Who benefits from decriminalization of marijuana?

 

[Jhhnn]

Your experience treating addictive disorders is what exactly? The opinions of any actual medical organization on the addictive potential of marijuana are what?

Well, if you don't want to trust the experts on addiction, you could at least trust the experts on getting high:
http://www.hightimes.com/read/5-signs-you’re-smoking-too-much-marijuana

You might then want to look at the DSM-5 criteria for cannabis use disorder and be shocked to find out that everyone agrees, pot can be addictive.

Addiction to cannabis is rare, mild & is not life threatening in the same way as tolerance associated with addiction to alcohol, opioids, cocaine, meth & prescription drugs. It's not unhealthy to anywhere near the same degree as tobacco.

It's easily the least harmful of all commonly used intoxicants. It's not poison.

Our overall experience with legalization here in CO has been quite positive so far & is unlikely to change. It works & it's easier on everybody.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, screw that. I'll clarify. Marijuana is an addictive substance, and ~30% of users meet criteria for substance use disorder.

What if the criteria of substance abuse disorder are often self serving for the people & institutions who wrote them?

Prior to the crack epidemic of the 80's neither cocaine nor cannabis were regarded as addictive. When the definitions for cocaine were necessarily changed they managed to fold cannabis into that, as well. That satisfied the cultural & scientific biases of the times.

 

[Phokus]

Well, screw that. I'll clarify. Marijuana is an addictive substance

It's not physically addictive, it can be psychologically addictive. A lot of people are addicted to food, so we should ban food too!

 

[interchange]

What if the criteria of substance abuse disorder are often self serving for the people & institutions who wrote them?

Prior to the crack epidemic of the 80's neither cocaine nor cannabis were regarded as addictive. When the definitions for cocaine were necessarily changed they managed to fold cannabis into that, as well. That satisfied the cultural & scientific biases of the times.

There is not a doctor alive that would love nothing more than to have less people in their practice addicted to drugs. There is a huge gap in our ability to serve these patients, and it's a hard population to serve. There is nothing self-serving about the classification of these drugs as addictive. The opposite would, in fact, be true.

 

[interchange]

Addiction to cannabis is rare, mild & is not life threatening in the same way as tolerance associated with addiction to alcohol, opioids, cocaine, meth & prescription drugs. It's not unhealthy to anywhere near the same degree as tobacco.

It's easily the least harmful of all commonly used intoxicants. It's not poison.

Our overall experience with legalization here in CO has been quite positive so far & is unlikely to change. It works & it's easier on everybody.

Being the least harmful drug does not make it any less of a drug. And addiction is not rare. Severe consequences of addiction are rare, but addiction always has negative consequence else it is not addiction.

 

[interchange]

It's not physically addictive, it can be psychologically addictive. A lot of people are addicted to food, so we should ban food too!

Please explain to me in any terms of biology that distinguish physical from psychological addiction and how this does not apply to cannabis. I'm a doctor who treats addiction on a daily basis. I can't. Maybe I should go back to medical school.

And, of course, food can be addictive. And there is an enormous amount of regulation out there in the food industry in the interest of the government protecting our health.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Addiction isn't a black and white thing, a substance isn't either addictive or not addictive. It's looked at by percentage of users who get addicted. Some people get addicted to marijuana. Some people get addicted to caffeine. Again, why is it the government's job to police that? Especially with substances that aren't overly great health risks, even if there is some addictive potential. Why are militarized police and the rights eroding war on drugs better than keeping people from smoking a plant they want to smoke and do smoke anyway?

 

[fskimospy]

For cannabis? That seems pretty much restricted to people who are:
1. knowingly and intentionally violating the law in order to profit from illegal enterprise
2. suffering from an addiction so severe that they are willfully or negligently putting themselves in dangerous situations to feed an addiction

Still, it's not a lot of people.

If protecting #1 was of any value, then we should just go to anarchy. The nature of the law is wholly irrelevant on that basis unless the law is so intrusive as to abridge our basic freedoms. Making it illegal to produce and distribute cannabis in no way does this.

By this logic we should never have ended alcohol prohibition. I think this entire line of argument fundamentally overlooks the actual harms of drug prohibition. Good public policy is about appropriately structuring incentives. Generally as the profitability of an action increases, the likelihood of someone doing it increases. Making marijuana (and other drugs) illegal dramatically increases the profitability of selling them, and in fact encourages more people to engage in criminal activity. This is the same issue we had with prohibition.

We expend enormous resources battling criminality that is the logical outcome of the public policy we decided to enact. Saying that we shouldn't have any care for people behaving in a way that was entirely predictable from the start is a failure of policy.

#2 is a problem, although use of cannabis does not fall into your argument since the laws for it do not cause anyone who only uses cannabis from such a result. Nonetheless, addiction that is sufficient to cause more serious illegal activity (e.g. distribution, prostitution, robbery) is not appropriately managed in our legal system. Imprisonment is ineffective and costly. There are better solutions such as drug treatment programs with contingency (i.e. drug court). Still, making cannabis production/distribution legal would only facilitate addiction.

Plenty of people who only use marijuana run afoul of the law for that alone. (there are in fact millions of arrests each year for marijuana possession). There's also a strong racist component to this enforcement. For example in NYC if you are black or hispanic you are far more likely to be subject to 'stop and frisk'. If you happen to have marijuana in your pocket, you're in trouble. I'm white and so I will probably never be stop and frisk-ed, meaning I can carry it with impunity.

Making marijana production and distribution legal would almost certainly increase addiction and negative outcomes from marijuana use. It would also eliminate huge numbers of dramatically more negative outcomes related to criminal justice and racial disparity issues. As best as I can tell the harms that come from marijuana use are absolutely dwarfed by the harms that come from our 'solution'. (and that solution is a near-total failure even at its stated goal)

 

[Linux23]

Considering that MJ was made illegal just to weed out certain members of society, I doubt it would ever be rescheduled.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

 

[fskimospy]

Considering that MJ was made illegal just to weed out certain members of society, I doubt it would ever be rescheduled.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

That is something that's also frequently overlooked. Marijuana was originally prohibited based in large part due to extreme racism. If you go back and look at contemporary statements as to why it was being banned it had basically nothing to do with any actual evidence of harms inflicted on society.

 

[interchange]

Addiction isn't a black and white thing, a substance isn't either addictive or not addictive. It's looked at by percentage of users who get addicted. Some people get addicted to marijuana. Some people get addicted to caffeine. Again, why is it the government's job to police that? Especially with substances that aren't overly great health risks, even if there is some addictive potential. Why are militarized police and the rights eroding war on drugs better than keeping people from smoking a plant they want to smoke and do smoke anyway?

We are getting closer to making sense, although I don't find the definition of addiction to be much more abstract than almost everything else in life. The fact that we struggle with applying it to cannabis is not reflective of it's fuzzy boundaries. We don't struggle with defining Alzheimer's as dementia, yet it's a clinical diagnosis. We don't struggle with calling opiates, cocaine, amphetamines, etc. as addictive yet their criteria are no different and no differently applied to an individual than is cannabis.

And then you get into the point of the government's role in regulation and their duty in protecting us from harm. This is the real argument, and it has nothing to do with pot. And, as everyone challenges me on food, driving, sex, etc. etc. (even much more benign and in fact essential to life [well, driving is a much different category]), it is clear just how many ways the government has their fingers in our business.

And to be clear, I am ambivalent about all the arguments posed here. Legalize pot or not. Take the stance that this is too much government in your business or not.

Just be crystal effing clear why you want pot legalized. Because you want to consume it, or you know people who consume it and you want them to be able to do so legally. Multiple times I asked who it benefits. It benefits users. Period. Why is everyone embarrassed to join this argument and say "I like pot, and I want to smoke it"? If MJ is not addictive, blah, blah, blah, then there should be no restrictions in that.

Personally, I am against legalization. I am against legalization for one reason. I treat a lot of people with schizophrenia, and cannabis use is linked to the development of that illness. And that illness is very high on the list of things I would wish on no one.

 

[fskimospy]

Just be crystal effing clear why you want pot legalized. Because you want to consume it, or you know people who consume it and you want them to be able to do so legally. Multiple times I asked who it benefits. It benefits users. Period. Why is everyone embarrassed to join this argument and say "I like pot, and I want to smoke it"? If MJ is not addictive, blah, blah, blah, then there should be no restrictions in that.

Personally, I am against legalization. I am against legalization for one reason. I treat a lot of people with schizophrenia, and cannabis use is linked to the development of that illness. And that illness is very high on the list of things I would wish on no one.

I have pretty bad asthma and so I basically never smoke weed. I am an emphatic supporter of legalization. So no, you can't discount opposition to prohibition based on the selfish interests of its proponents.

I am for legalization for a number of reasons:
1. Prohibition is largely ineffective. (percentage of Americans who have tried it appears to be going up, not down)
2. Prohibition is extremely expensive in a fiscal sense. We spend billions on it each year.
3. Prohibition is extremely expensive in a societal sense as drug arrests are hugely damaging to someone's future prospects.
4. It's racist. Drug prohibition's negative effects concentrate in minority communities far and above what differential drug use rates would suggest.

That's a pretty horrible list of negatives, no?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Legalization will likely benefit non-users too. Incarcerating people over what they choose to put into their own bodies isn't free. Tax revenue from legalization is not only not costing us money, but making money to use for society. Also, the risk of a flash grenade being thrown into your home over the possibility of there being a banned plant in the home goes down. I also don't agree with police checkpoints where you have to stop and prove you are innocent. The list goes on. Right now the most dangerous thing about marijuana (and many drugs) is being caught with it.

Personally, I am against legalization. I am against legalization for one reason. I treat a lot of people with schizophrenia, and cannabis use is linked to the development of that illness. And that illness is very high on the list of things I would wish on no one.

You are a doctor, do you support alcohol prohibition in an effort to save people with bad livers from making their condition worse? Would you tell someone under your care with a less than healthy liver to avoid alcohol? Or would you push for a ban on all alcohol?

 

[disappoint]

Just be crystal effing clear why you want pot legalized. Because you want to consume it, or you know people who consume it and you want them to be able to do so legally. Multiple times I asked who it benefits. It benefits users. Period. Why is everyone embarrassed to join this argument and say "I like pot, and I want to smoke it"? If MJ is not addictive, blah, blah, blah, then there should be no restrictions in that.

Personally, I am against legalization. I am against legalization for one reason. I treat a lot of people with schizophrenia, and cannabis use is linked to the development of that illness. And that illness is very high on the list of things I would wish on no one.

When you asked who legalization benefits my first thought was exactly that. Honestly it benefits users the most. I'm not a user nor have I ever been, but I did post that it should be legalized. I am also for LGBT rights even though I am neither lesbian, gay, bisexual nor transexual.

As far as your second point, are you saying cannabis use causes schizophrenia or that people who have schizophrenia self medicate with cannabis because they are unable to find any treatment options by traditional medicine without unwanted, often intolerable side effects?

 

[interchange]

Legalization will likely benefit non-users too. Incarcerating people over what they choose to put into their own bodies isn't free. Tax revenue from legalization is not only not costing us money, but making money to use for society. Also, the risk of a flash grenade being thrown into your home over the possibility of there being a banned plant in the home goes down. I also don't agree with police checkpoints where you have to stop and prove you are innocent. The list goes on. Right now the most dangerous thing about marijuana (and many drugs) is being caught with it.

Please. Being caught with marijuana would be bad to me because of my licensure. Possession of a usage amount of marijuana, in absence of any other criminal suspicion, is exceedingly unlikely to encounter legal attention, and if it does, has very low consequence.

Growing your own plants or distributing, especially across borders, is an entirely different matter.

You are a doctor, do you support alcohol prohibition in an effort to save people with bad livers from making their condition worse? Would you tell someone under your care with a less than healthy liver to avoid alcohol? Or would you push for a ban on all alcohol?

If I were to create a society from scratch, yes, that would not be a substance I would have as legal. But liver disease is not much part of that. More compelling are things like disinhibition leading to, well, suicide, homicide, and drunk driving accidents/fatalities.

Alcoholic liver disease is a consequence of regular and continued use, potentially reversible, and in itself not very impairing until it gets to later stages. If someone attains sobriety, there is possibility of cure through liver transplant. Even if someone is unaware of their risk, there is high likelihood that a healthcare provider can inform a patient of the problem well before any actual medical impairment is noted, and if one stops drinking, that would be the last of it.

For MJ, you do not have to be a chronic or current user to increase your risk of schizophrenia. Evidence suggests even 1 use ever in the past might increase risk. The condition is, in usual course, chronic and unremitting with severe impairment despite treatment and with significant toxicity associated with treatment, 25 years off lifespan, and 10% suicide rate. And users of cannabis are poorly educated on risks, not that education is of much value, since the most common risk bracket is adolescence.

But that's something I care about. There are pros and cons. This is one of the cons. You don't have to care about it.