DEA to reschedule marijuana?

[interchange]

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?

Both happen, but I would not go so far to say cause so much as confer increased risk in a multi-factorial illness. But the risk increase is not insignificant, and cessation of use does not seem to mitigate that risk.

People smoking cannabis to cope with schizophrenia doesn't bug me so much, although it is not something I recommend. It confers no long term benefit, and may be harmful.

Which kind of brings me to the point about cannabis overall in terms of what it does. I do not want to discount its effects. It is anxiolytic, analgesic, anti-emetic, and sedative, and lots of people have stress, pain, nausea, and insomnia. Actually, the fact that it works is exactly the problem with it. When someone comes to you for financial advise because they've maxed out their credit card, do you tell them to open another one? Anxiety, pain, nausea, and insomnia suck, but if we have things going on in our lives that we need to address, it benefits no one to smoke a bowl and put it off for another day. For pain, cannabis is not fundamentally different in problems than opioids. Short term benefit, tolerance, and avoidance of productivity despite pain all reinforce disability and do not improve any outcome chronically. I'd give it to a terminal cancer patient, though, if it helped.

 

[Darwin333]

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?

Society as a whole. The, and I hate to use this term, quasi police state we have been slowly but surely heading towards is quelled. We save untold tax dollars in convicting and jailing non-violent people who have harmed no one but themselves (if even at all). We can focus more on treating addiction. People with said addictions aren't locked up in criminal university for very long periods of time and then thrown back into society with very limited job choices which often leads them to commit much more serious crimes. We immediately reduce gang violence because they don't have any profit in it anymore.

The better question would be, who doesn't benefit? Most people that want to smoke pot already do. Look up the percentage of Americans who smoke pot and you will be amazed at how many do smoke recreationally. And I don't buy that 30% number one bit. I know way to many middle and upper class people who take an occasional toke but drink way more often and still wouldn't consider them alcoholics or having an issue with alcohol. The difference is that those middle and upper class people keep what they do very secret, sometimes even from their spouse who is ironically enough also toking it up on occasion and keeping it from the other.

The fact of the matter is marijuana is safer than Tylenol and it's light years safer then tobacco.

 

[SlowSpyder]

But I do care. When looking at the totality of the risks vs. rewards of legal marijuana, I think the picture is quite clear.... there is no good reason to keep it illegal. We can nitpick how nothing legal is perfectly safe 100% of the time for every single person. Research shows that for some people the risk of schizophrenia increases with marijuana use. I don't deny that. Now let's look at heart disease and caffeine use. Alcohol vs. the host of problems it creates. Marijuana is much more benign in the body than other legal substances, like tobacco, alcohol, or probably even acetaminophen and NSAID's, both physically and mentally. I just don't see how marijuana is illegal in light of other things we are perfectly fine with being for sale in the corner drugstore, almost non-regulated in many cases. Nothing is perfect, but looking at the big picture logically, I'm not sure how anyone can be against legalization.

One more thing to look at, since legalization roads are safer (less drunk drivers?) in CO as of the time of this article (I don't have anything more recent) - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...lities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/

*edit - Used my lifer post to talk about marijuana.

 

[disappoint]

Which kind of brings me to the point about cannabis overall in terms of what it does. I do not want to discount its effects. It is anxiolytic, analgesic, anti-emetic, and sedative, and lots of people have stress, pain, nausea, and insomnia. Actually, the fact that it works is exactly the problem with it. When someone comes to you for financial advise because they've maxed out their credit card, do you tell them to open another one? Anxiety, pain, nausea, and insomnia suck, but if we have things going on in our lives that we need to address, it benefits no one to smoke a bowl and put it off for another day. For pain, cannabis is not fundamentally different in problems than opioids. Short term benefit, tolerance, and avoidance of productivity despite pain all reinforce disability and do not improve any outcome chronically. I'd give it to a terminal cancer patient, though, if it helped.

No I wouldn't tell them to open up another credit card because that just exacerbates their problem. Would cannabis use make anxiety, pain, nausea and/or insomnia worse?

 

[rudder]

This would be huge for his legacy. If be disappointed if he didn't do it, esp when he knows it's bullshit.

If he doesn't, the GOP or Clinton likely won't do it.

The Pharma industry has a huge lobbying presence. They have many reasons ($$$) for this not to happen.

 

[zinfamous]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dea-marijuana-reschedule_us_5704567de4b0537661881644


Place your bets. I would like to believe that the Obama admin will finally make this right.

Can Obama do this, though? Sounds like the DEA can call its own shots on the scheduling, no? Of course you know how that will end up.....$$$$$$

I would assume that Obama can't do much more than wag his finger at them and tell the to "stahp! oh-so-nicely when they continue to raid dispensaries in legal states.

 

[interchange]

No I wouldn't tell them to open up another credit card because that just exacerbates their problem. Would cannabis use make anxiety, pain, nausea and/or insomnia worse?

Would opening a new credit card make somebody's inability to purchase goods worse?

No different. Just a matter of perspective.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The Pharma industry has a huge lobbying presence. They have many reasons ($$$) for this not to happen.

People say this, but I don't know that I buy it. If marijuana was legal and easy to research, a whole host of novel drugs could be developed. THC has known anti-tumor properties, if the way it interacts with cancer cells is unique, new drugs based of THC that are better and more targeted can be created. I think there'd be a lot of money to be made by big pharma from marijuana.

 

[zinfamous]

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

Control.

everyone wants something to control them.

some choose religion, some choose government. other's choose interest groups.

you choose whiskey.

 

[zinfamous]

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?

The 20s sure were a great time for criminals and murder. Oh, and lots of murder.

So, making such substances illegal certainly benefits criminals.

 

[zinfamous]

Both happen, but I would not go so far to say cause so much as confer increased risk in a multi-factorial illness. But the risk increase is not insignificant, and cessation of use does not seem to mitigate that risk.

People smoking cannabis to cope with schizophrenia doesn't bug me so much, although it is not something I recommend. It confers no long term benefit, and may be harmful.

Which kind of brings me to the point about cannabis overall in terms of what it does. I do not want to discount its effects. It is anxiolytic, analgesic, anti-emetic, and sedative, and lots of people have stress, pain, nausea, and insomnia. Actually, the fact that it works is exactly the problem with it. When someone comes to you for financial advise because they've maxed out their credit card, do you tell them to open another one? Anxiety, pain, nausea, and insomnia suck, but if we have things going on in our lives that we need to address, it benefits no one to smoke a bowl and put it off for another day. For pain, cannabis is not fundamentally different in problems than opioids. Short term benefit, tolerance, and avoidance of productivity despite pain all reinforce disability and do not improve any outcome chronically. I'd give it to a terminal cancer patient, though, if it helped.

the last part: you left out addiction. As a physician or therapist? yourself, you realize that comparing the two in pros/cons is rather silly, right?

cannabis can be mildly addictive, to some individuals, but is not nearly as "effectively" addicting as any opioid.

 

[interchange]

the last part: you left out addiction. As a physician or therapist? yourself, you realize that comparing the two in pros/cons is rather silly, right?

cannabis can be mildly addictive, to some individuals, but is not nearly as "effectively" addicting as any opioid.

I am not sure I understand what you are asking, but I think I can clarify my meaning a bit.

There are, of course, big differences in both benefit and addictive potential. That's not my point.

My point is that both will benefit in the short term. Both will also come with tolerance to pain control. Both will facilitate disability. When people pop pain pills or smoke a joint, the next immediate response is what? It certainly isn't usually I feel so much better, let me paint the house, do my taxes, get off my ass and go to the gym, go into work early so I can try and get a bonus, etc.. There are some people who will take advantage of that opportunity, but even those will just become tolerant to the substance over time. The others will be set on a downward spiral of reinforcing the illness and non-productive coping mechanism.

Their differential in efficacy, harm, and rate of addiction is inconsequential to this argument. In the best case, they are something that works for a little while. In the worst, you are just racking up debt.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

#1 is bullshit. Legalization does not facilitate crime but rather denies revenue to criminals. It also breaks the connection between cannabis & other much more damaging drugs at the societal level.

#2 is also bullshit because if confuses the propensity to use cannabis among proto-schizophrenics with cannabis use itself.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

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.

Nifty little dance. Of course physicians would prefer to have fewer patients addicted to drugs other than cannabis because of the very real health risks & consequences associated with such drugs.

What are the health risks associated with cannabis that justify use of force & incarceration in an attempt to deny its use or its place in lawful commerce?

 

[Darwin333]

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.

Louisiana just passed a law reducing the maximum sentence for possession of marijuana from 20 years to 8 years. So even with the new reduced sentencing you can still be sentenced with 8 years in prison for possession of marijuana. Not distribution, not manufacturing but merely possession.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/marijuana_law_louisiana_jindal.html

I'm not sure about you but I don't consider a 20 year jail sentence or even an 8 year jail sentence to be "very low consequence".

 

[flexy]

What are the health risks associated with cannabis that justify use of force & incarceration in an attempt to deny its use or its place in lawful commerce?

There are no, or possibly even less health risks associated with C. as compared to many other drugs/products out there. (I am sure drinking my bottle of Windex wouldn't be very healthy eiter...)

Although I need to point out that THERE IS a risk that C. can bring out/cause certain types of psychosis and I don't think it's a good general "remedy" "against anxiety", in some cases it can actually exacerbate anxiety. Of course this depends on type of strain, dosage, experience and personality of the one who uses it.

I myself am torn between that I, one on hand, would like it being legal but on the other hand ALSO caution from irresponsible use. The current hyping of C. as "medicine" and as a general remedy "for everything" I think as at least as stupid as putting people in jail for using it. There needs to be a healthy middle-ground. It being illegal doesn't help, it just makes one side glorifying it and the other demonizing it.

 

[alien42]

Louisiana just passed a law reducing the maximum sentence for possession of marijuana from 20 years to 8 years. So even with the new reduced sentencing you can still be sentenced with 8 years in prison for possession of marijuana. Not distribution, not manufacturing but merely possession.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2015/06/marijuana_law_louisiana_jindal.html

I'm not sure about you but I don't consider a 20 year jail sentence or even an 8 year jail sentence to be "very low consequence".

even worse is they kept the 3 strike law in effect for marijuana. the new Vice TV channel has a series called Weediquette that had a whole episode on Louisiana.

 

[crashtech]

Beware of those who tout their "care" for others as justification to impose an authoritarian regime. I'd much rather those "caring" individuals would mind their own damn business; most of us wish to care for ourselves and do so just fine, thanks.

 

[interchange]

Poor Louisiana. I am in no way in favor of prison time for possession of Marijuana, and I think a rational approach is in ticketing for possession (also a much better financial alternative).

The only reason I want cannabis to remain illegal is for it to be a sufficient deterrent for people who might consider using it regularly from trying or increasing usage. I don't feel that legislation has any effect on people who have already made the decision to regularly consume cannabis.

The basis of my feeling so strongly is because I want to prevent schizophrenia, and the people who are harmed by cannabis in this fashion are typically doing so without knowledge of risks, and at a time in their lives when legally and developmentally they don't have full capacity to act on said knowledge. And that there is no opportunity for secondary prevention after the risk has been incurred.

You don't have to agree. In all other matters, I am not a fan of cannabis because I see no benefit in its common use, and potential for harm. Usually not big harm, but harm nonetheless. Where we balance that with individual liberty and financial implications in policing and / or taxing its use is more arbitrary to me, and deals more with the role of government in our lives than it has to do with cannabis itself.

I am only pursuing statements made in this thread in support of cannabis legalization when the rationale behind them is flawed, and the arguments made do not consider the totality of evidence for or against cannabis. I don't care if you feel pros outweigh cons.

I do think, though, that our society ought to be more able to look at evidence for controversial topics a bit more objectively before clearly stating that one action is right and another is wrong.

 

[kage69]

even worse is they kept the 3 strike law in effect for marijuana. the new Vice TV channel has a series called Weediquette that had a whole episode on Louisiana.

Thanks for the heads up! I'm interested in any expose regarding my least favorite state and will give it a look.

 

[DrPizza]

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.

You're a physician? I think my 8th grade health teacher explained the difference between psychological addiction and physical addiction on a level that even middle school kids could comprehend. First, drugs can be both. But, are you denying that there are addictions that are little more than cravings, while there are physical addictions that without continuing to get that drug, the patient will literally get very sick?

 

[marincounty]

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.

Maybe you should go back to medical school. Recent graduates are known to have more state of the art knowledge of medicine.
Your acceptance of the link between schizophrenia and marijuana use is suspect, this is based on very limited science. The NIDA is notorious for only funding research that focuses on the negative effects of illegal drugs, not the positive effects. You are basing your opinions on biased research.
At the same time several studies have found protective effects of cannabis on the lungs, my opinion is that there need to be studies about adding marijuana to tobacco products to make them less harmful.
As for the enormous amount of regulation of food, what a crock. Farmers spray millions of pounds of toxic chemicals on our food, all permitted by the "enormous regulation".
You aren't even allowed to test a cow for mad cow disease, it's illegal.

 

[Jhhnn]

Poor Louisiana. I am in no way in favor of prison time for possession of Marijuana, and I think a rational approach is in ticketing for possession (also a much better financial alternative).

In that, you support maintenance of a criminal supply chain & policing for profit.

The only reason I want cannabis to remain illegal is for it to be a sufficient deterrent for people who might consider using it regularly from trying or increasing usage. I don't feel that legislation has any effect on people who have already made the decision to regularly consume cannabis.

The basis of my feeling so strongly is because I want to prevent schizophrenia, and the people who are harmed by cannabis in this fashion are typically doing so without knowledge of risks, and at a time in their lives when legally and developmentally they don't have full capacity to act on said knowledge. And that there is no opportunity for secondary prevention after the risk has been incurred.

If you were really a physician, you'd recognize the difference between correlation & causation.

You don't have to agree. In all other matters, I am not a fan of cannabis because I see no benefit in its common use, and potential for harm. Usually not big harm, but harm nonetheless. Where we balance that with individual liberty and financial implications in policing and / or taxing its use is more arbitrary to me, and deals more with the role of government in our lives than it has to do with cannabis itself.

It's not necessary to see any benefits, but rather to see that the harms of prohibition outweigh the benefits many times over.

I am only pursuing statements made in this thread in support of cannabis legalization when the rationale behind them is flawed, and the arguments made do not consider the totality of evidence for or against cannabis. I don't care if you feel pros outweigh cons.

You sure as Hell haven't addressed the rational arguments. Nor do you even care that they exist.

I do think, though, that our society ought to be more able to look at evidence for controversial topics a bit more objectively before clearly stating that one action is right and another is wrong.

You have yet to offer anything objective but rather exploit the "think of the children!" trope with wrongful assertions as to the links between schizophrenia & cannabis.

 

[zinfamous]

From what I recall on the criminally limited amount of available data on canabis research (god bless the DEA for that), canabis is a cell-surface antagonist. prolonged use does not rewire neural pathways, and replace normal hormone secretions like opiods and nicotine are know n to do.

There has never been a documented case of "cannabis withdrawal" that I am aware of, probably the best way to define an actual physical addiction--the process whereby your body struggles to return to normalcy, replacing the chemical that you had been pumping in there for so many years, replacing normal biochemical function.

I could be wrong about the details...or not. The data is very limited here, interchange, which is what makes your request to "seriously investigate the research" a bit dubious. Real cannabis research has been squelched for decades due to its scheduling by the DEA.

Maybe you do need to go back to school to learn these things...or not? Either way, while there isn't a whole lot of good data, most of what is known is that there isn't a real physical addition component, hardly a psychological one that I am aware of, and that it is generally accepted as far safer than such drugs as alcohol and tobacco.

But I completely understand your position from a physician's perspective. I think it's complicated enough to recommend an array of pills (or not; some docs sure as shit love their pills!), this is simply another complicating factor. At the same time...it strikes me as yet another potent medicine, with essentially no greater negative side affects than a large array of FDA-approved drugs used for psychosis or pain relief.

 

[interchange]

You're a physician? I think my 8th grade health teacher explained the difference between psychological addiction and physical addiction on a level that even middle school kids could comprehend. First, drugs can be both. But, are you denying that there are addictions that are little more than cravings, while there are physical addictions that without continuing to get that drug, the patient will literally get very sick?

I know plenty of what is taught about physiologic vs. psychologic dependence. The distinction is in name and not biologic consequence, and it has had the effect of leading to believe that addiction to cannabis is somehow not addiction because it's "psychologic" and not "physical" or mostly 1 or the other.

If there is a raging alcoholic who can't hold a job, is abusive to his children, and can't sleep without alcohol, does he have a different illness if he happens to be someone who does not experience any clinically significant withdrawal from alcohol? Plenty can stop cold turkey without deleterious effect, and yet there are others who really aren't so bad off with their intoxication that die from alcohol withdrawal.

Classically, is taught that physiologic dependence is marked by tolerance and withdrawal. Cannabis has both, but the withdrawal syndrome is uncommon and not particularly clinically significant.

Nonetheless, how is the addiction in any way not physiologic? Cannabis acts in the brain. It affects the reward pathway, just as does cocaine, alcohol, opioids, meth, nicotine, etc. Squirrel monkeys will self-administer it in addictive patterns. Do squirrel monkeys have psychology as a human does?