U.S. senate to consider changing Marijuana status from Class 1 to Class 2
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:28:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  U.S. senate to consider changing Marijuana status from Class 1 to Class 2
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: U.S. senate to consider changing Marijuana status from Class 1 to Class 2  (Read 2916 times)
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: March 10, 2015, 12:54:01 AM »

Class 1 : No recognized medical use, some potential for abuse.
Class 2 : Some medical use recognized, but high potential for abuse.

The bill would also prevent the federal government from shutting down state medical marijuana dispensaries.

http://www.vox.com/2015/3/9/8177969/senate-medical-marijuana

Finally, a step in the right direction on this issue by the federal government!
Logged
Illuminati Blood Drinker
phwezer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,528
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.42, S: -7.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2015, 01:33:23 AM »

Unfortunately it is the 114th Congress.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2015, 06:28:40 AM »

Will there be some Republicans that will vote for this? (besides Paul and few others)
Logged
They put it to a vote and they just kept lying
20RP12
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,236
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.29, S: -7.13

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2015, 07:37:03 AM »

Is Class 420 full decriminalization?
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: March 10, 2015, 09:36:37 AM »

If Sativex needs to be approved, I would think a rescheduling of Marijuana would be necessary. And that drug is approved in almost 30 countries with a wide variety of uses so.....
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2015, 05:11:46 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2015, 06:53:01 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse. In any case a move to schedule 2 is long overdue, and clinical studies can provide the necessary evidence to further move marijuana to more appropriate classifications.
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2015, 07:09:19 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse.
You phrased it in a manner that suggests that's not your argument, so please don't take this personally, but that is some serious Naso style logic.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: March 10, 2015, 09:13:48 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse. In any case a move to schedule 2 is long overdue, and clinical studies can provide the necessary evidence to further move marijuana to more appropriate classifications.

But what's the rationale for saying there's a higher potential for abuse now than before? Because some states legalized it and it's more readily available and accepted socially now? That seems crazy.
Logged
Small Business Owner of Any Repute
Mr. Moderate
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,431
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: March 10, 2015, 09:25:02 PM »

More specifically, though, I guess my problem is with this part of the Schedule II description:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Science doesn't support this at all. How is anyone supposed to take drug laws seriously if Congress is trying to legislate a falsehood into fact?
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: March 10, 2015, 09:29:38 PM »

can't the Executive reschedule whatever it wants unilaterally?  I know the DEA has authority to add substances to Sched I, and they add a couple dozen every year.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: March 10, 2015, 09:30:57 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse. In any case a move to schedule 2 is long overdue, and clinical studies can provide the necessary evidence to further move marijuana to more appropriate classifications.

But what's the rationale for saying there's a higher potential for abuse now than before? Because some states legalized it and it's more readily available and accepted socially now? That seems crazy.
In the actual law, Schedule I substances are supposed to have a roughly equivalent potential for abuse as Schedule II drugs, but have no accepted medical use.  In practice, the DEA has used Schedule I as a catch all for anything with no accepted medical use regardless of the level of potential abuse.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: March 10, 2015, 10:58:02 PM »

can't the Executive reschedule whatever it wants unilaterally?  I know the DEA has authority to add substances to Sched I, and they add a couple dozen every year.
Even if Obama can and wants to reschedule without congressional approval, the uproar he received over his relatively mild immigration order is probably making him hesitate on actually doing it.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: March 10, 2015, 11:09:57 PM »
« Edited: March 10, 2015, 11:18:00 PM by The Mikado »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse. In any case a move to schedule 2 is long overdue, and clinical studies can provide the necessary evidence to further move marijuana to more appropriate classifications.

But what's the rationale for saying there's a higher potential for abuse now than before? Because some states legalized it and it's more readily available and accepted socially now? That seems crazy.

It doesn't indicate that the potential for abuse is higher. Schedule I is just saying that there is no legal use for this drug and it's highly prone to abuse, Schedule II is saying that the drug has accepted medical uses and can be prescribed but is highly prone to abuse.

Current Schedule II drugs include cocaine and morphine, for example. Things that you can receive a prescription for, but only under highly regulated and very specific circumstances with non-renewable prescriptions.

EDIT: Given that we don't have Dr. Feelgood's Cocaine Emporium on every corner now, presumably making marijuana a Schedule II drug won't change the Feds' stance on dispensaries too much. A non-renewable prescription for marijuana from a real doctor taken care of at a real pharmacy doesn't leave much room for medicinal marijuana as currently practiced.

EDIT II: The TL;DR is that unless you're an actual sick person with a condition that marijuana actually alleviates, changing it from Schedule I to II isn't going to affect you. That's not to say this isn't a good thing, it is, but don't assume it's going to affect people other than people with glaucoma or chronic pain, and they'll probably be getting cannabis pills in bright orange bottles like all their other medications.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: March 10, 2015, 11:57:16 PM »

can't the Executive reschedule whatever it wants unilaterally?  I know the DEA has authority to add substances to Sched I, and they add a couple dozen every year.

Yes and no.  When it comes to drugs that are on Schedule IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (roughly equivalent to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act), it would take Congress to overrule that scheduling or it would take the International Narcotics Control Board choosing to reschedule that drug.  At present, the INCB has cannabis and cannabis resin on schedule IV and some cannabinoids on schedule I of the convention (equivalent to schedule II of the CSA).  This is because the CSA tells the executive to generally follow the INCB recommendations.  Unless the INCB reschedules cannabis to a less restrictive schedule, the DEA can't move marihuana to schedule II on its own.  If the INCB were to reschedule, the DEA could as well, but would not be obligated to.  The INCB schedules under the SCND and the CPS (Convention on Psychotropic Substances.) serves as a floor to the DEA schedules under the CSA. The DEA can be stricter on its own than the INCB, but to be laxer takes an act of Congress.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: March 11, 2015, 12:19:06 AM »

I'd have massive doubts of this passing even if the Democrats still controlled the Senate
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: March 11, 2015, 09:00:29 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse.
You phrased it in a manner that suggests that's not your argument, so please don't take this personally, but that is some serious Naso style logic.

You are correct, it's not my argument, but I've heard phrases like it many times, including from anti-marijuana lobbyists, but I have no one to attribute it to. I just thought the thread should have an example of what is said.
Logged
The Mikado
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,677


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: March 13, 2015, 11:52:03 AM »

Dean Heller (R-NV) signs on as a cosponsor.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: March 13, 2015, 12:09:10 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse.
You phrased it in a manner that suggests that's not your argument, so please don't take this personally, but that is some serious Naso style logic.

You are correct, it's not my argument, but I've heard phrases like it many times, including from anti-marijuana lobbyists, but I have no one to attribute it to. I just thought the thread should have an example of what is said.

What does  high potential for abuse mean? That folks will buy it illegally? If so, that is rather circular, and as it is legalized by more and more states, it won't be illegal to buy it, except in the eyes of the Feds.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: March 13, 2015, 01:47:00 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse.
You phrased it in a manner that suggests that's not your argument, so please don't take this personally, but that is some serious Naso style logic.

You are correct, it's not my argument, but I've heard phrases like it many times, including from anti-marijuana lobbyists, but I have no one to attribute it to. I just thought the thread should have an example of what is said.

What does  high potential for abuse mean? That folks will buy it illegally? If so, that is rather circular, and as it is legalized by more and more states, it won't be illegal to buy it, except in the eyes of the Feds.

I don't claim it's a good argument, but I think it comes from the meaning of the word abuse. Medically abuse means intentionally taking something outside of its prescribed dose or indicated use. If the indicated dose is zero because it's schedule I then any use of it is abuse, so in that case it seems to be self-fulfilling that if lots of people are using it then there is a high potential of abuse.

If it is medically available as schedule II, marijuana would still be subject to medical abuse in the technical sense if people are acquiring it to use when not medically prescribed. It would be considered the same as someone using opiate pain meds when not prescribed. The presence and extent of abuse is different from the question of harm caused by abuse.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: March 13, 2015, 02:00:04 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse.
You phrased it in a manner that suggests that's not your argument, so please don't take this personally, but that is some serious Naso style logic.

You are correct, it's not my argument, but I've heard phrases like it many times, including from anti-marijuana lobbyists, but I have no one to attribute it to. I just thought the thread should have an example of what is said.

What does  high potential for abuse mean? That folks will buy it illegally? If so, that is rather circular, and as it is legalized by more and more states, it won't be illegal to buy it, except in the eyes of the Feds.

I don't claim it's a good argument, but I think it comes from the meaning of the word abuse. Medically abuse means intentionally taking something outside of its prescribed dose or indicated use. If the indicated dose is zero because it's schedule I then any use of it is abuse, so in that case it seems to be self-fulfilling that if lots of people are using it then there is a high potential of abuse.

So if someone uses alcohol for a non-medical use, it is abuse?

Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: March 13, 2015, 02:24:29 PM »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse.
You phrased it in a manner that suggests that's not your argument, so please don't take this personally, but that is some serious Naso style logic.

You are correct, it's not my argument, but I've heard phrases like it many times, including from anti-marijuana lobbyists, but I have no one to attribute it to. I just thought the thread should have an example of what is said.

What does  high potential for abuse mean? That folks will buy it illegally? If so, that is rather circular, and as it is legalized by more and more states, it won't be illegal to buy it, except in the eyes of the Feds.

I don't claim it's a good argument, but I think it comes from the meaning of the word abuse. Medically abuse means intentionally taking something outside of its prescribed dose or indicated use. If the indicated dose is zero because it's schedule I then any use of it is abuse, so in that case it seems to be self-fulfilling that if lots of people are using it then there is a high potential of abuse.

So if someone uses alcohol for a non-medical use, it is abuse?


Alcohol is not scheduled substance and not generally the subject of a prescription. Alcohol can be abused, and the CDC and major medical organizations define alcohol abuse based on the amount and the circumstances of the user. Here's the CDC definition.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: March 13, 2015, 02:33:29 PM »
« Edited: March 13, 2015, 02:39:05 PM by Sbane »

High potential for abuse? Based on what?

The argument is that people are willing to break the law to get marijuana, so that constitutes a high potential for abuse.
You phrased it in a manner that suggests that's not your argument, so please don't take this personally, but that is some serious Naso style logic.

You are correct, it's not my argument, but I've heard phrases like it many times, including from anti-marijuana lobbyists, but I have no one to attribute it to. I just thought the thread should have an example of what is said.

What does  high potential for abuse mean? That folks will buy it illegally? If so, that is rather circular, and as it is legalized by more and more states, it won't be illegal to buy it, except in the eyes of the Feds.

I don't claim it's a good argument, but I think it comes from the meaning of the word abuse. Medically abuse means intentionally taking something outside of its prescribed dose or indicated use. If the indicated dose is zero because it's schedule I then any use of it is abuse, so in that case it seems to be self-fulfilling that if lots of people are using it then there is a high potential of abuse.

So if someone uses alcohol for a non-medical use, it is abuse?


Alcohol is not scheduled substance and not generally the subject of a prescription. Alcohol can be abused, and the CDC and major medical organizations define alcohol abuse based on the amount and the circumstances of the user. Here's the CDC definition.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

So basically someone (aka politicians who base decisions on fear and propoganda vs evidence based medicine) needs to make it a scheduled drug before it can be considered to be a drug of abuse. That seems like a good way of going about things.

Or we can realize the politics behind the scheduling of drugs and understand it is completely worthless when discussing the actual abuse potential of a drug, especially Marijuana.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,612


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: March 15, 2015, 01:48:35 AM »

What this means is that the new class 2 Senators elected in 2014 will be getting stoned instead of the class 1 Senators elected in 2012. Tongue
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,135
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: March 15, 2015, 03:05:15 AM »

     Schedule I is pretty dumb. It's hard to claim at this point that Marijuana has no medicinal value.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.064 seconds with 12 queries.