A Pro Palin thread
- Thread starter ChChoda
- Start date
here's what wikipedia says of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970:
The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each. Two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, determine which substances are added or removed from the various schedules, though the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing.
here's what it says about it's enforcement:
Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.
The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.
Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the DEA Administrator, by authority of the Attorney General, requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.
The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance.
Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the DEA Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed.
Under certain circumstances, the Government may temporarily schedule a drug without following the normal procedure. An example is when international treaties require control of a substance. In addition, 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) allows the Attorney General to temporarily place a substance in Schedule I "to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety". Thirty days' notice is required before the order can be issued, and the scheduling expires after a year; however, the period may be extended six months if rulemaking proceedings to permanently schedule the drug are in progress. In any case, once these proceedings are complete, the temporary order is automatically vacated.
The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.
as you can see, all the power about scheduling drugs falls into the power of the DEA. not congress..... congress cannot ADD a substance to schedule 1, nor remove it..... the attorney general can add a substance to schedule 1, but not remove it.....
get it?????
The legislation created five Schedules (classifications), with varying qualifications for a substance to be included in each. Two federal agencies, the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Food and Drug Administration, determine which substances are added or removed from the various schedules, though the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing.
here's what it says about it's enforcement:
Proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.
The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information.
Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the DEA Administrator, by authority of the Attorney General, requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.
The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance.
Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the DEA Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed.
Under certain circumstances, the Government may temporarily schedule a drug without following the normal procedure. An example is when international treaties require control of a substance. In addition, 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) allows the Attorney General to temporarily place a substance in Schedule I "to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety". Thirty days' notice is required before the order can be issued, and the scheduling expires after a year; however, the period may be extended six months if rulemaking proceedings to permanently schedule the drug are in progress. In any case, once these proceedings are complete, the temporary order is automatically vacated.
The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.
as you can see, all the power about scheduling drugs falls into the power of the DEA. not congress..... congress cannot ADD a substance to schedule 1, nor remove it..... the attorney general can add a substance to schedule 1, but not remove it.....
get it?????
DubsFan
Well-Known Member
The problem with more than two parties is that you can be elected with say 25 or 33% of the vote. To me the two party system gets us as close as possible to happiness. Two party system only half are pissed at who's in office. Three and four parties has the potential for 75% of the nation to be unhappy.
Katatawnic
Well-Known Member
No, you need to look it up, because all I did was Google "schedule 1 drug reschedule" and WOW, lookie here!
Drug Rescheduling Criteria
The following U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Drug Rescheduling Criteria details the requirements that marijuana, currently a Schedule I drug, must meet before the DEA will agree to lower the marijuana's Schedule to permit physicians to easily prescribe it to patients. (see "What is Federal drug scheduling?", "Should marijuana be reclassified as a drug generally available by prescription (Schedule II or III)?," and the most recent Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana) (PDF)
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY'S FIVE-FACTOR TEST FOR [DRUG] RESCHEDULING
[Formulated in 1992 in response to a court challenge to scheduling.}
- The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible.
The substance's chemistry must be scientifically established to permit it to be reproduced in dosages which can be standardized. The listing of the substance in a current edition of one of the official compendia, as defined by section 201(j) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC 321(f), is sufficient generally to meet this requirement.
- There must be adequate safety studies.
There must be adequate pharmacological and toxicological studies done by all methods reasonably applicable on the basis of which it could be fairly and reasonably concluded, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, that the substance is safe for treating a specific, recognized disorder.
- There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.
There must be adequate, well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted, and well-documented studies, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the substance will have its intended effect in treating a specific, recognized disorder.
- The drug must be accepted by qualified experts.
The drug must have a New Drug Application (NDA) approved by the Food and Drug Administration. . . or, a consensus of the national community of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, accepts the safety and effectiveness of the substance for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. A material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding of consensus.
- The scientific evidence must be widely available.
In the absence of NDA approval, information concerning the chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and effectiveness of the substance must be reported, published, or otherwise widely available in sufficient detail to permit experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, to fairly and responsibly conclude the substance is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder.
So if it is illegal for the gov't to recognize any studies, then why are two of the above factors insisting on... studies, scientific evidence, and the availability and acceptability of said findings?
Found via Google again, in seconds: Medical Marijuana ... Interesting facts about studies, amongst other MMJ facts.
And then there's this, published April 21, 2006:
It may be difficult to get studies recognized by the gov't, but it's not illegal.
Back atcha. While you're at it, cite your sources instead of spouting personal conclusions.
Google is your friend.(I see there are new posts as I preview this, but I'm not going to bother reading, much less responding, to them, as I've spent some time on researching claims before posting them.
)
CrackerJax
New Member
He's a simpleton. No one is talking about the DEA. The DEA enforces the laws of the land. If congress CHANGES the law of the land, the DEA must OBVIOUSLY comply with it.
Again, according to ur logic, Congress is powerless to pass law because the DEA is in the way! Uhhh, no....Einstein.
Congress could pass a full legalization of weed TOMORROW! Then what does the DEA do? Defy that law?
Congress could make weed legal tomorrow.
Holey Moley, ... thick!!!!!!!
Stay in skool kidz! Stay in skool!!!
Again, according to ur logic, Congress is powerless to pass law because the DEA is in the way! Uhhh, no....Einstein.
Congress could pass a full legalization of weed TOMORROW! Then what does the DEA do? Defy that law?
Congress could make weed legal tomorrow.
Holey Moley, ... thick!!!!!!!
Stay in skool kidz! Stay in skool!!!
Katatawnic
Well-Known Member
And let's not overlook the whole DUH! Factor when the President can order the DEA to leave those complying with their state MMJ laws alone. The DEA has the ultimate power, eh? I was so amused at the insistence of the impossibility of any drug ever being able to be rescheduled from 1 no matter what evidence to prove it shouldn't be Schedule 1 (oh, and that it's illegal for the gov't to acknowledge studies)... that I forgot to mention the obvious proof (such as my first sentence in this post) that the DEA does not write the laws; only enforces them as ordered to do. That was fun! 
I was so amused at the insistence of the impossibility of any drug ever being able to be rescheduled from 1 no matter what evidence to prove it shouldn't be Schedule 1 (oh, and that it's illegal for the gov't to acknowledge studies)... that I forgot to mention the obvious proof (such as my first sentence in this post) that the DEA does not write the laws; only enforces them as ordered to do. That was fun!
CrackerJax
New Member
Yah, we've been fighting since the 60's to get weed legalized and REDIVidER comes along and tells us it's impossible to do!
All those ppl wasting all those years trying to get Weed legalized.
They should've just called REDIVidER to check first.....
Lawdy ...
All those ppl wasting all those years trying to get Weed legalized.
They should've just called REDIVidER to check first.....
Lawdy ...
Katatawnic
Well-Known Member
Well, at least we now know not to waste anymore time or effort. I can officially stop caring. 
CrackerJax
New Member
Kat, can you call High Times for me? I'm gonna run down some of my old Yippie friends and let them know all those rallies were really really stupid.
CrackerJax
New Member
That's my question.... get ur own..
Hey, seriously, it almost happened with carter, and that's about the last time the Dem's had complete control.
Well, sad fact is, history has repeated itself, and weed is now more mainstream than ever before.
So, yes, why isn't it done? You're never going to get a bigger majority in both houses than RIGHT NOW. There's a reset coming in 2010, then the excuses will flow.
It's now , or maybe never, at least after Obama and the knee jerk next Presidents term. By then, who knows what the landscape will be.
It's now or never.... and they're not even talking about it in Congress.
Hey, seriously, it almost happened with carter, and that's about the last time the Dem's had complete control.
Well, sad fact is, history has repeated itself, and weed is now more mainstream than ever before.
So, yes, why isn't it done? You're never going to get a bigger majority in both houses than RIGHT NOW. There's a reset coming in 2010, then the excuses will flow.
It's now , or maybe never, at least after Obama and the knee jerk next Presidents term. By then, who knows what the landscape will be.
It's now or never.... and they're not even talking about it in Congress.
you want to know why it makes it illegal to pay attention to any study claiming a schedule 1 drug has any sort of madical benefit?? because the act of studying a schedule 1 drug for medical benefit is illegal in itself....
No, you need to look it up, because all I did was Google "schedule 1 drug reschedule" and WOW, lookie here!
Drug Rescheduling Criteria
The following U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) Drug Rescheduling Criteria details the requirements that marijuana, currently a Schedule I drug, must meet before the DEA will agree to lower the marijuana's Schedule to permit physicians to easily prescribe it to patients. (see "What is Federal drug scheduling?", "Should marijuana be reclassified as a drug generally available by prescription (Schedule II or III)?," and the most recent Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana) (PDF)
DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY'S FIVE-FACTOR TEST FOR [DRUG] RESCHEDULING
[Formulated in 1992 in response to a court challenge to scheduling.}
[Cited Sources: LeCraw (1996) and 57 Federal Register 10499 (1992)]
- The drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible.
The substance's chemistry must be scientifically established to permit it to be reproduced in dosages which can be standardized. The listing of the substance in a current edition of one of the official compendia, as defined by section 201(j) of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 USC 321(f), is sufficient generally to meet this requirement.- There must be adequate safety studies.
There must be adequate pharmacological and toxicological studies done by all methods reasonably applicable on the basis of which it could be fairly and reasonably concluded, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, that the substance is safe for treating a specific, recognized disorder.- There must be adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.
There must be adequate, well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted, and well-documented studies, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the substance will have its intended effect in treating a specific, recognized disorder.- The drug must be accepted by qualified experts.
The drug must have a New Drug Application (NDA) approved by the Food and Drug Administration. . . or, a consensus of the national community of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, accepts the safety and effectiveness of the substance for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. A material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding of consensus.- The scientific evidence must be widely available.
In the absence of NDA approval, information concerning the chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and effectiveness of the substance must be reported, published, or otherwise widely available in sufficient detail to permit experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, to fairly and responsibly conclude the substance is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder.
So if it is illegal for the gov't to recognize any studies, then why are two of the above factors insisting on... studies, scientific evidence, and the availability and acceptability of said findings?
Found via Google again, in seconds: Medical Marijuana ... Interesting facts about studies, amongst other MMJ facts.
And then there's this, published April 21, 2006:
It may be difficult to get studies recognized by the gov't, but it's not illegal.
Back atcha. While you're at it, cite your sources instead of spouting personal conclusions.
(I see there are new posts as I preview this, but I'm not going to bother reading, much less responding, to them, as I've spent some time on researching claims before posting them.
they won't pay attention to any study that is done against the law....
are you guys being so difficult for the hell of it or what????
if it was as simple as paying attention to any study about medical benefits marijuana would've been legalized a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago....
the law is purposefully cyclical:
Drug A is schedule 1.
I perform a study that proves drug A has medical benefits. The study I performed is considered an illegal act by the DEA, and gives them reason to arrest me if I get caught. Since I was engaging in an illegal act by performing the study, any evidence I obtain is inadmissible by their standards. they cannot listen to my argument.
so even if there are a million studies done in the US proving the same thing, they will be inadmissible, they won't hear it, and the drug remains schedule 1....
see how the law was written??? that's how it goes.......
the law is purposefully cyclical:
Drug A is schedule 1.
I perform a study that proves drug A has medical benefits. The study I performed is considered an illegal act by the DEA, and gives them reason to arrest me if I get caught. Since I was engaging in an illegal act by performing the study, any evidence I obtain is inadmissible by their standards. they cannot listen to my argument.
so even if there are a million studies done in the US proving the same thing, they will be inadmissible, they won't hear it, and the drug remains schedule 1....
see how the law was written??? that's how it goes.......
that's why I say that the legislation necessary to legalize marijuana has to be monumental, a la health care reform.
there's thousands of lawyers who have dedicated their entire careers to finding a loophole in the law, unsuccessfully.
the law in place today has a procedure to remove drugs from schedule 1, only as a formality, as a practicality it's impossible.
there's thousands of lawyers who have dedicated their entire careers to finding a loophole in the law, unsuccessfully.
the law in place today has a procedure to remove drugs from schedule 1, only as a formality, as a practicality it's impossible.
CrackerJax
New Member
Is that why you say???
Holey mackerel......
Stay in skool kidz!!!!
Holey mackerel......
Stay in skool kidz!!!!
dude i have a family member who is a clinical psychologist... he/she traveled outside the US and has seen studies that conclusively prove actual therapeutic benefit of using low-dose MDMA in patients......
yet the modern-world has a fear of drugs that has been pervasive and unrelenting... i would love nothing more than for they (PEOPLE WHO WANT NOTHING BUT THE WELL BEING OF PATIENTS) to have all the tools at their disposal to be able to do their job...
they have not been able to present these findings to the DEA, the studies can't even get published, because scholarly journals risk loosing credibility on a world stage.... and these aren't a bunch of drug-dealers/users.... these are professionals who want to make a difference in the world.... and these types of findings can open the door to new realms of treatment, using psychedelics in low doses to help people deal with their problems is possible.... but the government refuses to see it, and refuses to allow anyone to research it.......
it's such a monopolized/fucked up system it's not even funny.... it's a sad reality, a reality nonetheless....
yet the modern-world has a fear of drugs that has been pervasive and unrelenting... i would love nothing more than for they (PEOPLE WHO WANT NOTHING BUT THE WELL BEING OF PATIENTS) to have all the tools at their disposal to be able to do their job...
they have not been able to present these findings to the DEA, the studies can't even get published, because scholarly journals risk loosing credibility on a world stage.... and these aren't a bunch of drug-dealers/users.... these are professionals who want to make a difference in the world.... and these types of findings can open the door to new realms of treatment, using psychedelics in low doses to help people deal with their problems is possible.... but the government refuses to see it, and refuses to allow anyone to research it.......
it's such a monopolized/fucked up system it's not even funny.... it's a sad reality, a reality nonetheless....