DEA, Scheduling and You Can't Fix Stupid
Overview
Originally Published: 09/15/2016
Post Date: 09/15/2016
by Tim Cheney
Summary/Abstract
The Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) recent decision to deny rescheduling of Marijuana contradicts modern scientific and medical research and existing legislation in 25 States.
Content
I just couldn't resist. This far exceeds the boundaries of stupidity. You just can't make this stuff up and the tax payers pay and entrust these morons to classify substances that become enforceable by law that result in mortality, broken families, incarceration and ultimately undermine the US economy. So bear with me as I part the proverbial curtain and expose the sheer stupidity of a several recent decision that our esteemed Drug Enforcement Administration has made that will drastically impact many peoples lives and keep the highly successful and profitable drug war raging for the next decade or so.
Full Definition of stupid
-
a : slow of mind : obtuseb :
b: given to unintelligent decisions or acts :
c: acting in an unintelligent or careless mannerc : lacking intelligence or reason : brutish
2: dulled in feeling or sensation : torpid <still stupid from the sedative
3: marked by or resulting from unreason ed thinking or acting : senseless <a stupid decision>
4: a: lacking interest or point <a stupid event>
b: vexatious, exasperating <the stupid car won't start>
Origin of Stupid
mid 16th century: from French stupide or Latin stupidus, from stupere ‘be amazed or stunned.’
EXHIBIT 1.
DEA Publishes Responses to Two Pending Petitions to Reschedule Marijuana
DEA has denied two petitions to reschedule marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In response to the petitions, DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which was conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in consultation with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Based on the legal standards in the CSA, marijuana remains a schedule I controlled substance because it does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is a lack of accepted safety for its use under medical supervision, and it has a high potential for abuse
The Rub
First lets examine the definition of a Schedule I:
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
- Heroin (diacetylmorphine)
- LSD (Lysergic acid diethylamide)
- Marijuana (cannabis, THC)
- Mescaline (Peyote)
- MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine or “ecstasy”)
- GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyric acid)
- Ecstasy (MDMA or 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine)
- Psilocybin
- Methaqualone (Quaalude)
- Khat (Cathinone)
- Bath Salts (3,4-methylenedioxypyrovalerone or MDPV)
You will notice Marijuana is included in this list. As a key criteria for classifying a substance as Schedule I drug, substance, or chemical is defined as a drug with no currently accepted medical use, one is left scratching their head as there are currently 25 States that have enacted laws to legalize Medical Marijuana. The operative words are Medical Marijuana.
I. Summary Chart: 25 states and DC have enacted laws to legalize medical marijuana |
|||||
State |
Year |
How Passed |
Possession Limit |
|
|
1. Alaska |
1998 |
Ballot Measure 8 (58%) |
1 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) |
|
|
2. Arizona |
2010 |
Proposition 203 (50.13%) |
2.5 oz usable; 12 plants |
|
|
3. California |
1996 |
Proposition 215 (56%) |
8 oz usable; 6 mature or 12 immature plants |
|
|
4. Colorado |
2000 |
Ballot Amendment 20 (54%) |
2 oz usable; 6 plants (3 mature, 3 immature) |
|
|
5. Connecticut |
2012 |
House Bill 5389 (96-51 H, 21-13 S) |
2.5 oz usable |
|
|
2010 |
Amendment Act B18-622 (13-0 vote) |
2 oz dried; limits on other forms to be determined |
|
||
6. Delaware |
2011 |
Senate Bill 17 (27-14 H, 17-4 S) |
6 oz usable |
|
|
7. Hawaii |
2000 |
Senate Bill 862 (32-18 H; 13-12 S) |
4 oz usable; 7 plants |
|
|
8. Illinois |
2013 |
House Bill 1 (61-57 H; 35-21 S) |
2.5 ounces of usable cannabis during a period of 14 days |
|
|
9. Maine |
1999 |
Ballot Question 2 (61%) |
2.5 oz usable; 6 plants |
|
|
10. Maryland |
2014 |
House Bill 881 (125-11 H; 44-2 S) |
30-day supply, amount to be determined |
|
|
11. Massachusetts |
2012 |
Ballot Question 3 (63%) |
60-day supply for personal medical use (10 oz) |
|
|
12. Michigan |
2008 |
Proposal 1 (63%) |
2.5 oz usable; 12 plants |
|
|
13. Minnesota |
2014 |
Senate Bill 2470 (46-16 S; 89-40 H) |
30-day supply of non-smokable marijuana |
|
|
14. Montana |
2004 |
Initiative 148 (62%) |
1 oz usable; 4 plants (mature); 12 seedlings |
|
|
15. Nevada |
2000 |
Ballot Question 9 (65%) |
2.5 oz usable; 12 plants |
|
|
16. New Hampshire |
2013 |
House Bill 573 (284-66 H; 18-6 S) |
Two ounces of usable cannabis during a 10-day period |
|
|
17. New Jersey |
2010 |
Senate Bill 119 (48-14 H; 25-13 S) |
2 oz usable |
|
|
18. New Mexico |
2007 |
Senate Bill 523 (36-31 H; 32-3 S) |
6 oz usable; 16 plants (4 mature, 12 immature) |
|
|
19. New York |
2014 |
Assembly Bill 6357 (117-13 A; 49-10 S) |
30-day supply non-smokable marijuana |
|
|
20. Ohio |
2016 |
House Bill 523 (71-26 H; 18-15 S) |
Maximum of a 90-day supply, amount to be determined |
|
|
21. Oregon |
1998 |
Ballot Measure 67 (55%) |
24 oz usable; 24 plants (6 mature, 18 immature) |
|
|
22. Pennsylvania |
2016 |
Senate Bill 3 (149-46 H; 42-7 S) |
30-day supply |
|
|
23. Rhode Island |
2006 |
Senate Bill 0710 (52-10 H; 33-1 S) |
2.5 oz usable; 12 plants |
|
|
24. Vermont |
2004 |
Senate Bill 76 (22-7) HB 645 (82-59) |
2 oz usable; 9 plants (2 mature, 7 immature) |
|
|
25. Washington |
1998 |
Initiative 692 (59%) |
24 oz usable; 15 plants |
|
Okay, so maybe they are confused or maybe they are smarter than hundreds of scientists and medical practioners who undoubtedly hoodwinked the legislators in 25 states into believing that Marijuana had some medicinal value. Or, Maybe they are just stupid or trying to create enough business to justify their existence. My vote goes to the latter.