burnin1
Well-Known Member
From hightimes.com
Schedule II? Not So Fast, Hillary
By Paul Armentano · Wed Mar 09, 2016
Speaking at a recent campaign stop in South Carolina, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for reclassifying marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act, moving it from Schedule Ithe most restrictive categoryto Schedule II. The problem with medical marijuana is, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, Clinton opined. But we havent done any research. Why? Because it is considered what is called a Schedule I drug, and you cant even do research in it.
To resolve this dilemma, Clinton said, she would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, so that researchers at universities [and the] National Institutes of Health can start researching what is the best way to use ithow much of a dose does somebody need, how does it interact with other medications.
Although Clintons call for rescheduling represents a modest improvement in her willingness to address Americas failed Drug War, her newfound stance is hardly progressive. Various marijuana-law reform advocates, including NORML and High Times, have filed administrative petitions over the course of the last few decades seeking to repeal pots Schedule I status.
Even among the 2016 presidential candidates, Clintons position isnt unique. This past spring, Republican hopeful Rand Paul co-sponsored congressional legislation that would move cannabis to Schedule II. In September, Democratic candidate Martin OMalley pledged that, if elected, he would use his executive powers to reschedule pot. And in November, Clintons leading Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, introduced legislation in the Senate to strike both marijuana and THC from the federal criminal code.
While Sanderss bill would significantly transform Americas marijuana policies, Clintons rescheduling proposal would actually do little to change the existing landscape. Moreover, her premise that scientists have yet to do any meaningful research on cannabis and its effects is woefully incorrect.
Unlike conventional pharmaceuticals, the marijuana plant possesses an extensive history of human use dating back thousands of years, thereby providing us with ample empirical evidence as to its safety and efficacy.
Moreover, despite cannabiss modern-day politicization, the plant and its compounds have been subject to extensive scientific scrutiny. A search using the term marijuana on the website of the National Library of Medicinethe repository for all peer-reviewed scientific researchyields more than 22,000 papers referencing the plant and/or its constituents.
Among this extensive body of literature are over 100 randomized controlled studies, involving thousands of subjects, evaluating the safety and efficacy of cannabis or individual cannabinoids. A 2012 review of several of these trials concluded: Based on evidence currently available, the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on [its] safety is lacking.
In short, Clintons argument is both ignorant and unpersuasive. Marijuana shouldnt be included in the Controlled Substances Act whatsoever because ample scientific evidence already exists disproving the governments claim that it is among the most dangerous substances known to humankind.
Moreover, moving cannabis to Schedule IIthe same category as cocainecontinues to misrepresent the plants safety relative to other controlled substances, and fails to provide states with the ability to create their own pot policies free from federal interference.
Curiously, the federal regulations that make it so difficult to conduct research on marijuana in the United Statessuch as the requirement that all samples used must come from the University of Mississippis pot program, which was granted a virtual monopoly on cultivation by the federal governmentapply only to cannabis, not to Schedule I drugs in general. Thus, simply moving cannabis to Schedule II will do nothing to change these regulations.
Finally, the sort of long-term Phase III trials that Clinton advocatesthe gold standard of medical researchare prohibitively expensive. Typically, such trials are funded by private pharmaceutical companies hoping to bring a product to market; in other cases, the federal government will assist in paying these costs. However, neither entity is likely to pony up the tens of millions of dollars necessary to conduct these trials for cannabis anytime soon, if ever.
This is not to say that rescheduling cannabis wouldnt have any positive effects. At a minimum, it would bring an end to the federal governments longstanding intellectual dishonesty about pot, especially the claim that it lacks accepted medical use. It would also likely result in state-compliant cannabusinesses being able to use banks and other financial services, and to take tax deductions similar to those enjoyed by other businesses.
But it would do little to significantly ameliorate federal prohibition or to make herbal cannabis accessible for clinical study. These goals can only be accomplished by de-scheduling cannabis completely and treating it in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco. This will give states the power to establish their own marijuana policies, free from federal intrusion.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/schedule-ii-not-so-fast-hillary
Schedule II? Not So Fast, Hillary
By Paul Armentano · Wed Mar 09, 2016
Speaking at a recent campaign stop in South Carolina, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton called for reclassifying marijuana under the federal Controlled Substances Act, moving it from Schedule Ithe most restrictive categoryto Schedule II. The problem with medical marijuana is, there is a lot of anecdotal evidence about how well it works for certain conditions, Clinton opined. But we havent done any research. Why? Because it is considered what is called a Schedule I drug, and you cant even do research in it.
To resolve this dilemma, Clinton said, she would move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II, so that researchers at universities [and the] National Institutes of Health can start researching what is the best way to use ithow much of a dose does somebody need, how does it interact with other medications.
Although Clintons call for rescheduling represents a modest improvement in her willingness to address Americas failed Drug War, her newfound stance is hardly progressive. Various marijuana-law reform advocates, including NORML and High Times, have filed administrative petitions over the course of the last few decades seeking to repeal pots Schedule I status.
Even among the 2016 presidential candidates, Clintons position isnt unique. This past spring, Republican hopeful Rand Paul co-sponsored congressional legislation that would move cannabis to Schedule II. In September, Democratic candidate Martin OMalley pledged that, if elected, he would use his executive powers to reschedule pot. And in November, Clintons leading Democratic rival, Bernie Sanders, introduced legislation in the Senate to strike both marijuana and THC from the federal criminal code.
While Sanderss bill would significantly transform Americas marijuana policies, Clintons rescheduling proposal would actually do little to change the existing landscape. Moreover, her premise that scientists have yet to do any meaningful research on cannabis and its effects is woefully incorrect.
Unlike conventional pharmaceuticals, the marijuana plant possesses an extensive history of human use dating back thousands of years, thereby providing us with ample empirical evidence as to its safety and efficacy.
Moreover, despite cannabiss modern-day politicization, the plant and its compounds have been subject to extensive scientific scrutiny. A search using the term marijuana on the website of the National Library of Medicinethe repository for all peer-reviewed scientific researchyields more than 22,000 papers referencing the plant and/or its constituents.
Among this extensive body of literature are over 100 randomized controlled studies, involving thousands of subjects, evaluating the safety and efficacy of cannabis or individual cannabinoids. A 2012 review of several of these trials concluded: Based on evidence currently available, the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on [its] safety is lacking.
In short, Clintons argument is both ignorant and unpersuasive. Marijuana shouldnt be included in the Controlled Substances Act whatsoever because ample scientific evidence already exists disproving the governments claim that it is among the most dangerous substances known to humankind.
Moreover, moving cannabis to Schedule IIthe same category as cocainecontinues to misrepresent the plants safety relative to other controlled substances, and fails to provide states with the ability to create their own pot policies free from federal interference.
Curiously, the federal regulations that make it so difficult to conduct research on marijuana in the United Statessuch as the requirement that all samples used must come from the University of Mississippis pot program, which was granted a virtual monopoly on cultivation by the federal governmentapply only to cannabis, not to Schedule I drugs in general. Thus, simply moving cannabis to Schedule II will do nothing to change these regulations.
Finally, the sort of long-term Phase III trials that Clinton advocatesthe gold standard of medical researchare prohibitively expensive. Typically, such trials are funded by private pharmaceutical companies hoping to bring a product to market; in other cases, the federal government will assist in paying these costs. However, neither entity is likely to pony up the tens of millions of dollars necessary to conduct these trials for cannabis anytime soon, if ever.
This is not to say that rescheduling cannabis wouldnt have any positive effects. At a minimum, it would bring an end to the federal governments longstanding intellectual dishonesty about pot, especially the claim that it lacks accepted medical use. It would also likely result in state-compliant cannabusinesses being able to use banks and other financial services, and to take tax deductions similar to those enjoyed by other businesses.
But it would do little to significantly ameliorate federal prohibition or to make herbal cannabis accessible for clinical study. These goals can only be accomplished by de-scheduling cannabis completely and treating it in a manner similar to alcohol or tobacco. This will give states the power to establish their own marijuana policies, free from federal intrusion.
http://www.hightimes.com/read/schedule-ii-not-so-fast-hillary
