Washington Post - Why the DEA just said ‘no’ to loosening marijuana restrictions
The Washington Post
Christopher Ingraham
August 11
For the fourth consecutive time, the Drug Enforcement Administration has denied a petition to lessen federal restrictions on the use of marijuana.
While recreational marijuana use is legal in four states and D.C., and medical applications of the drug have been approved in many more, under federal law, it remains a Schedule 1 controlled substance, which means it's considered to have "no currently accepted medical use" and a "high potential for abuse."
The gap between permissive state laws and a restrictive federal policy has become increasingly untenable in the minds of many doctors, patients, researchers, business owners and legislators.
For instance, last fall, a Brookings Institution report slammed the federal government for "stifling medical research" in the area of marijuana policy. As a Schedule 1 drug, it's much harder for researchers to work with marijuana than with many other controlled substances. The American Academy of Pediatrics has called on the government to move marijuana into Schedule 2 to facilitate more research into medical uses.
The current federal status of marijuana makes it impossible for state-legal marijuana businesses to take the same tax deductions afforded to other business, with some marijuana operations complaining that their effective tax rates are in the range of 60 percent to 90 percent, according to a Denver accountant who works with such businesses, Jordan Cornelius. Federal restrictions also make banks reluctant to work with marijuana businesses, leading many of them to become all-cash operations with all the risks that entails.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/11/the-deas-latest-stance-on-marijuana-explained/
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)Because it has no efficacy at all.
Warpy
(111,339 posts)one approved source and that's in Mississippi. Researchers can't get grants and they can't get their hands on the stuff to do their research on it.
That's some catch, that catch 22.
Most research is being done overseas and isn't being accepted by the FDA.
Shame on the whole stinking lot of them.
ms liberty
(8,596 posts)Produces pot that's so crappy no self respecting researcher really wants to use it. If the govt. tried to sell it on the street, no one would buy it because it's so bad. And they play games with researchers going thru the approval process, and then play more games with the amounts approved to researchers to use for research. It's really infuriating how the prohibition forces have stopped legitimate research with their shell games.
Lint Head
(15,064 posts)has proven it is effective. It's a weed. Grown naturally. The pharmacy industry would lose profits if pot were legal. Hydro-codone use and deaths from narcotics is way down in Colorado. To me that's proof enough.
kysrsoze
(6,023 posts)It's a stupid, circular mess. Meanwhile, alcohol and tobacco enjoy their protected status, as legal substances with mostly negative health implications and a high risk for abuse.
msongs
(67,441 posts)StrictlyRockers
(3,855 posts)We want the money. Where's the money, Lebowski?
elleng
(131,103 posts)elleng
(131,103 posts)oh right, government employees have SUCH clout.
BlueCollar
(3,859 posts)In this issue...in my opinion.
Legalize or de-criminalize pot and you empty half the cells in the country.
elleng
(131,103 posts)'Supporters of a saner marijuana policy scored a small victory this week when the Obama administration said it would authorize more institutions to grow marijuana for medical research. But the government passed up an opportunity to make a more significant change. . .
Apart from the scarcity of research-grade marijuana, the drugs Schedule 1 status means that scientists have to obtain multiple approvals from different federal agencies like the D.E.A. and the Food and Drug Administration to conduct research. By comparison, the government makes it much easier to study opioids and other dangerous drugs that are listed on Schedules 2 to 5.
The D.E.A. and the F.D.A. insist that there is not enough scientific evidence to justify removing marijuana from Schedule 1. This is a disingenuous argument; the government itself has made it impossible to do the kinds of trials and studies that could produce the evidence that would justify changing the drugs classification. . .
The Obama administration has done the right thing by allowing state legalization efforts to proceed. But the next president could easily undo that policy. Hillary Clinton has said she supports letting states legalize the drug and removing it from Schedule 1. Donald Trump has said he is personally opposed to legalization of recreational use, but he supports medical marijuana and the right of states to set their own policies.
Removing marijuana from Schedule 1 would be ideal. Reducing research restrictions and lessening penalties for users would be a step in the right direction.'
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/13/opinion/a-small-victory-for-more-sensible-marijuana-policies.html?
jtuck004
(15,882 posts)Might as well all be wearing hoods.
Festivito
(13,452 posts)"Why," the article promotes. Their why is not a why, it is how, how the DEA tells us to not look at the man behind the curtain.
There is no evidence that whole chickens have been taken out through that hole, and neither cameras or monitors are allowed to view the hole.
The RaCoons In Absentia R CIA quietly agree as they lick their chops. The Kool Kats Konsortium were even quieter in their agreement. The Possum Industrial Complex incarcerated their thoughts.
I'd like to have a well-paid somewhat-prestigious job that continues as long as I keep saying that you must continue agreeing to keep paying for my position. And, you're not allowed to question that until I let you.