Marijuana to Remain a Schedule 1 Drug

onenerdykidI agree that we should judge the negative effects & merits of weed on its own, but it does say something when the DEA claims that these drugs here have similar abuse risks and these drugs over here pose less of a risk, since they are all measured against the same standard. I was also asking if you thought that as well. Assuming all were equally available, do you actually think methamphetamine or cocaine pose less potential for abuse than weed?

Also your definition of substance abuse is simply too narrow. Simple and irregular "over-use" does not qualify as abuse. If I become barely drunk (i.e. enough that I cannot drive a car legally but not enough to present any actual or discernible impairment) then I am not abusing alcohol. I'll agree with you that I may not be ingesting the most virtuous amount, but intoxication alone does not constitute abuse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse

I think you are incorrectly equating "being in a virtuous state of mind" with "a patterned use of a drug in which the user consumes the substance in amounts or with methods which are harmful to themselves or others, and is a form of substance-related disorder".


Also interesting is the chart on that wiki page from medical psychiatrists specializing in addiction and see where weed ranks compared to other schedule 1 & 2 drugs. Definitely not a high level of dependency (nor low either), even on its own accord. Hardly belonging in the "worst of the worst" category of drugs.

GORILLAWALLACEthat graph looks like it was made for grade 9 health class

californiagrownAlso, is the DEA responsible for outlawing or creating drug laws, or just enforcing them?

californiagrownProbably. But this is a discussion about why weed is schedule 1. And according to the current guidelines, I very much understand why it is ranked schedule 1.

CheddarJackEnforcing. It's in the name. Lawmakers make the laws.

CheddarJackEither way, as you can see, cannabis has 1.5 dependences and 1 physical harm so clearly it shouldn't be classified as schedule 1

RparrWay to go, government. As an avid reefer, I'm past the point of caring. Nothing we can do will change things, and the government can't stop me from smoking weed.

californiagrownWhen you use weed to get high, you are abusing weed.

Gods_FatherHow so? Getting high is not "bad" and causes no harm to anyone. When you use coffee for the high, are you not abusing that drug too? Are you fine with alcohol being legal, if using your logic, anyone who drinks alcohol must be abusing it since they are drinking to feel intoxicated.

californiagrownIf you're drinking to get drunk, yes you're abusing alcohol. If youre drinking coffee to the point of being jittery, yes you are abusing it.

But again, we are talking about why weed is a schedule 1. Not why other drugs are not.

Gods_FatherNo, talking about how using weed to get high is abuse. Getting a high from smoking cannabis is just one of the many uses of the plant. How is it abuse, it is not bad and does no harm? You get high when you drink coffee, it's not bad and causes no harm, that is the same and should be considered abuse?

californiagrownDa fuck kind of coffee are you using to get high? Lol

Gods_FatherCoffee is a drug that gets you high. Let's use a different example then. When someone experiences a high after running for a long period of time, are they abusing that drug(running)?

californiagrownDoes your average coke user abuse coke?

Are you saying that you have to be an addict to abuse something?

How would you define abuse?

Gods_FatherYou said simply by using a drug to get high you are abusing it. I'd define it as something that is used for a bad effect or for a bad purpose.

californiagrownSo recreational use of heroin, meth, blow etc 4-5 days a week is not abuse?

Gods_FatherDuno, depends on the individual. Is the drug use having a negative effect on their life? But you said just using the drug to get high is abuse, not using it 4-5 days a week.

californiagrownYeah, i think that people using a drug to get high is abuse. You can drink alcohol without getting drunk. You can drink coffee without getting super jittery. But drinking either to get high or drunk is abuse IMO.

I was asking how you would define abuse, and you seem to have a lot of trouble defining it. I guess you dont think that there exists a schedule 1 drug?

Gods_FatherAlright, so I guess people drinking coffee to feel awake are drug abusers and so are runners who get a runners high. I have trouble defining abuse?

"I'd define it as something that is used for a bad effect or for a bad purpose."

californiagrowncorrect me if i am wrong, but i do not believe running is a drug. lol


people drinking coffee to help wake up would be using it for medicinal purposes. Not to mention coffee is an extremely healthy drink in moderate dosages.


If you would not consider using heroin, meth, or blow multiple times per week to get high abuse of those drugs, then we have fundamentally different views on what constitutes abuse in this world. And that is okay. But if you want this world to more accurately reflect your views, you need to actively change this country's policies. Do you vote in your local elections? Help out, and donate to candidates whose views jive with yours? Write and call your state congressman? Im not the one you need to convince.

Gods_FatherChange the policies of what lol?Where'd that come from? All I was asking you was why you would consider it abuse to use a drug one time to get high? And yes, running is a drug. Using your logic, a person using coffee to get high is a drug abuser.

californiagrownThe policies and interpretation of what is considered a high abuse drug. You seem passionate about this issue.

Running is not a drug, it is an activity/sport. The enorphins it can release could potentially be considered drugs.

coffee to get high, would absolutely qualify as abuse. coffee to help wake up in the morning would be considered medicinal/theraputic.


Any more questions?

Gods_FatherNo more passionate than you?
So how is it abuse to use a drug one time to get high? Running is a drug, buddy, you get high from it. Coffee waking you up is you being high.

californiagrowni completely disagree with you. there is a difference between a therapeutic level of a drug, and abuse to get high.

the fact you believe running is a drug and cling to that statement is making me think of that old saying "never argue with an idiot, they'll bring you down to their level and beat you with experience". haha

Gods_FatherSomeone could use cannabis daily as an appetite stimulant, sleep aid, stress reliever, pain reliever. How is that abuse if it's therapeutic?

californiagrownIf they need medicine to treat a lack of appetite, insomnia, anxiety, and chronic pain, then yes. That would be medical marijuana.

More questions?

Gods_Father"According to the law, weed has no beneficial uses. Therefore, people who use it to get high would be abusing it as compared to those using it for medical purposes. "

californiagrownI think over use is abuse. That's how most people use the word. When you overuse a company car, you are abusing your privileges. When you use Robitussin to robotrip, you are abusing Robitussin. When you use weed to get high, you are abusing weed.

Gods_FatherNo, talking about how using weed to get high is abuse. Getting a high from smoking cannabis is just one of the many uses of the plant. How is it abuse, it is not bad and does no harm? You get high when you drink coffee, it's not bad and causes no harm, that is the same and should be considered abuse?

californiagrownYeah, i think that people using a drug to get high is abuse. You can drink alcohol without getting drunk. You can drink coffee without getting super jittery. But drinking either to get high or drunk is abuse IMO.

I was asking how you would define abuse, and you seem to have a lot of trouble defining it. I guess you dont think that there exists a schedule 1 drug?

DayManThere's already a dispensary where I live but to go there you have to be diagnosed with a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than one year, which is complete nonsense.

DayManReally hoping that the amendment passes in November to make it legal in Florida for medical use. There's already a dispensary where I live but to go there you have to be diagnosed with a terminal illness with a prognosis of less than one year, which is complete nonsense.

onenerdykidDrug use - simple usage of a drug (of which there can be degrees, for good and bad)
Drug misuse - not using the drug as it was intended
Drug abuse - prolonged and repeated use that leads to self-harm and/or the harm of others

These words & definitions exist because it's not as black and white as you are making it out to be. There is a spectrum of use, some/much of which is not good. And that spectrum, especially of what constitutes acceptable use, can change per drug (see my next point below).





I do agree with you, California, that you can drink alcohol without getting drunk. This would be what is considered a virtuous usage of alcohol- the right amount for you. It's not too little, it's not too much, it's the right amount. I can have a little bit and still retain my rational capacity as a human being or my free will or other such faculties. This is what your argument seems to revolve around. If we apply this to other drugs, such as heroin, I would most likely agree with you that there is no way to virtuously do heroin since the simple usage of it is not like that of alcohol. We can say the same for many drugs, perhaps included in that is marijuana.

So I think it is helpful and meaningful to clarify between virtuous drug use, non-virtuous drug use, and drug abuse. And again, there may be drugs that we cannot do virtuously but that does not equate to it being abused. Actual drug abuse is a result of prolonged over use that leads to self-harm and/or the harm of others. It is therefore a far worse thing than non-virtuous drug use and this is why a drug's potential for abuse ranks so importantly within the drug scheduling system.

fuckmekevinHonestly, marijuana should not be labeled as a schedule 1 drug. It can prevent the growth of certain tumors and that in and of itself completely contradicts the definition of a schedule 1 drug. Obviously, there are health concerns and abuse potential with smoking the substance but to ignore its medicinal properties is ludicrous. Kratom is another example of a substance that has recently come into legislative light. Yes, it has the potential for abuse but it also can be used to help patents suffering from CFS, Lyme disease and can also ween off heroin users. I have taken Kratom because I have debilitating joint pain from Lyme disease and I do not want to have to take synthetic pharmaceuticals based on a legality issue. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm an adult, leave me the fuck alone.

californiagrownI'm a big fan of legalization, personally. But that mostly has to do with the tax benefits to the state. At the end of the day, it's a recreational drug for the vast majority... so pretty damn low on my priority list of social issues, middle of the road for economic issues.

fuckmekevinHonestly, marijuana should not be labeled as a schedule 1 drug. It can prevent the growth of certain tumors and that in and of itself completely contradicts the definition of a schedule 1 drug. Obviously, there are health concerns and abuse potential with smoking the substance but to ignore its medicinal properties is ludicrous. Kratom is another example of a substance that has recently come into legislative light. Yes, it has the potential for abuse but it also can be used to help patents suffering from CFS, Lyme disease and can also ween off heroin users. I have taken Kratom because I have debilitating joint pain from Lyme disease and I do not want to have to take synthetic pharmaceuticals based on a legality issue. I'm not hurting anyone, I'm an adult, leave me the fuck alone.

Gods_FatherAt the end of the day, it is a vegetable.

.MASSHOLE.I'll reiterate what I said in a post above:

The reason you do not see a lot of "herbal" extracts used in medicines is due to the fact that they cannot be dosed appropriately/their efficacy is under question in a clinical setting. The FDA will NEVER let a drug, no matter the benefits, be approved if dosage levels, efficacy, and long-term safety results are not understood.


For example, there is a drug for a rare and fatal muscular dystrophy disease called Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) that has shown the ability to produce dystrophin (for some), therefore prolonging the lifespan of those affected (they live till 25). However, because of the trial design and the resulting data, it has not been approved despite pressure from politicians, patients, and patient-advocate groups.

The FDA has the responsibility to make sure no drug comes to the market that can do more harm than good, and if the FDA does not understand/approve of the dosage, efficacy, or safety profiles, it will not be approved. That is why you see marijuana, Kratom, and a whole host of other biologics and small molecules that are not approved for use in the USA.

Of course, with the marijuana side of things, companies are restricted by laws surrounding its usage for studies. That being said, you are seeing some cannabinoid-related drugs come through clinical trials, like GW Pharma's Epidiolex (CBD -based) or Insys's drug. Still, you have seen a host of others that have failed trials because they failed to meet their primary endpoints.

californiagrownSame with the coca plant, and opium poppies etc.


I believe it should be an over the counter supplement similar to any other herbal remedy. No FDA regulations or oversight there. But I also think there should be an age restriction of 21.

Just gotta get folks to legalize it. It's a slow process, but the dominoes are certainly falling :)

.MASSHOLE.I'll reiterate what I said in a post above:

The reason you do not see a lot of "herbal" extracts used in medicines is due to the fact that they cannot be dosed appropriately/their efficacy is under question in a clinical setting. The FDA will NEVER let a drug, no matter the benefits, be approved if dosage levels, efficacy, and long-term safety results are not understood.


For example, there is a drug for a rare and fatal muscular dystrophy disease called Duchenne's Muscular Dystrophy (DMD) that has shown the ability to produce dystrophin (for some), therefore prolonging the lifespan of those affected (they live till 25). However, because of the trial design and the resulting data, it has not been approved despite pressure from politicians, patients, and patient-advocate groups.

The FDA has the responsibility to make sure no drug comes to the market that can do more harm than good, and if the FDA does not understand/approve of the dosage, efficacy, or safety profiles, it will not be approved. That is why you see marijuana, Kratom, and a whole host of other biologics and small molecules that are not approved for use in the USA.

Of course, with the marijuana side of things, companies are restricted by laws surrounding its usage for studies. That being said, you are seeing some cannabinoid-related drugs come through clinical trials, like GW Pharma's Epidiolex (CBD -based) or Insys's drug. Still, you have seen a host of others that have failed trials because they failed to meet their primary endpoints.

.MASSHOLE.Correct me if I am wrong here, but most OTC Supplements do not (knowingly) alter mental capacity or impair judgement in any shape or form.

californiagrownIt sucks that it is a semantics game based upon subjective definitions... but such is life.

.MASSHOLE.Correct me if I am wrong here, but most OTC Supplements do not (knowingly) alter mental capacity or impair judgement in any shape or form.

onenerdykidDefinitions that help us to better understand the world around us. And it all isn't subjective- you assume these words have an objective meaning, otherwise they wouldn't make the least bit of sense to you.

californiagrownDefinitions are subjective. Take abuse as an example whose definition we do not agree on. It is a small disagreement sure, but important in this context. I think the definition is much broader and overarching than you do.

Kinda like how all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. I define abuse as a rectangle while you define it as a square.

onenerdykidJust because you define something differently, it doesn't mean you are right about your definition. You could think the definition of a cat is animal belonging to the reptile family, but you'd be wrong about what defines a cat. No matter how much you want to define a cat as a reptile, you would be wrong. There are objective touch points and reasons that give a word meaning, or meanings.

Likewise, you can disagree with me and medical community about the definition of substance abuse, but simply because you disagree it doesn't mean that your different definition is actually correct.

californiagrownDa fuck kind of coffee are you using to get high? Lol

onenerdykidJust because you define something differently, it doesn't mean you are right about your definition. You could think the definition of a cat is animal belonging to the reptile family, but you'd be wrong about what defines a cat. No matter how much you want to define a cat as a reptile, you would be wrong. There are objective touch points and reasons that give a word meaning, or meanings.

Likewise, you can disagree with me and medical community about the definition of substance abuse, but simply because you disagree it doesn't mean that your different definition is actually correct.

onenerdykidMarijuana to Remain a Schedule 1 Drug

http://www.vox.com/2016/8/11/12434378/marijuana-schedule-1-dea




Now, I don't smoke pot and this doesn't affect me in the least, but that the government thinks that marijuana has the same addictive traits that heroin has and has no medicinal benefit strikes me as totally absurd. Especially when drugs like cocaine, PCP, and meth are considered Schedule 2, and therefore less likely to be abused and with more medicinal benefit. Seriously? Marijuana is "worse" than meth?