A quick word on blocking ads
It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!
J_BISCHOFStates still make their own choices, and there is an amendment in place protecting said choices, especially when it comes to medical CBD. This won't have an effect or change anything currently happening.
And after the gov't made it LEGAL to perform more rigorous scientific testing this year, it is only a matter of time before anything THC or CBD related is completely non scheduled, or least lowered.
MinggWould really like to hear what those who support this have to say. I can't think of any reason why anyone could possible agree with this.
theabortionatorI mean THC isn't illegal because they haven't researched it enough. IT will be legal everywhere eventually, but they're going to milk prohibition as long as they can.
J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal
J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal
californiagrownThe manufacture of it comes from a schedule 1 drug, and the FDA has not approved it for medical use, yet.
Therefore it is a schedule 1.
The reasoning is logical.
Should it be schedule 1? Yes, according to the law. But common sense would dictate otherwise.
THEDIRTYBUBBLESchedule 1 drugs are regarded as having no medicinal value or qualities, which is not true in the slightest when it comes to CBD oil.
THEDIRTYBUBBLESchedule 1 drugs are regarded as having no medicinal value or qualities, which is not true in the slightest when it comes to CBD oil.
californiagrownSo the FDA has approved it for use as a medicine? Oh, right. No they didn't. Therefore, in the eyes of the law it does not have medicinal values.
Fucking stoners can't tell the difference between a lawful right and and ethical right.
californiagrownSo the FDA has approved it for use as a medicine? Oh, right. No they didn't. Therefore, in the eyes of the law it does not have medicinal values.
Fucking stoners can't tell the difference between a lawful right and and ethical right.
THEDIRTYBUBBLENot what I was arguing but whatever. Get back on the short bus.
beetlejuiceY the hate towards the pharma industry? Sooner or later weed will be in that boat. CBD oil isn't even that good. I've done oxy and cbd and OxyContin is a lot better. And I know ppl will get mad about me saying this, but simply the ppl that talk the most shut about OxyContin have never done it
Gods_FatherCbd isn't that good? Tell that to the people who suffer from Parkinson's and experience immediate relief when ingesting cbd.
THEDIRTYBUBBLENot what I was arguing but whatever. Get back on the short bus.
californiagrownLol, you were arguing that and oil fulfilled the lawful requirements of having medicinal value, and thus should not be schedule 1.
And then I shut your dumbass up with some very obvious facts.
And then you insulted my intelligence.
Am I getting all this correct?
beetlejuiceYou can make that same argument for thousands of other drugs, whether they are pharmaceutical or not.
J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal
beetlejuiceY the hate towards the pharma industry? Sooner or later weed will be in that boat. CBD oil isn't even that good. I've done oxy and cbd and OxyContin is a lot better. And I know ppl will get mad about me saying this, but simply the ppl that talk the most shut about OxyContin have never done it
beetlejuiceY the hate towards the pharma industry? Sooner or later weed will be in that boat. CBD oil isn't even that good. I've done oxy and cbd and OxyContin is a lot better. And I know ppl will get mad about me saying this, but simply the ppl that talk the most shut about OxyContin have never done it
beetlejuiceI think the kid needs more than a short bus
TheHamburglarespecially when the current head of the DEA has spoken out against medicinal use of marijuana.
MinggHe was not arguing that oil fulfilled the lawful requirements of having medicinal value. However, there is very obvious medical value in it and therefore (in my opinion - not in terms of the law - I want to clarify every detail so you quit talking in circles) should not be classified how it is. Yes, in terms of the law it's not but like in reality it does have value.
Randy_QuenchNo shit he's spoken out against it. His agency is granted millions and millions of dollars by the US govt to get weed off the streets. He spoke out to cover his ass from losing a huge potential revenue stream, not because he believes in medical marijuana or not.
J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal
californiagrownThen why are you arguing the very clear legal descriptions of drug law?
There is no good real world reason weed should be illegal. But if some jackass is going to try and argue that point using the very clear criteria laid out for drug scheduling, then yes I'm going to call him an idiot... because according to the criteria referenced, it absolutely should be schedule 1.
MinggNO ONE IS ARGUING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION!
You're arguing something completely different. And I don't disagree with you, I just disagree with the context if that makes sense?
californiagrownSo why are people arguing if it qualifies as a schedule 1 drug? It very obviously does.
californiagrownCommon sense would dictate otherwise though.
beetlejuiceYou can make that same argument for thousands of other drugs, whether they are pharmaceutical or not.
Gods_FatherYou saying there are thousands of other drugs out there that give almost instant relief from Parkinson's symptoms? Please, tell me even just one of These drugs...
californiagrownMolly, shrooms, and LSD have medical benefits.
So does cocaine, heroin and a number of other street drugs.
The issue is there needs to be studied and precise dosing, for specific applications. Till then, it's just homeopathic medicine with an illegal drug.
californiagrownSo why are people arguing if it qualifies as a schedule 1 drug? It very obviously does.
Should it? According to the qualifications for drug scheduling yes it should. Common sense would dictate otherwise though.
MGKI think what people are trying to argue is that it clearly does have medicinal help for people who need it. The problem is that because of the strict gov'r regulations on testing it becomes almost impossible to test and prove it's medicinal benefits, and until that changes there will be no actual SCIENTIFIC proof to make it not a schedule 1.
beetlejuiceThere is no scientific evidence that CBD oil has any medicinal value. It's all heresay, like some broke asshole sitting around saying that it helps with his back pain or some shit.
beetlejuiceI think the kid needs more than a short bus
californiagrownMolly, shrooms, and LSD have medical benefits.
So does cocaine, heroin and a number of other street drugs.
The issue is there needs to be studied and precise dosing, for specific applications. Till then, it's just homeopathic medicine with an illegal drug.
Gods_FatherReally? So if I'm going to eat a vegetable as medicine, I first must know the exact dose needed? do you use specific and precise dosing when you decide how much broccoli you're going to eat? Hahahahaha ya fuckin right, buddy.
.MASSHOLE.Apples to mother fucking oranges. Holy shit.
Firstly, no MD is going to prescribe a vegetable as a cure. Only "doctors" who believe in TCM or homeopathic cures will.
Secondly, vegetables do not have the same potential for AE's that weed or any other natural drug does.
Do you really think the FDA (read US Government) is going to approve a drug, not necessarily weed, that could potentially kill/injure/have AEs that drastically alter QoL when there are alternatives that have the same effect with less AEs?
I can tell you right now, they won't. When trying to get a drug passed by the FDA that already has competition on the market you have to clear at least two bars: efficacy and/or safety.
If a drug is more efficacious with AE's that are at a tolerable level, it will be passed.
If a drug is safer with similar effectiveness, it will pass.
If it does not meet either of these bars, it will fail.
In medicinal studies you have three phases for trials to discover this.
PhI proves effect @ certain dosage ranges
PhII looks for efficacy and safety for specific dosages
PhIII looks at efficacy, safety, and effectiveness for even more specific dosages
Look up any clinical trial for ANY drug and you will see this.
Trying to run a trial without looking at dosage ranges will result in failure.
Gods_FatherHahahahaha it's a vegetable. And cbd is non-psychoactive.
