Started By
Message

re: DEA announces that marijuana will remain a Schedule 1 drug - like LSD & heroin

Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:49 am to
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261037 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:49 am to
quote:

FYI the DEA is led by Obama appointees.



and created under a republican president.



Why do you people pretend there is a huge difference?
Posted by Spock's Eyebrow
Member since May 2012
12300 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:50 am to
quote:

Pot heads love pointing the finger at Obama.


Used to be, it was because he was bogarting the joint.
Posted by RogerTheShrubber
Juneau, AK
Member since Jan 2009
261037 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:50 am to
What's strange is you can't smoke in bars here in Juneau, but you can partake of pot on premises in pot cafes. Times are a changing.
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 10:51 am
Posted by sjmabry
Texas
Member since Aug 2013
18500 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:50 am to
quote:

Bad news, the results of the trial showed no benefit over placebo, and far inferior performance to the control of pain with opioids.
Just as they want you to believe
Posted by Elephino
2nd floor, stall 3. Bring paper
Member since Sep 2008
519 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:54 am to
quote:

Just as they want you to believe


You mean the company seeking approval of an NDA from the FDA intentionally sabotaged their own results? Not a very good business model.
Posted by etm512
Mandeville, LA
Member since Aug 2005
20757 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 10:55 am to
quote:

First, I am not anti- or pro- weed, though I find it incredibly disingenuous the number of people screaming for the legalization of "medicinal" marijuana as a means to recreational use. Just be honest. Second, all of the conspiracy theories about government and big pharma are amusing. The marijuana plant is schedule I and should be because it has no FDA approved medical indication. Synthetic THC is an approved FDA drug and is not schedule I. Meth is schedule II because it also has an FDA approved indication and is sold as Desoxyn. The FDA and government are not trying to prevent the legalization of cannabinoids. I don't have any colleagues that deny the potential utility of drugs targeting the cannabinoid system (CB1 or CB2). Sativex (Nabiximols) is approved in the UK, parts of Europe and Canada. It is a spray combination of 1:1 THC and CBD. The FDA granted it "fast track" review status for cancer pain. The phase III trial ended at the end of 2015. Bad news, the results of the trial showed no benefit over placebo, and far inferior performance to the control of pain with opioids. We have a very rigorous process for the approval of pharmaceuticals and there have been no large-scale (successful) trials of medicinal marijuana that would compel its approval beyond currently available treatments. I suspect Sativex will continue to seek approval for a number of other indications in future trials.


Ok let's say all of that is actually 100% true. Still explain how alcohol and tobacco are legal and marijuana isn't
Posted by TheCaterpillar
Member since Jan 2004
76774 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:00 am to
quote:

First, I am not anti- or pro- weed, though I find it incredibly disingenuous the number of people screaming for the legalization of "medicinal" marijuana as a means to recreational use. Just be honest.


Marijuana should just be legal recreationally.

I don't think people are trying to hide behind the "medical" guise when discussing amongst each other, but its different when they have to get legislation passed that is headed in the right direction.

It absolutely has medicinal benefits for nausea, ocular pressure, epilepsy (oil), etc.

We have to use that "medicinal" platform because we know the right winger nuts will laugh if you say marijuana should be treated like alcohol.

Baby steps.
Posted by Barf
EBR
Member since Feb 2015
3727 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:01 am to
quote:

The marijuana plant is schedule I and should be because it has no FDA approved medical indication


quote:

Synthetic THC is an approved FDA drug and is not schedule I


Do you realize how fricking stupid this makes you sound?

Cannabis is illegal because it has no FDA approved medical indication, but the version created in a lab that people can't grow in their back yard is FDA approved.
Posted by VetteGuy
Member since Feb 2008
28247 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:02 am to
quote:

Why do you people pretend there is a huge difference?




Exactly.

Bureaucrats know no party loyalty.

Their main function is to stay in existence.
Posted by sjmabry
Texas
Member since Aug 2013
18500 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:03 am to
It's only a matter of time. States will just have to do its own thing in regards to MJ.
Posted by SabiDojo
Open to any suggestions.
Member since Nov 2010
83941 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:04 am to
Yeah, I don't think people are "hiding" behind it either. I don't smoke and I think it's ridiculous that we classify it the way we do.
Posted by etm512
Mandeville, LA
Member since Aug 2005
20757 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:05 am to
quote:

Cannabis is illegal because it has no FDA approved medical indication, but the version created in a lab that people can't grow in their back yard is FDA approved.


I like to put it this way - if a bird can fricking grow it, it shouldn't be illegal
Posted by Elephino
2nd floor, stall 3. Bring paper
Member since Sep 2008
519 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:06 am to
To argue from a dangers of use standpoint, it isn't justified. Hemp growth was previously required by farmers. Recreational use became stigmatized back in the 1920's. It should be legalized, taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco.
Posted by Taurus
Loozianna
Member since Feb 2015
4955 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:06 am to
quote:

What's strange is you can't smoke in bars here in Juneau, but you can partake of pot on premises in pot cafes. Times are a changing.


I'm not arguing legality. My argument is it is addictive. Studies prove it. Not as bad as other drugs, but to say it is not an addictive drug is complete bullshite.
Posted by TheCaterpillar
Member since Jan 2004
76774 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:08 am to
quote:

It's only a matter of time. States will just have to do its own thing in regards to MJ.



Yep.

The tax revenue and the proof of concept in Colorado will be too much to ignore.

Colorado not only makes over a hundred million in tax revenue from the industry annually that is put into school systems, but they also have seen reductions in violent crime and DUI's.

Posted by bayourougebengal
Member since Mar 2008
7193 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:10 am to
K
Posted by etm512
Mandeville, LA
Member since Aug 2005
20757 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:11 am to
quote:

but they also have seen reductions in violent crime


I'm sure the stats either don't exist or aren't accurate because of the time but I would be willing to bet there was a large reduction in violent crime in big cities after prohibition was overturned as well.

Also the amount of money the tax payers will save not locking up users can actually go towards useful shite like infrastructure and education
Posted by NoWhiteFlags37
Member since Aug 2016
25 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:11 am to
quote:

I'm not arguing legality. My argument is it is addictive. Studies prove it. Not as bad as other drugs, but to say it is not an addictive drug is complete bull shite.



You were asked to back up your argument. Provide links to your studies rather than just saying google it.

and make sure it is physical addiction.
This post was edited on 8/11/16 at 11:14 am
Posted by Barf
EBR
Member since Feb 2015
3727 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:12 am to
quote:

My argument is it is addictive. Studies prove it. Not as bad as other drugs, but to say it is not an addictive drug is complete bullshite.


It kind of is complete bullshite though. Lots of things are addictive. Food can be addictive to some people. You're using a very wide brush to paint a really small picture.

At what point do you stop using the argument? More people are physically addicted to sugar and caffeine than pot. Why hang your entire argument on that one detail?
Posted by TheCaterpillar
Member since Jan 2004
76774 posts
Posted on 8/11/16 at 11:12 am to
quote:

I'm sure the stats either don't exist or aren't accurate because of the time but I would be willing to bet there was a large reduction in violent crime in big cities after prohibition was overturned as well.



One of the main reasons they wanted to overturn it was to basically de-fund organized crime.

So yes, violent crime went way down after prohibition ended.
Jump to page
Page First 5 6 7 8 9 ... 18
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 7 of 18Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram