DEA Rejects Rescheduling Marijuana

The Drug Enforcement Administration announced today it will not initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana from a Schedule 1 controlled substance. Why not? According to its notice, available here:

In accordance with the CSA rescheduling provisions, after gathering the necessary data, the DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The HHS concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision. Therefore, the HHS recommended that marijuana remain in Schedule I....Based on the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data, the DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I.

The DEA is locked in the stone age and as a result, marijuana will remain in the same schedule with controlled substances like heroin. The DEA says because of public interest in the topic, it is publishing all of its findings. The 186 page document, which will be published in the Federal Register, is available here.

< Trump's Awkward Second Amendment Comment | Arianna Leaves HuffPo for Wellness Venture >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    If only the DEA would advance (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by desertswine on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 12:15:24 PM EST
    into the Stone Age, it would be an improvement.

    The only government alphabet salad (none / 0) (#5)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 01:53:40 PM EST
    more useless than TSA.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#15)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 01:06:14 AM EST
    "The only government alphabet salad more useless than TSA."

    and I'm just going to guess that "report" from HHS gets stonewalled from any FOIA requests. were the report to have recommended taking it off Sch. I, that would have presented a bit of a problem for the DEA. by following that recommendation (which has actually been made before), the DEA's whole reason for existing would be tossed out the window. we aren't exactly talking about a completely objective actor here, the DEA has a financially vested interest in maintaining pot as some kind of comparable to heroin and crack cocaine, regardless of the reality, which is that it's not.

    color me stunned that HHS would generate these results for their client, DEA. not.


    Obama -Why? He knows better (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by womanwarrior on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 11:12:22 PM EST
    I would like someone to give me a rational explanation of why Obama has refused to move on changing Marijuana from Schedule 1.  I understand the "lots of money to law enforcement" and "big pharma" and all that.  But really, what personally keeps him from doing the right thing on this?  He knows very well how many kids get started off with a criminal drug record.  He must know very well how it does help many people.  What is it?

    Great question (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 06:48:10 AM EST
    I've asked it myself

    Heroin has no "accepted" medical use? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 09:06:33 PM EST
    accepted by who?

    If minimizing the acute pain of terminal patients is still considered a "medical use", than according to the numerous accounts of the suffering, heroin has been "accepted" as working quite well..

    Though the creation of fentanyl (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 09:26:19 PM EST
    has probably now made the question of the usefulness of heroin a moot point..

    And fentanyl is already speedily accruing the stigma that heroin took decades to acquire.


    I am shocked, shocked I tell you - (none / 0) (#1)
    by Mr Natural on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:34:04 AM EST
    to read that the crime most cheerfully monetized by the prison-industrial complex has not been today decriminalized.

    WTF (none / 0) (#2)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 11:57:10 AM EST

    has no accepted medical use in the United

    Sorry election year fan club members (none / 0) (#4)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 01:50:09 PM EST
    but this an issue that definitively proves that Obama and many of his fellow Democrats haven't yet grown a fully developed "pair".

    What exactlty is it about the impenetrable fiefdom of the DEA and it's law enforcement colleagues that strikes such utter terror even in those ensconced in the mighty "corridors of power"?


    Thou Shalt Not (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 02:14:00 PM EST
    attempt to self-medicate in any way, shape, or form as long as there are still anti-nausea meds, ssri inhibitors, mood stabilizers, and lots of booze to be sold.

    This can not stand (none / 0) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 03:07:42 PM EST
    There will be more stares where it is legal or legal for medical in January.

    Something will have to give.  Eventually.  May I live to see it.


    I used to sneak pot to my (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 05:52:28 PM EST
    brother when he was on his death bed in the hospital. And know I wasn't the only one who ever did something like that.

    To think that I or anyone else could potentially have been arrested for that makes my Serbian blood boil.


    Dude.. (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    my sister, my polar opposite in this regard;), who has never as so much taken a toke in her life and is not pot friendly has recommended to her patients they try the herb.

    Whoever says there is no medical use needs a medical diagnosis of their own, of their mental health.


    a mental health check up (none / 0) (#20)
    by jondee on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 01:59:02 PM EST
    and an abdominal examination to find out where their guts went.

    That is just a ridiculous statement (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 03:17:53 PM EST
    "Acceptable" to who.  Exactly.  The DEA?

    Harry Anslinger (none / 0) (#12)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 06:17:54 PM EST
    Oh man (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 06:24:11 PM EST
    "Reefer makes d@rkies think they are as good as white men"

      - Harry Anslinger

    That actually seems like a "pro" argument to me.


    Yeah.. (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 06:31:37 PM EST
    the guy who had Billie Holliday handcuffed to her deathbed and gently advised Judy Garland to try to take longer breaks in between movies.

    Not "acceptable," Howdy, (none / 0) (#24)
    by Peter G on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 02:19:45 PM EST
    "accepted". Which makes the statement circular. Accepted by whom, if not by the feds in rescheduling it?

    I will be very curious to see (none / 0) (#10)
    by Peter G on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 06:07:34 PM EST
    what the 186-page report says on that subject.

    It has a feel of (none / 0) (#11)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Aug 11, 2016 at 06:14:59 PM EST
    Desperation to me.  Just from the headlines.  A last gasp quality.

    Perhaps wishful thinking.


    something tells me you'll be curious for a while. (none / 0) (#16)
    by cpinva on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 01:09:18 AM EST
    "I will be very curious to see what the 186-page report says on that subject."

    as I noted above, I expect release of that report to the public will be stonewalled.


    Um (none / 0) (#18)
    by jbindc on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 08:05:25 AM EST
    Jeralyn linked to it in her post, but if you missed it, here it is again

    how (none / 0) (#17)
    by linea on Fri Aug 12, 2016 at 02:53:39 AM EST
    does this impact in any way the states that have legal store sales of marijuana? are obama and hillary are all nazi on this? dems are so big woop. basic.

    It still makes possession (none / 0) (#23)
    by Chuck0 on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 12:59:42 PM EST
    and sale of marijuana a federal crime.

    IFL (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Aug 13, 2016 at 07:48:03 PM EST

    It's a strange catch-22 that the medical research of marijuana has been hampered for so many years because there's little medical research on marijuana to prove its worth. However, the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has released some exciting news that could break this vicious circle.

    Firstly, the DEA announced on Thursday that marijuana will remain in the same bracket as MDMA, LSD, and heroin as a "Schedule I controlled substance." These drugs are defined as having "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

    On the other hand, they also said they will be increasing the number of registered marijuana manufacturers to make it easier for medical research.

    Currently, the University of Mississippi is the only institution allowed to legally produce marijuana for medical research, which they do through a contract with the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). On top of the piles of bureaucracy needed to conduct research, the lack of sources has also made conducting studies notably harder than other drugs.

    "DEA announced a policy change designed to foster research by expanding the number of DEA-registered marijuana manufacturers," the statement said. "This change should provide researchers with a more varied and robust supply of marijuana."

    "This change illustrates DEA's commitment to working together with the FDA and NIDA to facilitate research concerning marijuana and its components," it continued.

    Science (none / 0) (#28)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Aug 14, 2016 at 02:30:35 PM EST
    Regulations such as this are issued to meet political needs not scientific needs.  

    ... has ruled today (Tuesday, August 16, 2016) that the federal government cannot spend money to prosecute those defendants whose activities otherwise comply with their respective state's marijuana laws, and that such defendants must further be given an opportunity to demonstrate that those activities are in accordance with applicable state law.

    The appellate court's decision in U.S. v. McIntosh, et al.  would appear to be significant, and I hope that I read and interpreted it correctly. Jeralyn and / or Peter, if you have time to review the ruling and correct me if I'm in error, I'd appreciate it.