Home / Be The Change / Government Corruption / 25 Lies About Cannabis on the DEA Website — Refuted by the DEA Itself in 2016

25 Lies About Cannabis on the DEA Website — Refuted by the DEA Itself in 2016

With eight states legalizing recreational cannabis and 26 other states legalizing medical cannabis use, federal government is the biggest obstacle to freedom – despite more and more U.S. lawmakers pushing for medical access and even complete decriminalization.

By far the biggest obstruction to a fact-based approach to cannabis is the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), which maintains cannabis as a Schedule 1 narcotic. This most restrictive category, which includes heroin and methamphetamine, is described as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”

By now most everyone knows this classification is patently absurd for cannabis, as studies are piling up showing the medical benefits of cannabis, in addition to real-world evidence in medical use states. If that weren’t enough, the National Academies of Science just published a monumental study with nearly 100 conclusions, including the therapeutic benefits of cannabis.

The DEA had a chance to correct its ignorance in 2016 by rescheduling cannabis on the advice of the FDA, but somehow kept a straight face when it announced in August it would keep the plant under Schedule 1. One explanation for this defiance of reality is the DEA’s allegiance to Big Pharma, which has admitted cannabis poses a threat to its profits.

Some aren’t taking the DEA’s disinformation lying down.

Americans for Safe Access (ASA) found 25 falsehoods about cannabis still being peddled by the DEA on its website, and has filed a petition to force their removal. ASA points out that DEA is violating federal law called the Information Quality Act which requires agencies to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” when developing guidelines.

READ MORE:  Congress Approves Measure for Crusade Against “Fake News” -- Using DoD Funding

One reason we know their information is false is because the DEA contradicted those very falsehoods – with references to studies – when it refused to reschedule cannabis in 2016. Even though DEA accepted these studies, it somehow concluded ‘more research is needed’ to show cannabis has medical value.

According to the petition:

DEA continues to disseminate certain statements about the health risks of medical cannabis use that have been incontrovertibly refuted by the DEA itself in its recent “Denial of Petition to Initiate Proceedings to Reschedule Marijuana”, issued August 12, 2016. In fact, the DEA’s recent statements confirm scientific facts about medical cannabis that have long been accepted by a majority of the scientific community.

ASA groups the false claims into four categories: 1) “cannabis’ alleged capacity to induce psychosis, 2) “cannabis’ alleged capacity to induce lung cancer and cause damage comparable to that caused by tobacco use, 3) the “gateway theory” to use of other drugs, 4) “alleged permanency of cannabis-associated cognitive deficits.”

For each category, ASA lists the specific statements and then provides contradicting statements from the DEA itself, referencing scientific studies that refute the false statements still on their website.

The overwhelming majority of the objective scientific studies – including studies cited by the DEA in the DPR – disprove the inaccurate DEA statements described in Section II (a)-(d). Because the DEA itself made statements in the DPR that directly contradict information in “The Dangers and Consequences of Marijuana Abuse” and “Drugs of Abuse,” it is undeniable that the DEA information at issue lacks utility and objectivity.

Given DEA’s demented stance that can only be described as a throwback to Reefer Madness, we are unlikely to see any progress made in this tyrannical agency that thrives on the criminalization of the miraculous cannabis plant. We can only hope that Congress continues to gather more supporters for the cause of freedom and medical access.

  • Michael Saenz

    We all know who’s pushing this narrative, (duuuude). The pot heads. We all know that marijuana has medicinal benefits but, now it’s legal in California, so in addition to the health benefits it provides for those who truly need an alternative, let’s wait and see what societal benefits or problems this drug brings to those pot heads (duuude), who don’t.

    • MrRetloc

      duuuuude…I have smoked pot since I was 9 (nine) years old. That said, if cognitive issues develop from smoking marijuana, can you explain how I managed to stay on the Deans’ List from High School through 2 (two) University Degrees? Should my experience be the norm (and I do NOT believe that to be so) then ALL students should be smoking pot in HOME ROOM DUUUUUUDE!

      • Tammy Page

        I agree. The DEA has to know that Cannabis is a great, safe natural plant that helps so many people. The fact is that the DEA will not admit that they are wrong. Reschedule? Heck, it shouldn’t be even on the scheduled list at all. With Jeff Sessions now being the Attorney General we will have to fight even harder. I know Cannabis helps. Its a great plant that a majority of Americans use even though the DEA hates it. It helps with depression, anxiety, pain and many more illnesses. Legalize it is what I and many more Americans are trying to get the DEA understand.

        • Tammy Page

          I remember Jeff Sessions saying that he has never met a GOOD person that uses Marijuana. Apparently he hasn’t met anyone that is really sick and needs this plant. That just proves he must not have any compassion towards people that needs it. I will never stop fighting for our rights as to what each individual chooses to use for there well being.

          • james pond

            They’re a bunch of 70 plus old republicans.
            The well being of anyone who isn’t a white multimillionaire is not their concern.

          • Tammy Page

            You are so right. Its disgusting.

          • Amor Terra

            That’s ok. I’ve never met a politician who was a good person.

          • Tammy Page

            You have a point. Maybe Jeff Sessions should take a long look at himself and others who try to judge people and tell untrue stories about Cannabis without telling the truth concerning all the medical values this wonderful plant be holds.

          • Michael Saenz

            Wow I’ve never met one that’s kinda cool!

          • Michael Saenz

            Senator.Jeff session is probably one of only a handful of politicians who aren’t corrupt and are truly fighting for his constituents. He was probably
            Talking about the casual user and not all of them are good. Just like any other group of people.

          • Tammy Page

            I respect your opinion. My husband and I along with my parents were asked by DHR to take in a young man that had severe health problems. Dyalisis, malnutrition, etc. He weighed 87 pounds at the age of 23. The Drs prescribed him Marinol pills which helped him with his nausea and holding down food. The problem was they costed $500 monthly. We couldn’t afford them after 5 months of paying. We wrote to Mr. Sessions about this young man. Mr. Sessions did respond back unfortunately his response was that he saw no medical value in Marinal pills (which are very similar to Marijuana) just man made. My parents moved to a State that allowed him to be on Medical Marijuana without the outrageous price. I thank God that with the help of Medical Marijuana he lived for 5 years more then expected. His appetite increased and his nausea went away. The depression also went away. It was very hard on my parents having to move but they have compassion and Huge Hearts. I only wish that Mr. Sessions would have agreed to meet this young man. Mr. Sessions might have seen for himself just how Cannabis worked and changed this young mans life for the better.

          • Michael Saenz

            Big pharma and the F.D.A. had A lot to do with that. And unfortunately
            Insurance companies now, weigh the outlying benefit of prolonging a person’s life based upon a formula hinged upon profit versus end of life care. It’s all quite ghoulish and disturbing. So it was good that your parents were able to do that and without people like that we wouldn’t have as great a country as we do and we do!

          • Tammy Page

            Thank you for your kind words.

          • Walter Obsherkite

            He “probably” was talking out his ass and serving the special interests that have kept him employed as a “public servant” for however long that asshole’s been a politician.

          • Michael Saenz

            Look at his record pal. He’s part of just a handful of politicians who railed against the trans Pacific partnership. The final stake in the heart of our
            Sovereignty as a nation. Both the republicans and the democrats lined up
            Behind that one and president Obama obtained fast track authority to pass it without a majority in the Senate, so educate yourself before you make disparaging remarks!

        • Ed

          Sure the DEA knows all that, they don’t like the fact we can get high and still be able to be productive at work and safe when driving.

          • Michael Saenz

            Is that why there is random drug testing? Naw, huh?

      • Michael Saenz

        First off I don’t believe you and second of all refer to all my other comment duuuude!

    • Gilbert Chavez

      I guess you are still waiting for Colorado and Washington to turn into massive “Reefer Madness” scenes. It’s not going to happen, the government has been lying about marijuana for too long. It doesn’t matter who is pushing the narrative, the facts about marijuana stay the same.

      • Michael Saenz

        And that fact is that it impairs your ability to drive and don’t tell me it doesn’t
        And the scary part is that this is too new a law for there to be any comprehensive data in with which to assign some sort of law enforcement
        Control over idiots that smoke and possibly drink and drive further exacerbating their impairment. I hope smoking that smelly crap becomes as socially unacceptable as ciggarettes because for casual use there is no net benefit other then escape in my opinion.

        • Walter Obsherkite

          That would be the same for Alcohol, a substance that has never been on the “Controlled Substances” list. Also, the same for Tobacco, another deadly product that isn’t a “Controlled Substance”.

          You can look up whether or not Cannabis impairs the ability to drive (it’s roughly the same as fiddling with the radio, for those that don’t want to bother looking it up). The “addiction” potential is roughly the same as Caffeine – with a similar withdrawal symptoms.

          Defending the lies and reefer madness of the past century has no place here in the Age of Information.

          • Michael Saenz

            Oh give me a break! There is no evidence supporting the use of marijuana being safe to operate a motor vehicle. If that were the case it would’ve been legal a very very long time ago. And yes alcohol was a highly
            Controlled substance at one time, it was called prohibition pal. You
            Know that the two are taken at the same time to heighten
            The affect of your high. And now with these designer drugs at the pot shops you’re gonna tell me that it won’t really affect your driving?!?! Go and peddle that somewhere else duuuuuude!

          • Ed

            Park your car you stupid moron!

          • Michael Saenz

            Ok! So I shouldn’t be able to drive because of thick headed knuckle
            dragging Neanderthals like you, who have an over developed sense
            of entitlement and feel that it’s their right as an American to self
            medicate because there’s nothing better to do today but drive around in your piece of shit unregistered eye sore of a car and endanger everyone else, because you’re bored and you just got your s.s.i. check and you
            finished all the chores your mommy wanted you to do. Get a job you
            Lumpy fuck.

          • Amor Terra

            Actually there is evidence showing that all of the proposed per se limits for THC in the bloodstream (similar to the .08 bac) cannot be justified as as evidence of impairment, since many people showed no impairment with those levels of THC, and some with lower levels showed impairment. Maybe they’ll just have to look at the quality of one’s driving instead of some stupid number. https://www.aaafoundation.org/sites/default/files/EvaluationOfDriversInRelationToPerSeReportFS.pdf

          • Michael Saenz

            You can still be fired for testing positive for marijuana from your job
            through random drug testing which is perfectly legal even if you’re
            No longer high on the drug. So what’s the point.

          • Amor Terra

            The point is, we weren’t discussing employment in that thread.

          • Michael Saenz

            You’re making your case for the legalization of cannabis and I
            The counter point against. Hello! What! I don’t have the right to
            Disagree?

          • Amor Terra

            You certainly have the right to disagree. You even have the right, which you have liberally exercised, to make counter arguments that completely fail to address what I said and instead go off on tangents of your own making. Of course, that usually means that you lose the argument.

          • Michael Saenz

            Not an attorney! Word to the wise. To present like one learn to lie better
            You’ll win more arguments douche bag.

          • Amor Terra

            Again with the unrelated comments. Perhaps you should try a remedial reading course.

          • Trixie B Lulamoon

            marijuana is safer than alcohol

          • Michael Saenz

            Maybe the stuff you smoked thirty or so years ago. Not the designer
            Weed they have now! And that’s my point. I personally know
            People who do em both at the same time and get out and drive.

          • Trixie B Lulamoon

            well if you can find good stuff

          • Walter Obsherkite

            I didn’t say it was “safe to operate a motor vehicle” while “high”, I said the risk potential is about that of “fiddling with the radio” – an action that has caused numerous accidents since the invention of cars with radios. Show me the massive increases in traffic accidents caused by cannabis consumption with these “designer drugs” (do you mean ‘dabs’ or concentrates, which have been around for a lot longer than I suspect you realize). Don’t show me that more people in accidents have cannabinoids in their system either, as that does not show a causal link.

            I’ll wait. In the mean time, we can continue with the discussion.

            Let’s focus on the second part here, because you acknowledge that alcohol prohibition was a thing, but do you know anything about how it came to be, or what was happening during it, or how it ended? I sincerely doubt you do, because if you understood anything about how it began, you could see the parallels with the prohibition of Cannabis (and numerous other ‘drugs’). If you understood anything about alcohol prohibition, you might see history repeating itself with the current “drug war”. And, finally, if you knew anything about the history of alcohol prohibition, you would know it was ended the same way it began, as constitutional amendments. Also, you seem to fail to understand at all what the “Controlled Substances Amendment” is.

    • Amor Terra

      In case you missed it, several states have had legal recreational marijuana for several years. From what I read, the biggest changes have been to those states’ economies–for the better.

      • Michael Saenz

        That’s good if it’s true but produce raw data or your point is just pure rhetoric
        The only raw data that will show a net benefit or detriment is time. And I am
        Aware that several other states legalized it but my point had to do with the state where I live.

        • Amor Terra

          There are numerous articles, in mainstream and alternative media, about the effects of cannabis legalization in Colorado, especially. I’m sure you can find them with a simple google search-since that’s how I found them. Here’s one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/13/heres-how-legal-pot-changed-colorado-and-washington/?utm_term=.e87a47081ec4

          You can also search particular aspects, like effects on rates of cannabis use, economic activity, rate of alcohol use, etc., and find quite a lot of information. I’ll leave that to you.

          • Michael Saenz

            My point is that casual use is something that may over time add to social problems that we already have. The article you left a link to specifically states that it is too early to tell if there will be any significant data that would argue for or against casual use, pointing directly to my position. It also states that teenage use remains unchanged, interesting. Also interesting is law enforcements inability to test for the drug in the blood as it is absorbed into the blood stream slowly so there’s that and if youre a casual user who drinks as well there is that on top of everything else. It’s not something I see as a net benefit as we already have alcohol contributing to social problems in society. Economically it is just a drop in the fiscal bucket according to your article so, although imformationally helpful, hardly makes the case for casual use in my opinion.

          • Ed

            I’m sure you are a DRINKER!

          • Michael Saenz

            And I’m sure you’re a puff puff pass kinda guy, get a job.

          • Amor Terra

            So basically, you looked at the one article that I linked to, and did no further research. Typical.

          • Michael Saenz

            No I don’t need to, I read it as a courtesy to you. Having tried it myself I know exactly how the old school stuff stone’s you, and just like every
            Casual user you try to minimize its effects on the ability to operate a motor vehicle by justifying the drug by its many uses by the sick.
            Well as a casual user YOUR NOT SICK! The casual user is looking
            For an escape through just like alcohol, another drug. Casual users
            To use your own word (typically) mix this with alcohol or other
            Drugs further exacerbating the effects of the drug, and don’t tell me
            They don’t! And just like all humans you get in your car turn on the
            Ignition laugh to yourself and say ” yeah I got this”! There is no safe
            Use for the casual user and I hate that word casual, you either ingest
            It or you don’t, and generally speaking, people under the influence
            Of a drug are careless! And add to the mix these new designer weeds
            That get you much higher, faster, and don’t pee on my leg and tell me
            It’s raining outside, the argument for that type of drug is moot because it is designed expressly for the drug abuser! You advocates for the legalization of designer weed are nothing more then wards of the deep
            State. But go ahead puff puff pass. And when you get to work
            Remember its still legal for your job to randomly drug test you
            and they reserve the right to either fire you at will, or rename
            Your position and give someone else your job in right to work states.
            It’s perfectly legal and properly vettes those who want to work and those who are irresponsible.

          • Amor Terra

            Don’t know where you got the idea that I’m a casual user or any kind of user for that matter. Nor that I’m trying to minimize its effects on ability to operate a motor vehicle. IF I ever used cannabis, I would not drive. And no, “people under the influence of a drug” aren’t uniformly careless. Look at all the MILLIONS of people under the influence of drugs every day, with prescriptions, who go to work, drive cars, etc., without incident. You’re an idiot.

          • Michael Saenz

            Then I have a challenge for you as a non user. Take up the use of one
            Joint a week or other “legal” drug that “inhibits” your senses, and I’m assuming you have random drug testing at work. Go ahead and pee in that cup and see what happens to you and your Job.
            I guaranty that one of them won’t be there the following week.
            Now, who’s the idiot.

          • Amor Terra

            Every policy I’ve ever seen (and I saw a lot as an employment attorney for decades) for drug testing for employment has a component that allows people to produce a valid prescription for whatever substance appears in their sample. To not do so would violate the ADA. Only if an employer can present medical evidence that the prescription substance, in the concentration detected, is a safety issue in that particular job (such as a high level of opioids in a trucker or a forklift operator, or the like), can an employer fire or discipline you for using a prescription drug without getting their socks sued off.

          • Michael Saenz

            Your statement is patently false on the face of it. The Americans with disabilities act specifically outlines an employees rights under the statute.
            Discrimination in hiring, proper accommodation for disabled persons with those employers with15 or more employees etc. Nowhere does it state there are protections regarding the use of cannabinoid substances. And the use of such closely scrutinized prescriptions are generally accepted for those who are otherwise unemployable, cancer patients, etc, and the scope of such use, being closely monitored, and having no place in general employment in terms of and not of a protected class of individuals. Your argument of a prescription for the use of marijuana and its acceptance as a general rule for the purposes of private corporate policy are way off the mark as there are no protections for the use of cannabinoid substances for medicinal use or otherwise. In addition there are two types of generally accepted state laws protecting employers against the threat of litigation. One is “at will employment” in that the employer and employee are not bound to a contract, meaning either can terminate the relationship at will. For cause being even more iron clad being that it’s close relationship to the “at will” status. The other “right to work” carries with it the same stipulation with the added benefit of employment without the necessity of Union representation. And I’m sure I missed something.I would love to see some of your so called case law regarding private corporate policy as it pertains to state law and its relationship to the casual and permissible use of a recreational drug such as marijuana. I’d be delighted to furnish that to my sister who helped me with this as she is a circuit court judge.

          • Amor Terra

            I wasn’t talking about cannabis, but prescription medications. I specifically spoke in fact about prescription opioids. So the rest of your rant is pretty much moot, and you are pretty much incapable of reading.

          • Michael Saenz

            First off you are a liar! You are not a labor attorney. Any one with any
            Knowledge of labor law as you claim you do would be familiar with
            The department of labor standards and enforcement and The
            Department of transportation and the national highway traffic
            And safety administration as well as being well versed in labor
            Negotiations. I’m willing to bet you possess none of the above.
            As a labor attorney you would generally know truck drivers are
            Not allowed any amount of drug in their system whatsoever at anythe time! If found they’ll have their class one yanked immediately!
            You stated “high levels of opioids in truckers”? A resounding NO!
            You’re full of shit and thief of the court, posing as an attorney. I
            Have several family members who are officers of the court and
            I’m personally insulted by the likes of people like you. So save
            Your reply I won’t respond.

          • Amor Terra

            As I said way back at the beginning, people whose jobs implicate safety (I believe I used drivers and forklift operators as examples) when they have drugs in their systems are treated differently (try reading), but otherwise, people take drugs (anti-depressants, blood pressure drugs, anti-seizure drugs, sleep aid drugs, pain medications, etc.) ALL the time, go to work, and if a drug test picks up on the drug or a metabolite of the drug, they have the opportunity to produce a prescription that explains the positive result, and they are not fired, unless that amount of that drug could implicate safety or their ability to perform the duties in their particular job. Since you won’t respond (thank God), perhaps you should point all the lawyers in your family to the EEOC’s guidance of prescription drugs and the ADA (one summary here: http://employerlinc.com/2014/10/questioning-employees-about-prescription-drugs-that-could-affect-performance-and-safety/ Another here: http://www.ohioemployerlawblog.com/2016/09/the-ada-and-prescription-meds-what-you.html). It sounds like they need a refresher.

  • MrRetloc

    I have smoked pot since I was 9 (nine) years old. That said, if cognitive issues develop from smoking marijuana, can you explain how I managed to stay on the Deans’ List from High School through 2 (two) University Degrees? Should my experience be the norm (and I do NOT believe that to be so) then ALL students should be smoking pot in HOME ROOM DUUUUUUDE!

    • IceTrey

      If you didn’t smoke pot you’d have THREE university degrees!

      • Gilbert Chavez

        If you didn’t make moronic statements people would still think you are half smart, but now we know you’re stupid.

        • IceTrey

          And now we know you have no sense of humor.

      • MrRetloc

        And what would I do with 3 degrees? Make more Ice Trey Cubes?

    • MostOfYouRBrainwashed HAHA

      I definitely think weed should be legalized.
      To be fair though, your own personal experience doesn’t prove much. It could have been “because of,” “although,” or “regardless of.” I guess since we can’t reproduce your experience, we’ll never know.

      • MrRetloc

        Every experience is individual. i.e. Some can consume 10 shots while 1 gets me drunk. Welcome to Crazy World. Until we all become genetically identical I guess we will have to settle for double blind testing.

  • “… DEA is violating federal law called the Information Quality Act…” They sure are, but when the government breaks its own laws, what will the government do to itself? Make exceptions for itself, of course. We’re living on Animal Farm!

    • Michael Saenz

      The same case could be made say, in traffic court. You have a judge. A complainant (the cop), and you. Who therefore does the judge represent in this matter? The state. Who does the judge work for essentially? The state.
      A conflict of interest you say? You would be correct! But they hear citation cases by the thousands year over year. What can you do? Nothing, but pay the fine.

    • MrRetloc

      As I have known for many years; legislators always exempt themselves from every law they pen. This is why we still have convicted criminals in public office…that, and the numerous localities whose citizenry continue to elect those who have been previously convicted.

  • maxwood

    “One explanation for this defiance of reality is the DEA’s allegiance to Big Pharma, which has admitted cannabis poses a threat to its profits.”
    .
    To this should be added that cannabis legalization could bring with it abandonment of the EASILY HIDDEN “joint” (marijuana $igarette) in favor of Vaporizers and flexdrawtube oneheaters which are more difficult to hide from your Mom of a cop– and eventually also in turn the demise of the lucrative tobackgo $igarette format which kills 6,000,000 en$laved puffsuckers a year worldwide.
    .
    What the death of the $igarette would mean to big pHARMa is seen in the 2014 Surgeon General estimate that “$moking-related di$ea$e” costs the US economy $289-Bil. a year, of which $135-Bil. a year is payments for “medical care”– i.e. profits for Big pHARMa based on failure to prevent lucrative illnesses caused by catastrophic nicotine en$lavement.

  • Eppie Taph

    FYI, just for the sake of accuracy, methamphetamine is a schedule II controlled substance. It has recognized medical use.

  • sixxfingers

    If big pharma is so worried about legalized marijuana posing a threat to its profits, why don’t they get behind the push for legalization, invest heavily in it themselves, and reap respectable profits from it. It’s a win for everybody and a simple solution to a problem unnecessarily complicated by industry wide paranoia.

    • Geff Smith

      They are, or are they just trying to grow new types with GMO’s so that they can Patent it. Then it would be really illegal.

  • TOPDOG1

    .SUPPORT FUNDING CUTS; Repeal massive twenty-six billion annual over-funding of the D.E.A. and likewise the F.D.A..
    Anyone who still believes this war is about drugs is an idiot. There was a quite successful bipartisan campaign to cut their funding by both Congress and the Senate. This was working very well, until Obama came along and increased the D,E,A,’s budget from two billion annually up to twenty eight billion annually. Until this massive overfunding is halted it will take an,unprecedented, natural disaster or world war to remove them from power. Soon everyone who oppose them will be labeled an enemy of the state stripped of all Civil and Human Liberties. Civilization itself is at stake. Already it is beginning to collapse down on top of them, Ultimately all Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes,’ mistakenly’ resort to using fear to maintain power and intimidate their subjects. We all may be forced to go underground. However; it is everyone’s duty to resist. Together our unity as a united front will defeat them. One resembling analogy likens them to a ten pound tick on a five pound dog. They can not be overcome with force however; If they continue to refuse reform, they can, and must be removed.

  • Mark Skinner

    I doubt that legalization will happen anytime soon because it cannot be patented. Big Pharma is spewing because it is a natural product that grows like weeds in your backyard. The FDA will always work hand in hand with the DEA and other gov. agencies. They have to because they cannot admit that they have been lying through their teeth since 1930. After prohibition was repealed, they had a lot of FBI agents out of work. So they changed tack and went after “dopers” and “beatniks” , who were usually musicians, and usually black. So they had a new EVIL to fight. If America is not involved in a war it will invent one. Think about it !

  • Army Vet 4444

    While I don’t smoke pot, I am in favor of it being legalized. But then, I’m in favor of ALL “drugs” currently considered “contraband” to be legalized. Why? Because we lost the war on drugs. If you lose the war, then aren’t you supposed to do something different? Continuing to fight against drug cartels has proved to be ineffective at the very least. Mainly, the war on drugs has NOT prevented Americans from using them. So the whole point behind making drugs illegal has failed. So why are we doing the same thing? Why don’t we make the drugs totally legal, so Americans can develop and sell them so that we can keep the money inside the USA instead of getting shipped all over the globe, and adding to the financial losses in the USA AND adding to the labor issues inside the USA. We would also be able to make sure the addictive drug users got the best of care, so they didn’t have to break into homes and businesses to pay for the habit. We would “win” every which way you can call it. Eventually, drug use in the USA will become like it is in middle eastern countries, where people that use drugs are simply “unacceptable” people. Drugs are legal over there. You can have all you want. But people don’t use drugs (compared to the USA) because there is a negative stigma established on them. Personally, I think a lot of people in the USA could USE a joint now and again, to chill them out. Some people just do NOT know how to act. Harry Reid comes to mind as an “uptight” dude that could use a joint. But I digress. Back to the point, which is since we lost the war, why don’t we change sides and join “legalization” of drugs instead? Stop putting people in jail!!!! IT’S RIDICULOUS!!! legalizing drugs would NOT destroy America, it would make it stronger.

  • Ed

    Schedule 1 says Cannabis is described as having “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.”
    We have proved it has Medical Value, TRUE! By now most everyone knows this classification is patently absurd for cannabis, as studies are piling up showing the medical benefits of cannabis.

    Have we proved it is NOT being abused, ??? This is the “Catch 22” the DEA has on us. Just look at the Sales for the few states legally selling cannabis and tell me it’s not being ABUSED!

    I have not seen any evidence of the DEA’s allegiance to Big Pharma, which has admitted cannabis poses a threat to its profits. Is big pharma throwing parties or something for the DEA? Tell us what you can prove!

    • MrRetloc

      I have always held to the belief that NO drug is addictive. It is the drug user with an addictive personality. The BAD in any drug is NOT THE DRUG ITSELF. When one uses a drug, they are a drug user. When one allows the drug to overtake them; this is when one becomes a drug abuser. Of course, there are some drugs with demonstrable addictive qualities. I do not include marijuana in that group. Actually, marijuana is not a drug at all; it is an Herb. That said, I personally knew a Federal Judge who; from his days in Law School, was a functioning Heroin addict. In spite of what most will suggest, he maintained his credibility by re cussing himself from any drug crime adjudication. Was the judge an addict…YES. Was he a drug abuser…NO!

    • James Peters

      ”We have proved it has Medical Value.” Who has?