I recently learned the classification system for drugs and the criteria for their placements. Drugs are broken down into 5 schedules, (I) being the worst to (V) being the least harmful. There is a hyperlink at the bottom of this post if you want to read more into each schedule and the drugs that each contains.
I was extremely shocked to find out that Marijuana was placed in Schedule I. The requirements for a Schedule I drug is to have a “high tendency for abuse, have no accepted medical use, and are not available with a prescription by a physician”. The other drugs alongside Marijuana in Schedule I are Heroin, MDMA (Ecstasy), LSD, and GHB.
First off, Marijuana does not cause a physical addiction, if anything it is a mental addiction. There have been no reported cases of THC overdose. Secondly, there have been experiments that have successfully shown that Marijuana can have a beneficial medical use with cancer patients; it gives the patients an appetite and helps with the pain. Lastly, it is available to cancer patients with a prescription by a physician in 17 states, including Washington, D.C.
Activists have tried to change the schedule of Marijuana based on these previously stated arguments to help the legalization process. Since people do not believe that it meets the requirements of a Schedule I drug, the government either has to allow for medical use or remove it from federal control altogether. However, the government maintains its stance on Marijuana being a Schedule I drug.
So my question is why is the government refusing to remove Marijuana from Schedule I? Are they trying to dissuade the legalization of the drug by maintaining its “dangerous” status? Does their authority affect your view of the drug? Or do you agree with the government that Marijuana should be a Schedule 1 drug? Generally, how do the positions that the government or authorities take affect your views and opinions?
You can expand off of this topic in any way that you wish. I was just so intrigued when I learned this that I wanted to hear other people’s views on the topic. Also, I’d just like to say that I’m not a druggie or anything; I’m just very interested in drugs in general (haha).
I can’t wait to see what you all have to say :)
25 comments:
Sooo, drugs are bad, I'm not too sure what this is supposed to be about, so I'll just make them up.
So drugs such as cocaine, crystal meth, etc are bad for you, so don't smoke, and don't shoot up, and don't inhale or digest anything you're not supposed to.
For prescription drugs, only take what the doctor ordered, and don't take what you don't need, and don't overdose. I'm not sure what else to say on this subject.
Hi, all,
This is a really, really interesting subject. Christian is absolutely right that marijuana being labeled a Schedule I drug is a conundrum. Marijuana isn't any more harmful than cigarettes or alcohol (well, it's probably less harmful in some ways, many of which I'm sure you all could address). I actually recommend everyone doing some research on how marijuana became a Schedule I drug. It was pretty much entirely political and race-based.
So, Meagan and everyone else who might not know exactly what to say--Christian is getting at whether or not we should trust federal agencies like the DEA/FDA in determining whether or not something should be a controlled substance. And should we trust or question substances that have been categorized as Schedule I drugs when it was clearly a political and race-loaded issue? Why is the DEA/FDA so insistent that this remain a Schedule I? Is this right? Wrong? And more generally, how do you trust an authority (any authority) that can be compromised or influenced by someone or some thing (like money and political pressure--hello, Big Tobacco)? Or can everything and everyone be compromised so we have no choice?
P.S. In terms of research, just FYI, there was this great series on illicit drugs on the History channel a few years back. It's pretty eye-opening. I highly recommend you check it out if you can (or if you can find it) or just do some quick and dirty searching. :)
No I meant that I didn't know what to say because last night the post didn't show, all it said was 'Drugs, Drugs, Drugs'
Looking at Christian's information about the effects of Marijuana I have to agree that it not being less than a (I) drug it a little weird. It can be used for medical purposes and isn't any worse than alcohol or cigarettes as Kathryn said. But then again, alcohol and cigarettes can cause different types of cancer so therefore Marijuana in these cases is probably not as harmful (considering alcohol and cigarettes are not used for medicinal purposes).
I think that when trusting the authorities about big companies that sport drugs, I think a lot of it has to do with common sense and doing a bit of your own research especially now that we have the internet to search.
Lol. Gotcha, Meagan. How funny...heh.
I think that it is an interesting question, and a complex issue when it comes to why the government does not want to remove marijuana from the schedule 1 classification. To start off, I do not think that marijuana should be made a legal drug like alcohol and tobacco are. I think that there are enough addictive substances that are poor for your health (like alcohol and tobacco products)available to people, and deregulating marijuana would only complicate these issues. That being said, I'm don't think it should really stay as a Schedule 1 drug because Schedule 1 drugs are said to have a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug/substance under medical supervision but the LD50 (lethal dose in 50% of subjects) cannot be found or defined for marijuana, and Schedule 1 drugs have no currently accepted medical use in the United States but this is definitely a debatable point with marijuana. However, one website I am looking at says about the classification of drugs that there may be some exceptions to the stated rules of classification if, "control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970" (http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=324), and I do not know if marijuana has such circumstance (and if it does whether or not it should be changed). Although I think that the classification of marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug may be questionable, I still think that it should be classified as a Schedule 2 or 3 drug, depending on the potential medical applications of it (which I don't know much about or how it would compare to drugs currently widely used and accepted).
Wow, this is actually kind of outrageous. I'm not personally of the opinion that marijuana should be legalized, but there's really no logical reason for it to be classified as a Schedule I drug since it obviously is used medically.
There's several political reasons behind why the government continues to keep it classified as Schedule I. These reasons absolutely include their trying to prevent marijuana from being legalized. Honestly, there's no reason for the government to go to these kind of lengths to keep it from becoming legalized, and their classifying the drug as such does not really affect my opinion of the drug itself because I know there's so many drugs out there that can mess you up a lot more than marijuana can.
This type of false classification happens too often. Political gain is often found in in the legalization of products. Whether or not marijuana should be legal is a tough issue, (I think it should be), but the first step should be reconsidering the classification of marijuana. Extensive medical studies have to be executed, and all aspects of THC and it's positive and negative effects should be evaluated thoroughly. It's up to the medical research people to make the facts about marijuana widely available to the people so the government will be forced to reconsider.
I think that it is strange that marijuana is categorized as a schedule I drug. First of all, as Christian points out in her post, marijuana doesn't even seem to fit the definition of a schedule I drug. It's no more harmful than legal drugs like alcohol and tobacco, and actually has proven medical benefits in coping with illnesses like cancer (which is something that cannot be said for the legal tobacco). From what I've read (http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/why-is-marijuana-illegal/) it seems that marijuana's status as a schedule I drug is based more on social, political, and economic issues than the health concerns that so many assume is the main reason for marijuana's status.
I think that this definitely makes you question the authority that takes more consideration on political or economic issues to rule on the health based issue. Legalization of marijuana is certainly a complex and controversial issue, but keeping it as a schedule I drug seems inappropriate, and inaccurate, especially when that classification has less to do with the drug's actual effects and more to do with political and economic factors in keeping it a schedule I drug.
Wasn't a part of the main reason for its illegalization the fact that paper companies did not want hemp paper, a much more effcient and cheap method of paper production, to compete in their market? I do not believe that federal agencies are entirely not trustworthy. Drugs are for the most part harmful. Smoking weed is still bad for the lungs and i feel like the disruption of natural functions cannot be good for a person. Drugs should be an all or nothing deal. Salvia is a much heavier drug in my opinion but is legal... So since the government condones some recreational drug use, why not allow marijuana. It can be taxed and so much money can be made off of it.
Well, I really think that marijuana should remain as it is as a schedule I drug. It might not belong there, but I really do not see what moving it would accomplish. Marijuana does not cure cancer, it just lessens some of the side effects. Other, legal, prescription drugs do the exact same thing, so medical marijuana is really unnecessary. Also, if 17 states managed to use marijuana in medical practice, then why havent the other 33 states followed suit? Is it really that necessary?
Also, I think that this is a good way to prevent marijuana from controlling too much of the government and from becoming a bigger issue. Oil and tobacco companies manage or have managed to have a strong influence in the government because they are large, rich companies. Marijuana is primarily controlled illegally by gangs which really have little to do with influencing the government.
Overall, I do not think marijuana should be legalized. We really have no need for it and I hope that some day tobacco ends up as a schedule I drug alongside marijuana.
I think this is a really interesting topic. I didn't know that marijuana was a Schedule I drug until this topic came up on this blog. As far as trusting the DEA/FDA, I think you have to trust them to a certain extent. Being totally oblivious and unaware of what they are approving and disapproving of is not okay. These agencies are put in place with the best interest of the people, but often times decisions can be swayed by politics and/or money. Also, I think it should be legal everywhere to use for medical reasons as long as you're not abusing it.
In response to what Jimmy said, I think that there is a lack of information about the effects of marijuana, and an inability for medical studies to be conducted because of the fact that it is a Schedule 1 drug (kind of a circle, I know, but I think that there are strict limitations because of its classification).
On a different note, I was wondering how 17 states have passed laws allowing medical use of marijuana when the federal government maintains that it is a Schedule 1 drug, and physicians are, therefore, not legally allowed to write a prescription for it, since it is said to have no medical uses/isn't safe to use even under medial supervision. Does anyone know how that worked? Did the federal government just decide not to get involved in these states?
I definitely think that marijuana should still be classified as a Schedule I drug, even if it does not fit the criteria the way that the majority of people think it should. Marijuana is the most highly abused illegal substance, which certainly ranks it at the top for the "high tendency for abuse" requirement. I also agree with Sam; if only 17 out of 50 states have made marijuana available for medical use, can it really be that effective? To me, the abuse of the drug seems to be of greater importance than the medical benefits it may have. I also don't really see a point in reclassifying marijuana.
I personally think that marijuana should be removed from its schedule 1 classification. This false classification represents marijuana completely wrong and for that simple fact I think it should be changed. Why allow people to be falsely informed when we can just classify it correctly?
I think that it is completely wrong that the DEA/FDA insist on marijuana being a schedule 1 drug because they are just asserting their authority over an issue that can be easily corrected and is obviously incorrect. I think the authority's opinion effect us as a nation initially until we formulate our own opinions. However, for people who are not as knowledgeable on certain topics, they seem to side with the authorities point of view.
I truly do not believe that Tobacco will ever be made a Schedule 1 drug or illegal because it produces so much revenue. On that note, I do not see why marijuana should not legalized. It may be seen as adding evil to evil. However, like Eric said, if marijuana was legalized, the selling of it would become under government control. It would produce a great deal of revenue and stop even more illegal activity involving marijuana.
Like many of you guys I was not aware that marijuana was classified as a level 1 drug until I read this post. I think placing marijuana in a classification alongside drugs such as LSD and heroine is totally misguided. The only negative side-effect I have heard of is the tar that is left in the lungs of a marijuana user, which could have some of the same effects of cigarettes.
Ben brought up a good question though, if marijuana is classified as level 1, how did it become legal for medical use in 17 states? I don't know the answer to that but if the government is so lenient on letting marijuana be used for medical purposes, why not reclassify it at a lower level?
I personally feel that the benefits of legalizing marijuana far outweigh any supposed negative effects of legalization. Reclassifying marijuana is the first step to legalization and I feel that is what the government needs to do sooner rather than later.
I personally am not for the legalization of marijuana. I do also think that there is not reason why it should be a Schedule I drug, but I can see why the governement chooses to keep it this way. Were it not to be labeled as a dangerous drug, it would become highly abused by the population and the last thing they want is for it to become accepted to use marijuana. Also, although it is not as harmful as a drug such as crystal meth or heroin, it is nonetheless a drug. It does not need to be taken, and although it has beneficial side effects in certain scenarios, it would just give people a reason to glorify it even further and abuse it.
Even though I don't use recreational drugs, I feel like marijuana should be legalized. At the minimum, the government needs to change its approach to marijuana, considering the fact that marijuana is currently treated as a drug more serious than cocaine or oxycontin, both schedule II drugs. Maintaining its “dangerous” status definitely dissuades the legalization of the drug- the classification lists it as a seriously harmful substance, yet most negative effects of marijuana have been disproven, including its addictive nature and the idea of it as a “gateway” drug. Although addictive, it is less addictive than alcohol or tobacco, two legal drugs. Despite that, the position that the government has taken on marijuana has affected my views and opinions: prior to doing some research on the drug, I had just always assumed it was far worse than alcohol or tobacco and the authorities’ stance was correct.
Knowing that government has taken a largely political stance on this substance actually annoys me: marijuana regulation is prohibitively expensive, especially for a substance that has been greatly exaggerated because of its classification. Since the 1970s, billions of dollars have been spent enforcing marijuana prohibition and millions of individuals have been arrested. Similar to alcohol use and the Prohibition, the pursuit of a “zero tolerance” policy seems to have aggravated use over the years, rather than controlling it. It’s expensive for the police force and the prison systems, the black market for the drug is huge, and the money spent by the government could be better spent on drug education or treatment. Even with medicinal marijuana, the widespread legalization could provide solutions: treatment options are limited in terms of available spaces and use. Few marijuana users seek treatment for fear of legal consequence to admitting to their illegal use. Users who are there may only be in treatment because they are court ordered, thereby taking what limited spaces are available from those who may truly need it. If the drug wasn’t classified as Schedule I, then the time and effort spent attempting to control marijuana usage would be put to better use. To me, the government needs to change the classification, beginning with an objective look at actual marijuana data. This is a simple solution that should have been in place long before now.
So to begin with, I want to clarify some of the effects of marijuana that are listed by the DEA and not clearly defined. First of all, it has been seen to impair memory, but only during the use and only short-term memory. These studies are not only controversial, but there are also counter studies that show that it may possibly increase mental functioning. Of the two, I have not done enough research to fully make a decision as to which side is more believable, but the DEA clearly only exhibits one side.
Also, the reason that I disagree with Sam in saying other legal prescriptions are okay substitutes is that often these are 1) addictive, 2) have intense and long-term side effects, 3) are very expensive, and 4) have tendencies to build tolerance causing individuals to rely on heavier and more frequent doses.
To discuss just the side-effects, not including dependency and addiction that comes with many pain killers, but just in general stroke is almost always listed as a possible side effect which has NEVER been related to marijuana use. The potential for over-dose is another concern. It is physically impossible to overdose on marijuana. You have to consume twenty times your body weight within an hour. This makes it much harder to abuse than other prescription drugs.
Also, looking at drugs that are FDA and DEA approved, caffeine and alcohol both have long-term effects on hippocampus functioning and the recall of past memories. The hippocampus functioning impairment is a currently labeled threat of marijuana use that not only lacks support but has actually been disproven where there are countless studies showing undebatable findings that link this with the two approved drugs listed above. Not to mention that physical abuse is not only possible but rather inevitable with both of these, where there is absolutely no research proving that marijuana has any potential danger for physical addiction.
Further more, for tolerance, marijuana is the only drug with the property of having reverse tolerance, meaning that less is needed with further use to produce same results. This would mean less substance and also less money being paid by patients to help handle their diseases. Caffeine, again a legal drug, has one of the highest rates of addiction as well as one of the quickest tolerance-building rates in humans.
This goes to show that the millions of individuals who protest against drugs clearly rely on the FDA and DEA to define just what a "drug" is. Unless someone has never touched a cup of coffee or tea, never eaten chocolate, or taken an aspirin (which is linked to Reye's Syndrome - a very severe disorder in children an teens), then they have used a drug.
Also the term abuse here is highly misunderstood. It is considered “abused” simply because it is used illegally, not because it is used in high doses or excessively. While these both occur, they are grouped with the simple use of it without legal consent. Yet, drinking alcohol is only considered abuse if causing severe damage resulting in hospitalization or causing a car accident. Also, alcohol is linked to about half of hospital visits and tobacco is related directly to around forty percent of diagnoses. This is something, again, that can not be said for marijuana.
I agree with what Christian said in her post. Marijuana should be removed from the Schedule I list because it does not qualify to be classified there. Also, there is no way tobacco will be moved up as a Schedule I drug simply because it brings in a TON of money. I wouldn't be surprised if marijuana was removed from being a Schedule I drug because with the way budgets are looking it would definitely bring in revenue if it were under government control.
I have to say that I agree with Jane. I too used to be the kind of person who was completely against the legalization of marijuana. (I actually lost many friends over this) However, very recently I have looked up information about from different sources and I cannot say that it is properly classified in society. Now I want to point out that I am not promoting the use of marijuana, however, I do find that its legalization will do more good than not.
Jane did a really good job with explaining the pros of legalization and I want just to reiterate the possible benefits that could bring to not only the economy but society in general. Firstly, like Eric said, you could tax the hell out of it. It is addictive but in fact much less so than tobacco and alcohol. Also, it is a more "natural drug", which many people consider important when comparing it to cigarettes due to the high concentration of synthetic components they contain.
Secondly, think of all the conflict that could be prevented with the border if the black market no longer had monopoly over marijuana? Maybe its them keeping it illegal HA!
Anyway in conclusion I have to say that all the authorities are doing is just endorsing a self fulfilling prophecy . Look at what prohibition did to the US and how it increased illegal activity. Maybe it is a gateway drug because authorities have deemed it that way. I think it is important to consider that perhaps the authorities are not entirely looking out for us but for their pockets and power also.
Ok...this is a tough one for me. I see both sides of this argument, so I will go with what I know and leave it at that.
Marijuana is categorized as a (I) because it is considered a "gateway" drug to more dangerous ones like heroin and cocaine. Too many pot users progress to other drugs.
Marijuana was legalized in Denmark a few years back, and they actually saw an increase in some low-level crime. However, do we really want the prisons filled with pot heads or do we want to get the truly violent criminals?
Post a Comment