[MJPassion]

Originally Posted by seeded

Wouldn't schedule 3 or 4 be more appropriate than schedule 2 for cannabis?



I can't imagine you could get it schedule 5 or taken off the list completely but 3 or 4 seems far more appropriate than 2 to me.

Any scheduling such that the plant is considered restricted for anybody at all to grow would be the wrong schedule.
3 & 4 still reqire prescriptions to obtain.

Quite honestly,
Removing my right to commune with mother nature, in any way, shape or form, should be forbidden. That's a direct 1st Amendment violation whether the courts will hear the argument or not.

[mean mr.mustard]

Originally Posted by Dabasaurusrex

Opana and Dilaudid are both more potent than heroin yet they are Sch. 2 and it is Sch. 1. In less than legal states it's definitely not an uncommon sight to see injured vets or elderly people walking into heroin houses even where CBD is legal.

Every day.

[DocTim420]

Is the reclassification of cannabis as a "medicine"---rather problematic? I think so and, imo we have one organization to thank for this calamity: FDA.

Let's admit, what we have today is really a "policy experiment" with the governments of each state (not the Feds) performing the tasks normally reserved for the FDA. The result is a patchwork of various state laws, regulations, and rules governing Medical Marijuana. Imagine the craziness if each of our 50 states plus the handful of territories decided to ignore the Feds (FDA) and did what they wanted when it came to ALL pharmaceutical medicine/drugs?

In addition to a patchwork of laws, the states also stepped up and created independent munchkin FDA-like fiefdoms--the lack a regularity continuity between states will only be exasperated--thus making a centralized FDA more "irrelevant" than "relevant". These FDA-like fiefdoms created FDA-like rules regarding use of pesticides, chemicals, fertilizers, heavy metal and contaminants, etc--each independent of the other (hence no national standard). A role traditionally performed by FDA.

Third problem, precedence. If the states are permitted to usurp from the federal government (FDA) and independently control other therapeutic drugs (ignoring Fed rules and regulations), then should we expect an avalanche of non-cannabis therapeutic drugs bypassing the FDA? Why go through the FDA when you can go directly to the people in each state? Hard to put toothpaste back in the tube.

Finally, if the FDA steps in and regulates cannabis like other therapeutic drugs, then what will happen to all the existing laws and regulations enacted by states and their localities? Will one-size-fits-all FDA rules become the "law of the land? Hmmmm.

This is one crazy "policy experiment" for sure!

From a July 11, 2017 study (DOI: 10.1111/add.13910) titled, Mapping medical marijuana: State laws regulating patients, product safety, supply chains and dispensaries, 2017:

State MM laws allow the therapeutic use of a drug that has not been tested for safety and
efficacy under FDA rules. Unlike FDA-approved medications, there is no assurance of
national standardization in the doses and ingredients, or that the products have been
manufactured in safe conditions. Patients being treated with FDA-approved prescription
drugs in conventional healthcare settings enjoy some protection under federal law of their
privacy and from discrimination based on their use of a drug to treat a disability. To prevent
counterfeiting and diversion, controlled medicines are strictly tracked from factory to
pharmacy, and physicians who prescribe controlled substances are required to have a special
license to do so. None of these taken-for-granted national regulatory assurances apply to
MM. The federal refusal to adjust the scheduling of marijuana has resulted in a state
patchwork quilt of differing and even conflicting rules to fill the gap....

State MM laws, whatever their impetus, have tried to varying degrees address the regulatory
hole created by the inability of the FDA to regulate this medication nationally. Serious
deficiencies in this state efforts would add to the rationale for federal rescheduling and the
integration of marijuana into the standard controlled substances and pharmaceutical
regulatory framework. If, on the other hand, states are able to successfully manage the safe
use and distribution of a new pharmaceutical product, critics of federal oversight of the
pharmaceutical industry would have an interesting case study to ponder....

Conclusion
Federal scheduling of marijuana as a drug with no therapeutic use has resulted in a patchwork
of state laws and hampered research efforts, resulting in a “medicine” without well-tested
efficacy, standardized dosing, safety standards, or clear clinical guidelines. MM states have
enacted a myriad of laws that mimic some aspects of federal prescription drug and controlled
substances laws; they have drawn on regulatory strategies used to deal with the externalities
of alcohol and tobacco; and, in some cases, have enacted regulations that go beyond those
traditionally applied to medicines (i.e. patient registration, qualifying diagnoses and
registration revocation). Only rigorous evaluation research, which the data presented here
were created to facilitate, can determine which, if any, of the regulatory strategies states have
adopted are succeeding in governing MM as a safe and effective medicine the use of which is
compatible with the public’s health and safety.

[oldchuck]

Doc, the difference between Cannabis and pharmaceuticals regulated by the FDA is the unacknowledged differences between a plant and a drug. The plant itself is not a drug. It is an herb. Neither the law or public perception gets that very important difference.

Us medical consumers need a lot more reliable information regarding what works for what and in what proportions. Huge amounts of research and clinical trials are needed before the FDA or most medical people are confident enough to accept this or that formulation. We need an actively involved FDA and a lot of private trials. Certifying a drug is a lot more difficult than growing and smoking or playing around with a basically harmless herb. Rec users don't need this but people looking for medicine that works for various conditions do.

Free the herb but test and certify the various drugs that can be made from it. And, yes, big pharma will need the incentives to get in on the formulated drug products.

[DocTim420]

Ahh, one would think so Chuck, but if the cannabis is classified as a "scheduled drug", then I am sure FDA will regulate it at the federal level.

You see, the conundrum of calling cannabis "medical marijuana" has consequences...especially when published research starts validating all sorts of "medicinal value" claims and more doctors continue to prescribe CBD tinctures to autistic kids. Hard to argue it doesn't belong under the auspices of FDA.

I know "herbal supplements" are regulated by the FDA as "dietary supplements"--not as a food or drug...and we certainly don't want cannabis classified as a "tobacco"...as in ATF.

BTW, recreational users are actually "self medicating"...right? LOL, one could certainly argue it's all "medicinal"...in one form or another.

[Drewsif]

Would be nice to get weed prescription covered under insurance. But not if the quality standards allow what's being passed off as medicine right now to be the only option.

[FunkBomb]

Good luck with the pipe dream of cannabis rescheduling. Out of nowhere a few months ago the DEA (big pharma) decided to classify CBD (cannabidiol) as a schedule 1 drug. This is a chemical that every mammal brain has receptors for and is studied in medical schools everywhere.

Wake up.

-Funk

[oldchuck]

The law changes, the DEA changes, just like that.

[shaggyballs]

I think completely removing cannabis from the controlled substances act is a good start.