« Giving Politicians a Good Name
(UPDATE III) Cain: I Will Talk To My Wife About My 13-Year Affair Before Deciding What To Do »
Federal Classification of Marijuana Is “Fundamentally Wrong”
Dec 1st, 2011 | 14 responses
Washington Governor Chris Gregoire (D) isn’t running for re-election in 2012. That freedom could be the impetus for her signing on to November 30 letter (pdf) to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration that petitions DEA “to initiate proceedings for the issuance of an amendment of a rule or regulation” that would reclassify medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II of the Controlled Substances Act. She is joined in the petition by Gov. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (R/I), who took office in January 2011.
The feds should be wary of a fight with Gregoire.
As head of the state Department of Ecology*, she negotiated an agreement with EPA and the Department of Energy (Tri-Party Agreement) to get the Hanford Nuclear Reservation cleaned up. As Attorney General, she sued the daylights out of the feds to make them keep to their agreement. In 2008, Gregoire called Hanford “the most dangerous contaminated site” in the U.S. as Washington again called on the courts to spur the feds into action. And she brought $4.5 billion to the state in the famous tobacco lawsuit, a lawsuit where she was a lead attorney.
They should also be wary of a fight with the public.
According to The Nation, in 1969, only 12% of Americans polled by Gallup favored legalizing marijuana. In October 2010, that number hit 46% for the nation and 58% for West Coast folk. Maybe that shift in mood is related to the fact that but 45% of the 1.7 million drug arrests made annually are for marijuana possession. Maybe it’s that today’s adults probably know someone who smokes pot.
Why Is The Petition Important?
If marijuana were reclassified as a Schedule II drug, then it could be dispensed by pharmacies. Even though medical use is legal in 16 states plus the District of Columbia, if a pharmacist were to dispense, she would put her license on the line. After all, the DEA is conducting regular raids in states where voters have thumbed their noses at the feds.
Prohibition didn’t work in the 20s, either, and there is only a little medical justification for alcohol consumption today. Ironically, marijuana legalization may lead to a decrease in alcohol-related traffic deaths, according to a recent research study (pdf)
Legalization of medical marijuana is associated with increased use of marijuana among adults, but not among minors. In addition, legalization is associated with a nearly 9 percent decrease in traffic fatalities, most likely to due to its impact on alcohol consumption. Our estimates provide strong evidence that marijuana and alcohol are substitutes.
Interestingly, the researchers also found a correlation with decreased beer sales. Watch closely to see how the alcohol industry reacts. Sales were up 10% in the 12 months that ended in May 2011. In 2008, state and local governments collected $5.8 billion in alcohol taxes. The federal government collected $23.7 billion.
Just The Facts
The District of Columbia and 16 states have decriminalized marijuana for medical use. But the federal government does not believe that there is a medical role (it’s a “myth” they say) for marijuana.
Time reported on this topic in July, when the DEA finally rejected a 2002 petition for reclassification:
Not only does this decision conflict with state laws, however, it also conflicts with a 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), the branch of the National Academy of Sciences charged with answering complex medical questions for Congress.
[...]
In addition, in 2006 the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued an investigational new drug application, or IND — which grants permission to study a drug with the goal of approving it for marketing if it is safe and effective — for Sativex, an inhalable marijuana-derived drug, which includes both THC and CBD, the main active components of cannabis. So, while one federal agency says the drug is too risky for use even under medical supervision, another is studying it for possible approval for marketing.[...]
In the last three years alone, cannabinoids have been found to help kill breast cancer cells, fight liver cancer, reduce inflammation, have antipsychotic effects and even potentially help stave off the development of Alzheimer’s disease and reduce progression of Huntington’s disease.
By the way, all that research info is from … PubMed, published by the National Institutes of Health. And that 1999 report concluded that there was “potential therapeutic value of cannabinoid drugs.”
It may seem like 2002 to 2011 is a long time to dither. But the LA Times noted:
This is the third time that petitions to reclassify marijuana have been spurned. The first was filed in 1972 and denied 17 years later. The second was filed in 1995 and denied six years later. Both decisions were appealed, but the courts sided with the federal government.
Just another example of how a change in Presidential party doesn’t necessarily result in a change in Presidential policy.
* Disclosure: when Gregoire was head of the Washington State DoE, I worked closely with her on two statewide policy committees. I contributed to both of her campaigns for governor, and, I believe, at least one of her campaigns for AG.
14 Responses to “Federal Classification of Marijuana Is “Fundamentally Wrong””
It is hard to write a comment considering that the facts are so obvious. At least there are a handful of politicians out there willing to do the right thing.
“Maybe that shift in mood is related to the fact that but 45% of the 1.7 million drug arrests made annually are for marijuana possession.”
i wonder how much that costs us each year?
Reclassification is long overdue. I think the only reason it hasn’t happened is because there are too many people on the law enforcement side who profit by having marijuana remain illegal. Also it remains touchy politically – partly because people in positions of power and influence aren’t up to speed when it comes to current information, and partly because old attitudes die hard. In any case, good for Gregoire!
I think Kathy hit closer to home with the notes on beer and medicine. There are industries that would be hurt, because there’s no way to patent a natural substance.
I knew PhRMA would fight legalization, but I never thought of beer companies.
Hmm… how about…
Beed or
Weer or…
Beedweer!
It is like Budweiser, but it tastes like real beer.
Brava, Kathy Gill.
Before prohibition, many drugs were legal, one being marijuana. Those substances, along with alcohol, were made illegal during prohibition. Once alcohol legalization was given back to the states, marijuana continued to be illegal due to one major industry that would be harmed by the growing of the hemp plant. That being the textile industry. Hemp could be used for a variety of textile products and would have severely cost Dupont millions had it became a legal product. He used his influence with Rockefeller and other prominent congressmen to continue the ban on the product to protect his business. There were others in the paper business, like Hurst, that would have lost millions had hemp been used for paper, taking the place of wood to make paper and along with Dupont, Hurst influenced many congressional leaders to support the ban.
Marijuana should be no more illegal than tobacco. How many people does tobacco kill yearly, but all states continue to allow that product to be sold. Why, tax revenues. Marijuana should be the same as alcohol where states have the right to ban or legalize.
But then, we all know Washington knows best and states rights should be a thing of the past.
Gee I don’t know Kathy. I just watched “Reefer Madness” and that documentary makes a pretty compelling case for keeping weed illegal. It looks like pretty dangerous stuff to me. From what I can tell the majority of our elected officials have also seen it and drawn similar conclusions.
Making marijuana legal for medical reasons is not going to do a darn thing in reducing drug busts. Unless of course you can get a pot prescription for the pain after stubbing your toe or anything common. You can’t and you won’t.
I already have a problem with cell phone women drivers playing bumper cars with a cell phone stuck in the side of their head. So making marijuana legal for recreational purposes is completely out of the question. Just the thought scares the hell out of me.
Multi response:
Allen: how can you say that when the feds are “busting” (right and left) pharmas that provide medical marijuana?
Slamfu: one hopes your tongue is planted firming in your cheek. in case it wasn’t, from Wikipedia:
“Reefer Madness (originally released as Tell Your Children) is a well-known 1936 American propaganda exploitation film revolving around the melodramatic events that ensue when high school students are lured by pushers to try “marijuana” — from a hit and run accident, to manslaughter, suicide, attempted rape, and descent into madness. The film was directed by Louis Gasnier and starred a cast composed of mostly unknown bit actors.”
RP: interesting. you have links or sources for the history?
THanks, Taylor Marsh
Prof/JS : always follow the money. alcohol is BIG business — evidence the $ spent by the parts of the industry to try to prevent privatization of the sales of liquor in WA State the past two years (referenda)
SL – thanks for alerting me to my typo (now fixed)
Lol yea Kathy, I was joking. The fact weed is illegal is an ongoing mystery to me, especially since we seem to waste so much money and effort enforcing the restrictions on it.
Ms. Gill-
Yes. I’m not a friend of the greedy businessman playing the edge of the law for profit at the expense of the public. Getting T-Boned by a drunk hurts. I don’t think doubling the opportunity by making more pot heads is the thing to do.
Pot heads do not make a strong America. Power to the FED!
Allen – we are talking about medical marijuana. There is no medical alcohol, ie, your doctor will not “prescribe” with a script a trip to the liquor store.
Who are the “greedy businessmen” in your scenario?
An appeal to all Prohibitionists:
Most of us are aware by now that individuals who use illegal drugs are going to get high, ‘no matter what.’ So why do you not prefer they acquire them in stores that check IDs and pay taxes? Gifting the market in narcotics to ruthless criminals, foreign terrorists and corrupt law enforcement officials is seriously compromising our future. If you remotely believe that people will one day quit using any of these ‘at present’ illegal drugs, then you are exhibiting a degree of naivety parallel only with those poor deluded wretches who voluntarily drank the poisoned Kool-Aid in Jonestown.
Even if you cannot stand the thought of people using drugs, there is absolutely nothing you, or any government, can do to stop them. We have spent 40 years and over a trillion dollars on this dangerous farce. Practically everybody is now aware that Prohibition will not suddenly and miraculously start showing different results. So why do you wish to continue with a policy that has proven itself to be a poison in the veins of our once so proud & free nation? Do you actually think you may have something to lose If we were to start basing drug policy on science & logic instead of ignorance, hate and lies?
Maybe you’re a police officer, a prison guard or a local politician. Possibly you’re scared of losing employment, overtime-pay, the many kick-backs and those regular fat bribes. But what good will any of that do you once our society has followed Mexico over the dystopian abyss of dismembered bodies, vats of acid and marauding thugs carrying gold-plated AK-47s with leopard-skinned gunstocks?
Kindly allow us to forgo the next level of your sycophantic prohibition-engendered mayhem.
Prohibition Prevents Regulation : Legalize, Regulate and Tax!
Kathy, don’t know if you will revisit this thread or not, but I just read an interesting news article you may want to check out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/03/us/officers-punished-for-supporting-eased-drug-laws.html
****
Kathy to JSpencer:
Comments seem to be closed — but I just checked back (12.8) — thanks so much for this link.