This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2005. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Cannabis' "420 Collaboration" in 2017, 2024. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 March 2019 and 26 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ADumestre.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 08:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Under 'Factors determinative of scheduling' do we mean "Its psychic [sic] or physiological dependence liability"??? Psychiatric/psychological dependence liability, perhaps.
The 40 odd external jumps need converted into footnotes and the citation tag needs taking care of or the FA status may be in jeopardy. Rlevse 21:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to fix this article's Table of Contents? The Schedule List on the right is simply for reference, not six seperate sections of the article... / Blaxthos 01:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Why is it that there's such an abundance of information about efforts to decriminalize marijuana, but after a rather exhaustive search, I can find no mention of how it came to be criminalized in the first place? Systemic bias? Or is this just part of the vast right-wing conspiracy at work? Tom e r talk 06:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
This article evinces the pro-marijuana POV of its authors in the following ways: 1)The position of opponents is not fairly presented, and 2)It contains statements in support that are advocative. This is one of the most pernicious elements of POV which wikipedia's policies do not allow: to present distortions of fact and logic to promote your Point of View.
The position of the Drug Enforcement Agency which, under law, determines the scheduling level of all controlled substances is consistently presented as if they are another advocate. In fact, DEA is the chief agency charged with making the administrative determination here and they are presented as just another opinion. "...cannabis reform advocates and the Drug Enforcement Administration have been battling..." and " The most recent rescheduling petition, filed by medical marijuana advocates in 2002, is likely to wind up in the U.S. Court of Appeals." Pure speculation (and wishful thinking by pro-legalization editors)
There is a lot information available about the DEA and Department of Justice positions on marijuana as a Schedule I drug, but the only "arguments" presented here are old or from legal documents in Mr. Gettman's case. The best and most recent arguments (FDA reaffirming that there is great potential for abuse, studies of schizophrenia and other mental disease exacerbated by use of marijuana, and effects of marijuana on adolescent brains) do not appear.
Every single point given in the 'against rescheduling' section is followed by a rebuttal, which also calls into question the objectivity of the article.
There appears to be one supporter of rescheduling, Jon Gettman. Most of the arguments "for" and "against" are represented as to whether he agrees or disagrees with the position.
Other statements are pure advocacy. Example:
It is not "indisputable" or there would be no argument or article here. Second, this is not the test under the law. The test, as the article correctly points out is "1)The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. 2)The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. 3) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." Not whether "no one has ever died."
The straw-man arguments are obvious and the article is not balanced by the presence of such obvious imbalance.
For all of these reasons, I restore the POV tag and urge editors to help clean up this article. Argos'Dad 04:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
As for the unsourced tag, I placed it because of these type of existing flaws: "The position of Jon Gettman, leader of the rescheduling movement, is that a drug cannot remain in a Schedule unless it fully meets all three statutory criteria for that Schedule.[citation needed]." So, until the statements are sourced, which is normally a requirement for a Class B article, the tag remains. Argos'Dad 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
There is a dicussion at Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States regarding moving the article to Legal history of cannabis in the United States. Seeing as how both of these articles have to deal with the debate of using cannabis versus marijuana, please offer your input on Talk:Legal history of marijuana in the United States — User:Christopher Mann McKay 23:40, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed incorrect information from the article. [1] It is Canada which allows sales of some opiates over the counter, such as codeine ("Tylenol III"). No opiate is available "over the counter" in the United States. Vassyana 02:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
My name is Laurence McKinney, Google me at well. As the President of the Cannabis Corporation of America, noted in the left had column, I am disappointed that parental heavy-handedness against "illegal drugs" is being used against this relatively benign plant. If you think about it, the "active drug in marijuana (PDR)" , THC. is available at nearly any drugstore at 95% pure in sesame oil - and it is in Schedule 3 with codeine cough syrup. Then how ... you folks who pulled this article off wikipedia - can cannabis be anywhere nearly as dangerous when THC, a drug which is considered helpful, harmless, and legal by the FDA is being inhaled by incinerating a plant and breathing the smoke? It's the THC which makes cannabis illegal, but it's the only cannabinoid that's legal. It's all made by Norac Laboratories in Azusa California, a private drug manufacturing firm owned privately by Dr. Chect McCloskey and his family. The pure THC is put into sesame oil at Banner Laboratories in Los Angeles, and distributed by Roxane. The THC his made from Sandoz olivitol (Swiss) it's distributed by Roxane, which is owned by Boehernger-Ingelheim (German) and Unimed itself was sold to Solvay (Belgian).
The trouble is that most of the uninformed simply don't understand how utterly incomprehensible the DEA is. I can imagine that somebody'sdad up there thinks that "high potential for abuse" means "a lot of people are likely to have drug problems with it." Not at all. Since the moment the DEA declares a substance illegal, any use at all, whethere small, or large, or harmful, or helpful, is "drug abuse". Nothing, nobody has been abused, sir, excepting the law. So you can forget your fears, healthy adults with Ivy League degrees who started smoking in the 1970's are still going string because the drug does not abuse anyone, excepting it's illegal. Kid's abuse beer too, which is not as dangerous, but who talks about beer abuse?
I'll bet he thinks that the Controlled Substance Act meant controlled drug act ot controlled molecule act. Think again - they call it the Drug Enforcement Administration but it's not ... they can make tennis shoes inbto a controlled substance. That's how they twist the laws into a pretzel by saying oh no, they never legalized THC ... the molecule ... they legalized the "substance" THC-in-sesame-oil-in-gelatine-capsule.
The business about medical acceptance - same thing. Our lawyer, David Beck, made it clear that no group of doctors agrees completely about anything, and it's hardly up to a group of police and lawyers to make that decision.
What you have is an agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, conceived by Nixon's convicted AG John Mitchell and set up so they could make illegal anything they wanted - that's why it's the Controlled SUBSTANCE Act but the DRUG Enforcement Agency. It's really there to keep itself alive, it's long past the time that any other Washington agency took them seriously.
So if the POV, as they call it, is incorrect I wish that at least some of the wise commentators knew the laws, or the plants, as well as those on the Outside Wiki World with the required expertise. It's not just a "I feel stronger than you" .. it's supposed to based on fact and knowledge. IN fact, there's no reason, even under federal law, to keep cannabis in the same category as heroin. 209.6.212.171 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The decision on what to name this page is difficult. I am pretty much opposed to merging it into decriminalization of non-medicinal marijuana in the United States. First, removing cannabis from Schedule I would legalize medical use, which is not a subject under the purview of that article. Second, rescheduling would not decriminalize non-medical use even if it were rescheduled to Schedule V. Removing it from the schedules altogether could, as could an amendment to the statute to eliminate criminal penalties for cannabis offenses. What these petitions have consistently focused on is removing cannabis from Schedule I (and in the later petitions, also forbidding it from being placed in Schedule II, in light of Marinol's rescheduling to Schedule III). The first petition proposed moving cannabis to Schedule II. Current "rescheduling" proposals could also have the outcome of removing it entirely from the schedules and making it an over-the-counter drug, as Jon Gettman noted in "Science and the End of Marijuana Prohibition." So the most accurate description might be something like, Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. That clarifies that we are only talking about reforms at the federal level and that it could remove the CSA's ban on cannabis' medical use only, or both medical and recreational use.
If the U.S. Government finds that the scientific evidence shows cannabis does not meet the criteria for its current status, those findings will be binding on the U.S. representative at the U.N., which could lead to changes in how cannabis is regulated at the international level that would allow full legalization. Of course, by the time U.S. politics are such that a finding like that could be made, some other influences could be brought to bear that would bring prohibition down much more rapidly. Ron Duvall ( talk) 05:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
This article on at least one occasion classifies cannabis as a hallucinogen. I think that is a somewhat outdated and inaccurate classification of the drug and perhaps would be better classified as a " psychotropic drug" (one which modifies the psyche). Calling it a hallucinogen is quite misleading as it does not cause hallucinations but rather an altered mental status. Only in high doses or in very rare circumstances could hallucinations occur, but it is not a primary effect of the drug no more than hallucinations are for high doses of dextromethorphan (a common OTC anti-tussive in Vicks Nyquil etc.). Considering that on the actual cannabis wikipedia page its classified as a psychoactive drug; and on the psychotropic drug page, it is not considered an exclusive hallucinogen -- I'm going to go ahead and change it to psychotropic. If there is sufficient reason to otherwise keep it, then it can easily be reverted. - 69.123.98.219 ( talk) 01:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there another page those pics can be moved to? They're nice, but I don't think they belong here. Aldrich Hanssen ( talk) 18:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Lets assume for the moment that the U.S.A government has the right to
determine what its citizens put in their body. That the War on Drugs is not a political excuse, pepetrated by the Reagan administration, to make
money by seizing the assets of drug dealers. For just a second, lets pretend that this war on Drugs is how Uncle Sam (or Big Brother) shows that he cares
for us. Only wants to prevent us from using drugs out of their concern for us,
the people. Under the Scheduling laws for the classification of
drugs there are certain criteria for Schedule I. Schedule I The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. Number one, a high potential for abuse? If Cannabis does not work on the dopamine receptors, How can it possibly be physically addictive? Simply put, it can't. This goes everything that is known about chemical dependency. Number two, no medical use? How about Glaucoma, MS, Anorexia Nervosa, Bulimia, appetite loss due to chemotherapy or radiation treatments. Or How about the fact that THC is a potent anti-carcinogen itseelf. This is a joke. How can they have medical marijuana dispensaries in california if it is not therapeutic? Number three, lack of accepted safety? How can safety be an issue with a chemical that is virtually impossible to overdose on. It has been estimated that a 180 lb man would have to smoke 1500 lbs (three quarters of a ton) in fourteen minutes to kill himself. This is obviously impossible. This is ridiculus. It is, in fact, a farce. Are you going to let the government play games with us. Stop being sheep. Damn the man, or he'll damn you.
H@yn3s$M@$H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.167.233 ( talk) 00:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
In their position paper (inline cite 9), The American College of Physicians did not argue to reschedule cannabis per se, but rather called for an "evidence-based review" to see if it should be rescheduled (they were concerned they were misquoted when the paper first came out). Seems like a subtle point, but ACP tries very hard to stay above anything remotely looking like a polemical position on cannabis. I deleted the Position 4 that was in the body of the original paper and replaced it with the revised Position 4 in the paper's Appendix Snardbafulator ( talk) 13:14, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
While looking at the NORML Page http://norml.org/legal/medical-marijuana-2 it lists that Utah and Wyoming have some form of medical marijuana. Can someone update the map to show that? Sorry I don't know how to do that, but thought it would be helpful to others if it were updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.14.109 ( talk) 21:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 07:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
A tossup as to inclusion, but it looks like the DEA is willing to consider rescheduling. Linky. Zero Serenity ( talk - contributions) 19:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Changing "recreational use" to "adult use" is not acceptable unless you can demonstrate that a majority of sources use this phrase. Inserting it (ie: whitewashing it) is itself a form of POV editing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://books.nap.edu/html/marimed/{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://resources.iowamedicalmarijuana.org/petition/usca_11_1265_20110823_5.pdf{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.governor.wa.gov/news/news-view.asp?pressRelease=1809{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://www.finddankweed.com/united-states-court-appeals-washington-dc-upholds-marijuana-dangerous-drug/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
This page needs to be updated. New York and other states have since legalized cannabis for recreational use.
Saad Mirza ( talk) 20:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it does seem to need updates; the text of the California section may be outdated now. Also, the following text in particular seems less than neutral (or needs better referencing):
Each municipality is allowed to decide whether to grant business licenses for retail, delivery, growing, edibles, and wholesale. Taxes on legal marijuana keep it out of reach to low-income medical or adult users, creating more demand for the black market. Licenses, when available, are extremely limited and can cost $100,000 sometimes requiring proof of additional capital. Additionally, California has long provided much of the marijuana for the entire United States. These factors have allowed the black market to dominate California marijuana.
I updated the list of states that have legalized medical marijuana (38, as of this writing), and I'd like to suggest changing the list to only be the ones where it is not legal.-- Wcmaney ( talk) 01:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 30 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): I1stephe ( article contribs).