Would really like to hear what those who support this have to say. I can't think of any reason why anyone could possible agree with this.

"Yeah well it comes from weed so it must get you high"

is what a shocking number of people think

Honestly though, did this really surprise anyone?

States still make their own choices, and there is an amendment in place protecting said choices, especially when it comes to medical CBD. This won't have an effect or change anything currently happening.

And after the gov't made it LEGAL to perform more rigorous scientific testing this year, it is only a matter of time before anything THC or CBD related is completely non scheduled, or least lowered.

J_BISCHOFStates still make their own choices, and there is an amendment in place protecting said choices, especially when it comes to medical CBD. This won't have an effect or change anything currently happening.

And after the gov't made it LEGAL to perform more rigorous scientific testing this year, it is only a matter of time before anything THC or CBD related is completely non scheduled, or least lowered.

I mean THC isn't illegal because they haven't researched it enough. IT will be legal everywhere eventually, but they're going to milk prohibition as long as they can.

Jesus fucking Christ

MinggWould really like to hear what those who support this have to say. I can't think of any reason why anyone could possible agree with this.

The manufacture of it comes from a schedule 1 drug, and the FDA has not approved it for medical use, yet.

Therefore it is a schedule 1.

The reasoning is logical.

Should it be schedule 1? Yes, according to the law. But common sense would dictate otherwise.

theabortionatorI mean THC isn't illegal because they haven't researched it enough. IT will be legal everywhere eventually, but they're going to milk prohibition as long as they can.

Considering its now classed with heroin yet doesnt get you high just shows they dont wanna lose having the ability to arrest someone for anything pot related. Its just pathetic and sad that theyre doing this, especially now as we progress in legalization across multiple states.

conspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal

J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal

Y the hate towards the pharma industry? Sooner or later weed will be in that boat. CBD oil isn't even that good. I've done oxy and cbd and OxyContin is a lot better. And I know ppl will get mad about me saying this, but simply the ppl that talk the most shut about OxyContin have never done it

J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal

Theyre all gonna jump ship and change their tunes when they all start realizing how profitable anything marijuana is nowadays. Even hardcore christians

Marijuana won't be legal at the federal level for a long time imo, especially when the current head of the DEA has spoken out against medicinal use of marijuana.

californiagrownThe manufacture of it comes from a schedule 1 drug, and the FDA has not approved it for medical use, yet.

Therefore it is a schedule 1.

The reasoning is logical.

Should it be schedule 1? Yes, according to the law. But common sense would dictate otherwise.

Schedule 1 drugs are regarded as having no medicinal value or qualities, which is not true in the slightest when it comes to CBD oil.

What the fuck

THEDIRTYBUBBLESchedule 1 drugs are regarded as having no medicinal value or qualities, which is not true in the slightest when it comes to CBD oil.

There is no scientific evidence that CBD oil has any medicinal value. It's all heresay, like some broke asshole sitting around saying that it helps with his back pain or some shit.

THEDIRTYBUBBLESchedule 1 drugs are regarded as having no medicinal value or qualities, which is not true in the slightest when it comes to CBD oil.

So the FDA has approved it for use as a medicine? Oh, right. No they didn't. Therefore, in the eyes of the law it does not have medicinal values.

Fucking stoners can't tell the difference between a lawful right and and ethical right.

californiagrownSo the FDA has approved it for use as a medicine? Oh, right. No they didn't. Therefore, in the eyes of the law it does not have medicinal values.

Fucking stoners can't tell the difference between a lawful right and and ethical right.

There is a reason why stoners do not have a say in anything

californiagrownSo the FDA has approved it for use as a medicine? Oh, right. No they didn't. Therefore, in the eyes of the law it does not have medicinal values.

Fucking stoners can't tell the difference between a lawful right and and ethical right.

Not what I was arguing but whatever. Get back on the short bus.

THEDIRTYBUBBLENot what I was arguing but whatever. Get back on the short bus.

I think the kid needs more than a short bus

beetlejuiceY the hate towards the pharma industry? Sooner or later weed will be in that boat. CBD oil isn't even that good. I've done oxy and cbd and OxyContin is a lot better. And I know ppl will get mad about me saying this, but simply the ppl that talk the most shut about OxyContin have never done it

Cbd isn't that good? Tell that to the people who suffer from Parkinson's and experience immediate relief when ingesting cbd.

Gods_FatherCbd isn't that good? Tell that to the people who suffer from Parkinson's and experience immediate relief when ingesting cbd.

You can make that same argument for thousands of other drugs, whether they are pharmaceutical or not.

Meh, legal weed is coming. Change rarely happens overnight and most people don't care enough about it and those who do care about it on both sides of the isle are pretty off putting to everyone else. It's illegal because there is a drug coming out, that is cbd but not from cannabis...which is schedule 1. It makes sense because it follows the law. Doesn't make it right...or necessarily 100% wrong.

THEDIRTYBUBBLENot what I was arguing but whatever. Get back on the short bus.

Lol, you were arguing that and oil fulfilled the lawful requirements of having medicinal value, and thus should not be schedule 1.

And then I shut your dumbass up with some very obvious facts.

And then you insulted my intelligence.

Am I getting all this correct?

californiagrownLol, you were arguing that and oil fulfilled the lawful requirements of having medicinal value, and thus should not be schedule 1.

And then I shut your dumbass up with some very obvious facts.

And then you insulted my intelligence.

Am I getting all this correct?

He was not arguing that oil fulfilled the lawful requirements of having medicinal value. However, there is very obvious medical value in it and therefore (in my opinion - not in terms of the law - I want to clarify every detail so you quit talking in circles) should not be classified how it is. Yes, in terms of the law it's not but like in reality it does have value.

beetlejuiceYou can make that same argument for thousands of other drugs, whether they are pharmaceutical or not.

Prohibition is straight up retarded in general. But this isn't surprising because what would they gain from legalizing it.

It'll happen in a decade or so, but why wouldn't they drag their feet. I mean with prescription drugs making fucking bank.

Even if you wanted to make the argument that anything that comes from the plant is useless medically, which it isn't, people will still be going that route instead of pharmies.

It's crazy that's it's so easy to scare suburban america in 2016.

DRUGS

MUSLIMS

GAY PEOPLE

EVOLUTION

Also with the heroin epidemic actually getting news it's not surprising, but sad that we still aren't making any changes. "Hey we're acknowledging that everything is fucked, but we're just going to fight the war on drugs harder next year" = flawless logic.

I wish we could just look at some things and just make changes. It would be pretty tough to find a good argument for the drug war as it's run today. But we love our traditions and doing things "because that's how it's only been".

Ugh.

J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal

hardly a conspiracy... legal weed = less money spent on pharma drugs

beetlejuiceY the hate towards the pharma industry? Sooner or later weed will be in that boat. CBD oil isn't even that good. I've done oxy and cbd and OxyContin is a lot better. And I know ppl will get mad about me saying this, but simply the ppl that talk the most shut about OxyContin have never done it

i mean, not really... weed will most likely stay a dispensary thing for quite some time, as long as its kept legal recreationally as well. also big pharma is all around a pretty scummy industry

beetlejuiceY the hate towards the pharma industry? Sooner or later weed will be in that boat. CBD oil isn't even that good. I've done oxy and cbd and OxyContin is a lot better. And I know ppl will get mad about me saying this, but simply the ppl that talk the most shut about OxyContin have never done it

Oxy has way more side effects. such as constipation and potentially out of control addiction. No doubt, sometimes you need oxy but it should be your last resort when it comes to pain.

I needed oxys earlier this year for about a week or so immediately after knee surgery but i switched to cbd asap. Opiates are no joke, I've lost way too many people to them and ive watched even more people set their lives back at least a few years chasing the dragon. Always starts with percs, oxys, etc..

Sure cbd isnt as strong but you aren't debilitated by it either so long as you use responsibly.

beetlejuiceI think the kid needs more than a short bus

You're without a doubt that fuckboy tonybrooklyn back for vengeance.

Or a fucking idiot

it also doesn't matter whether the fucking FDA approved CBD, there's plenty of hard evidence that CBD HAS medicinal value. Jesus Christ the shits sold at my daily head shop, they have CBD edibles and wax, it's clearly not worth the shithole reputation of schedule 1.

boohoo

fucking hippies

TheHamburglarespecially when the current head of the DEA has spoken out against medicinal use of marijuana.

No shit he's spoken out against it. His agency is granted millions and millions of dollars by the US govt to get weed off the streets. He spoke out to cover his ass from losing a huge potential revenue stream, not because he believes in medical marijuana or not.

MinggHe was not arguing that oil fulfilled the lawful requirements of having medicinal value. However, there is very obvious medical value in it and therefore (in my opinion - not in terms of the law - I want to clarify every detail so you quit talking in circles) should not be classified how it is. Yes, in terms of the law it's not but like in reality it does have value.

Then why are you arguing the very clear legal descriptions of drug law?

There is no good real world reason weed should be illegal. But if some jackass is going to try and argue that point using the very clear criteria laid out for drug scheduling, then yes I'm going to call him an idiot... because according to the criteria referenced, it absolutely should be schedule 1.

Randy_QuenchNo shit he's spoken out against it. His agency is granted millions and millions of dollars by the US govt to get weed off the streets. He spoke out to cover his ass from losing a huge potential revenue stream, not because he believes in medical marijuana or not.

Let's be clear first, the 2015 DEA budget is 2.88b, which fluctuates based primarily on how many job positions are created or lost within the department, not whether weed is illegal or not. The DEA does little to nothing in the way of enforcing marijuana prohibition, any longer, at least. The potential millions of dollars of losses for the DEA would be from pharma companies and lobbyists, alcohol companies, prison companies and unions, and police unions, NOT from the government budget.

Obviously his position on weed is pretty much stated in his job description, but he's gone above and beyond during press conferences to display his ignorance about and stigma against weed. My point is that we won't see a change until his way of thinking, the one that represents that of the baby boomer generation, has literally died out. It'll be another decade or two until weed is legal federally, I think.

J_Sconspiracy alert.. but the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want it to be legal

Reality check with three facts:

1. There are companies using cannabis for treatments I.E GW Pharma, but they are outside of the US.

2. The drug regulations make it basically impossible for any scientists, academic or commercial, to study banned drugs within the US. The hurdles to do so are insane. The result is less companies are taking the chances to do so. I can think of 4 off the top of my head that are, and most are cannabinoid-derived and studied outside of the US.

3. Investing in cannabis-derived treatments can result in federal drug-related charges against the investor, depending on the structure of the drug. (Less clear about the regulations surrounding this one)

californiagrownThen why are you arguing the very clear legal descriptions of drug law?

There is no good real world reason weed should be illegal. But if some jackass is going to try and argue that point using the very clear criteria laid out for drug scheduling, then yes I'm going to call him an idiot... because according to the criteria referenced, it absolutely should be schedule 1.

NO ONE IS ARGUING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION!

You're arguing something completely different. And I don't disagree with you, I just disagree with the context if that makes sense?

MinggNO ONE IS ARGUING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION!

You're arguing something completely different. And I don't disagree with you, I just disagree with the context if that makes sense?

So why are people arguing if it qualifies as a schedule 1 drug? It very obviously does.

Should it? According to the qualifications for drug scheduling yes it should. Common sense would dictate otherwise though.

californiagrownSo why are people arguing if it qualifies as a schedule 1 drug? It very obviously does.

The answer to your question:

californiagrownCommon sense would dictate otherwise though.

beetlejuiceYou can make that same argument for thousands of other drugs, whether they are pharmaceutical or not.

You saying there are thousands of other drugs out there that give almost instant relief from Parkinson's symptoms? Please, tell me even just one of These drugs...

Gods_FatherYou saying there are thousands of other drugs out there that give almost instant relief from Parkinson's symptoms? Please, tell me even just one of These drugs...

Molly, shrooms, and LSD have medical benefits.

So does cocaine, heroin and a number of other street drugs.

The issue is there needs to be studied and precise dosing, for specific applications. Till then, it's just homeopathic medicine with an illegal drug.

As far as the "I can't believe they would make it illegal. It doesn't even get you high"

Isn't industrial hemp still illegal under federal law?

It's a systemic catch 22. Marijuana is schedule 1 because it has no medicinal value (according to the FDA). It's illegal to perform clinical studies on marijuana because it's schedule 1. It's a circle of bullshit designed to keep marijuana illegal.

Only the FDA can perform highly-regulated studies on marijuana supplied by UMississippi that has very low potency (about .5-1%). That's the only way marijuana and its constituents can become reclassified, and so far, there are no promising leads. Obviously the synthetic version of THC (Marinol) has been legalized for use, but it has many more potential side effects and interactions with other drugs than marijuana.

There's a lot of money to be made by other industries from keeping marijuana classified as schedule 1, which, along with it's stigma, means it will stay illegal for quite awhile.

californiagrownMolly, shrooms, and LSD have medical benefits.

So does cocaine, heroin and a number of other street drugs.

The issue is there needs to be studied and precise dosing, for specific applications. Till then, it's just homeopathic medicine with an illegal drug.

Really? So if I'm going to eat a vegetable as medicine, I first must know the exact dose needed? do you use specific and precise dosing when you decide how much broccoli you're going to eat? Hahahahaha ya fuckin right, buddy.

It's illegal with the soul intention of pissing hipped off. These laws allow us to round up good for nothing stoners and hippies, charge 'em, and hopefully deport their lazy asses.

californiagrownSo why are people arguing if it qualifies as a schedule 1 drug? It very obviously does.

Should it? According to the qualifications for drug scheduling yes it should. Common sense would dictate otherwise though.

I think what people are trying to argue is that it clearly does have medicinal help for people who need it. The problem is that because of the strict gov'r regulations on testing it becomes almost impossible to test and prove it's medicinal benefits, and until that changes there will be no actual SCIENTIFIC proof to make it not a schedule 1.

MGKI think what people are trying to argue is that it clearly does have medicinal help for people who need it. The problem is that because of the strict gov'r regulations on testing it becomes almost impossible to test and prove it's medicinal benefits, and until that changes there will be no actual SCIENTIFIC proof to make it not a schedule 1.

CBD kills, it's dangerous, never take CBD for epilepsy, we will knock down your door and shoot your dogs for your safety. This is good and we are here to help you, stay away from CBD it will cause normalcy.

Big pharma definitely had a hand in his federal register. I wouldn't doubt that they saw the potential profit margins and medicinal properties, so they'll just monopolize it. I love me country, I love my government and I hate the devils lettuce.

beetlejuiceThere is no scientific evidence that CBD oil has any medicinal value. It's all heresay, like some broke asshole sitting around saying that it helps with his back pain or some shit.

Beetlejuice is a JTRIG plant by big pharma. I know this because I hacked his DNS and IP address. Also Oxycotin ruined someone I knew. There are many studies giving credence to CBD's medicinal value.

beetlejuiceI think the kid needs more than a short bus

The Law and double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled studies are two different things. That is the Law can always override scientific evidence because assholes.

californiagrownMolly, shrooms, and LSD have medical benefits.

So does cocaine, heroin and a number of other street drugs.

The issue is there needs to be studied and precise dosing, for specific applications. Till then, it's just homeopathic medicine with an illegal drug.

And there won't be because the funds don't get allocated to independent scientists willing to conduct studies without collusion or preconceived conclusions. There's a profit margin that some people have to upload, don't you know.

Gods_FatherReally? So if I'm going to eat a vegetable as medicine, I first must know the exact dose needed? do you use specific and precise dosing when you decide how much broccoli you're going to eat? Hahahahaha ya fuckin right, buddy.

Apples to mother fucking oranges. Holy shit.

Firstly, no MD is going to prescribe a vegetable as a cure. Only "doctors" who believe in TCM or homeopathic cures will.

Secondly, vegetables do not have the same potential for AE's that weed or any other natural drug does.

Do you really think the FDA (read US Government) is going to approve a drug, not necessarily weed, that could potentially kill/injure/have AEs that drastically alter QoL when there are alternatives that have the same effect with less AEs?

I can tell you right now, they won't. When trying to get a drug passed by the FDA that already has competition on the market you have to clear at least two bars: efficacy and/or safety.

If a drug is more efficacious with AE's that are at a tolerable level, it will be passed.

If a drug is safer with similar effectiveness, it will pass.

If it does not meet either of these bars, it will fail.

In medicinal studies you have three phases for trials to discover this.

PhI proves effect @ certain dosage ranges

PhII looks for efficacy and safety for specific dosages

PhIII looks at efficacy, safety, and effectiveness for even more specific dosages

Look up any clinical trial for ANY drug and you will see this.

Trying to run a trial without looking at dosage ranges will result in failure.

.MASSHOLE.Apples to mother fucking oranges. Holy shit.

Firstly, no MD is going to prescribe a vegetable as a cure. Only "doctors" who believe in TCM or homeopathic cures will.

Secondly, vegetables do not have the same potential for AE's that weed or any other natural drug does.

Do you really think the FDA (read US Government) is going to approve a drug, not necessarily weed, that could potentially kill/injure/have AEs that drastically alter QoL when there are alternatives that have the same effect with less AEs?

I can tell you right now, they won't. When trying to get a drug passed by the FDA that already has competition on the market you have to clear at least two bars: efficacy and/or safety.

If a drug is more efficacious with AE's that are at a tolerable level, it will be passed.

If a drug is safer with similar effectiveness, it will pass.

If it does not meet either of these bars, it will fail.

In medicinal studies you have three phases for trials to discover this.

PhI proves effect @ certain dosage ranges

PhII looks for efficacy and safety for specific dosages

PhIII looks at efficacy, safety, and effectiveness for even more specific dosages

Look up any clinical trial for ANY drug and you will see this.

Trying to run a trial without looking at dosage ranges will result in failure.

Hahahahaha it's a vegetable. And cbd is non-psychoactive.

Gods_FatherHahahahaha it's a vegetable. And cbd is non-psychoactive.

Depends on what you mean by "vegetable". If you mean food, no. If you mean part of the vegetable kingdom, sure.

CBD uses chemical receptors, therefore it needs to be studied to see what the effects actually are throughout the body. It doesn't just have to be non-psychoactive. It could affect the liver, GI, cardiovascular system, immune system, or any other body part that contains a CB1 or CB2 receptor.

Christ.

It's not like the FDA has all these regulations in for shits and giggles. It isn't some giant conspiracy to keep CBD and other recreational dugs from being used medicinally. Most of them WANT to see it get tested because they believe there are benefits.

But the fucking Thalidomide issue is exactly why they require studies. Mothers took that thinking it cured morning sickness (which it did), and the end result was babies with deformities.