Jump to content

Talk:Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleRemoval 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 16, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 1, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
May 6, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

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)[reply]

Archives

[edit]

Under 'Factors determinative of scheduling' do we mean "Its psychic [sic] or physiological dependence liability"??? Psychiatric/psychological dependence liability, perhaps.

That wording comes straight out of the United States Code. Rad Racer 15:37, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

FA status

[edit]

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)[reply]

Table of Contents (Side Box)

[edit]

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)[reply]

I fixed the side box as best I knew how, but the "Sections" within them still are fouling it up (and the edit tags around the article. I am not experienced enough to fix it completely. /Blaxthos 09:19, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Critical information missing

[edit]

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? Tomertalk 06:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exhaustive search? Maybe in the wrong places ;) Read Legal issues of cannabis, The campaign against marijuana, and Why is Marijuana Illegal?. --Thoric 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

[edit]

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.

Positions of opponents

[edit]

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.

Advocative misstatements

[edit]

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:

  • "In some ways, cannabis is indisputably safer than prescription narcotics such as oxycodone and morphine, since there are no records of anyone ever dying from a cannabis overdose."

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)[reply]

Hold up a second... I'm not advocating removal of the POV tag, however it appears that you are also making advocacy statements against rescheduling. Considering this article is about a particular point of view (rescheduling of cannabis) arguments should be balanced on both sides. The test under the law is not the test to be used here, and certainly there are accepted medical uses -- many doctors prescribe the drug in California, Oregon, and other states. Keep in mind the history of propaganda and deception that was used to get it banned in the first place. Let's not jump out of the frying pan and into the fire -- attempt to make the article balanced. I'm not saying the article isn't POV-netural (or without OR) as it stands now, but don't use NPOV to gut the article either. Characterizing the arguments as straw-man certainly makes it seem like you're pushing a POV too. Keep in mind, this article is a featured article, identifying the very best Wikipedia has to offer. It wouldn't make that cut if it were as POV-oriented as you claim. /Blaxthos 07:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your shared concerns about the POV of the article and agree that it is especially a problem in an FA, which is why the FA status of this article is in question.
I agree that my criticism here on this talk page represents a point of view. That is permissible in discussing whether an article is POV or not. It would be like fighting with one hand behind your back to show POV without explaining what the alternate view is. So, while these arguments are POV, so is the article. The difference is it is not allowed in the article. Argos'Dad 16:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be rather knowledgeable about the DEA positions and arguments; you should add that content rather than insisting other editors do it. This article has a total of about 120 edits since it achieved featured status two years ago - that's extremely low for an allegely strongly POV article. And I am removing the "unreferenced" tag, which seems entirely inappropriate for this article. Gimmetrow 16:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestions about what I should work on. I will consider improving this article after its status is properly confirmed.

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)[reply]

There is a total of one citation needed tag in the article. That does not justify an unreferenced tag for the entire article. Gimmetrow 17:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I did not realize that FA status was undergoing review when my other comments were pasted... however, I would strongly urge those who are pushing an agenda to be careful when installing cleanup templates -- there has been amazingly little change in the article since FA and the frontpage placement. This article, IMHO, does not push an agenda, but rather describes the movement FOR rescheduling (there's a big difference). This article shouldn't be a soapbox for either side, nor is it the place for people to debate the various positions. /Blaxthos 21:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to marijuana rescheduling in the United States?

[edit]

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)[reply]

Incorrect information

[edit]

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)[reply]

Nice catch. The source actually noted Tylenol with codeine as an example of a "prescription drug". Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of Informed Editorial & Critical Judgement

[edit]

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)[reply]

Page name change/move

[edit]

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)[reply]

Drug Family Classification

[edit]

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)[reply]

U.S. founding fathers who cultivated cannabis

[edit]

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)[reply]

Ridiculous

[edit]
 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)[reply]

Clarification of ACP's Position 4

[edit]

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)[reply]

Evidence-based reviews have already been published.[2] That cannabis is still listed as Schedule I contradicts the available scientific evidence. Viriditas (talk) 05:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Map Update?

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DEA says they will look into it

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needs Updates!

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Policy Analysis

[edit]

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).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act&oldid=1251281780"