Remove Marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act
Dear Mr. President, Please direct the DEA to remove marijuana from Schedule I and correctly classify it under the definitions that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) provides. You said in your press conference (after you released the ban on federal funds for stem-cell research) that you believed that science should dictate policy not politics and I respectfully request that you follow through with this pledge even ...more »
Dear Mr. President,
Please direct the DEA to remove marijuana from Schedule I and correctly classify it under the definitions that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) provides. You said in your press conference (after you released the ban on federal funds for stem-cell research) that you believed that science should dictate policy not politics and I respectfully request that you follow through with this pledge even on something so politically toxic as marijuana.
Schedule I of the CSA specifically states that in order to be placed in this schedule I that the substance in question must have "no accepted medical use for treatment in the United States." Well... as of 1996 there are states that have accepted the medicinal uses of marijuana for treatment. Currently there are 13 states that have ACCEPTED the medical use for treatment therefore the current scheduling goes against the definition that was put into place.
In 1970, when the CSA was established there were NO accepted uses for treatment in the US, so the initial scheduling was correct. In 1988, when Administrative Law Judge Francis Young ruled that the DEA was required to reclassify marijuana there again were no states that had accepted the use for treatment and therefore the DEA had due cause to ignore the recommendation. But after California ACCEPTED the medical use for treatment in 1996 the Scheduel I classification became incorrect soley based on the definition.
Why does the Federal Government currently provide Medical Marijuana to 4 citizens of the United States for treatment of their illnesses while upholding the classification under "no medical use for treatment"? Isn't this a little hypocritical???
« less full details »
Social Web