• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next three

Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

You can't fully blame people for the brainwashing that's gone on. Reagan started us down a path that's going to take a long time to undo. The DEA has had hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades and a relatively free hand to indoctrinate, and a large law enforcement apparatus that has also stoked the fear to keep people in line. The main reason for the damage is the anti-drug programs in schools. You always get the kids first because then no matter how irrational the doctrine, they'll parrot it for life.

Most people who are against drugs justify their beliefs with obsolete information that is now easily disproven or countered with better policies, but as we are a democracy, the majority-rules politics comes full circle. You indoctrinate the kids, then when they grow up and become the majority opinion, you, as the government get to say, "See? People don't want decriminalization!" They've also infected international policy with this non-sense so that they can turn around and say, "See? Even the UN thinks drugs should be illegal." Well, the U.S. helped form modern UN drug policy when Reagan was in power!

Nationalism works the same way, btw.
Great points, and there's a lot of truth here.

That's why as a parent I may not be able to change the entire world, but I bust balls to provide my kids with the best liberal education that I can (liberal, as in 'liberal studies'). And then give them as much practical personal knowledge and understanding as I can. I also push them out into political activism at an early age - they each have to do an election cycle of knocking-on doors while in H.S. And in my city, street level politics is an education in itself!

I'm only one, but now I've got three that I've admonished to 'pay me back' by 'passing it on', and they are pretty eager to do so. You'd be amazed how evangelical the kids can be when you give them knowledge and tools, they see the light, and they become believers.

I'm proud to say my kids take no captives, and are proud to go up against anyone anywhere when their B.S. detectors go off! If anything, being young and idealistic they relish setting others straight! And I encourage it! :thumbs:
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

Well, there's a fair amount of things Canada does well.

Be happy for it.

I've always believed the quality of one's government can be measured by the quality of life and state of well-being of the greater citizenry, NOT on the state's economic power and military might - as important as the last two parameters may be.

Then as a Catholic, I've always been enamored by Greek philosophical thought that: "The greatness of a society can be measured by how those at the fringes fare".

If (through work and opportunity) I and my family are not healthy, happy, educated, and living well & long, then I don't give a dayem how great my government may think or claim it is.



a lot of what we have today came out of an era when the current prime minister's father was in office. Pierre Eliot Trudeau coined the term "just Society" in his first election campaign, and that very sentiment was at its core. As Justice Minister he overhauled a lot of the nation's laws and with one quote set in motion a "new society". That quote being "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" clearing the way in the early 1970's for the eventual emergence of gays and lesbians and the virtual legalization of prostitution.

But then Solzhenitsyn, as a former prisoner, claimed that greatness in a society can be measured in how it treats its prisoners, and I believe there is truth in that. I sat through a murder trial many years ago, a battered wife had had enough and basically stabbed him in his sleep. The judge found her not guilty of course in what was then a major precedent to be followed many years later by a woman in Washington state. In his ruling the judge made a distinction between punishment and revenge and commented that a 'just society' seeks reconciliation, rejecting both options.

I agree with the judge. It is wrong to lock people up for years and years for relatively minor offenses, and even worse when they are stigmatized upon release, not allowed to vote, virtually unemployable....no wonder they return to a life of crime.
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

a lot of what we have today came out of an era when the current prime minister's father was in office. Pierre Eliot Trudeau coined the term "just Society" in his first election campaign, and that very sentiment was at its core. As Justice Minister he overhauled a lot of the nation's laws and with one quote set in motion a "new society". That quote being "the government has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" clearing the way in the early 1970's for the eventual emergence of gays and lesbians and the virtual legalization of prostitution.

But then Solzhenitsyn, as a former prisoner, claimed that greatness in a society can be measured in how it treats its prisoners, and I believe there is truth in that. I sat through a murder trial many years ago, a battered wife had had enough and basically stabbed him in his sleep. The judge found her not guilty of course in what was then a major precedent to be followed many years later by a woman in Washington state. In his ruling the judge made a distinction between punishment and revenge and commented that a 'just society' seeks reconciliation, rejecting both options.

I agree with the judge. It is wrong to lock people up for years and years for relatively minor offenses, and even worse when they are stigmatized upon release, not allowed to vote, virtually unemployable....no wonder they return to a life of crime.
Another great post, F&L.

From your thought process and written expression, I can see how you were driven to writing and journalism at an early age.

Keep up the good work (including your other causes, as well). :thumbs:
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

The DEA said it will likely decide in the first half of 2016 whether to reclassify cannabis in a category other than Schedule 1

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...g-marijuana-dangerous-group-article-1.2591306


Regardless of how you feel about the marijuana issue. I always thought that pot should not be a schedule 1 drug.

It was always silly to me that pot, LSD and Peyote are schedule 1 and Meth and Cocaine are schedule 2.

It isn't a most dangerous drug and it is hard to trust anyone that says they believe it to be.
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

You can't fully blame people for the brainwashing that's gone on. Reagan started us down a path that's going to take a long time to undo. The DEA has had hundreds of billions of dollars over the decades and a relatively free hand to indoctrinate, and a large law enforcement apparatus that has also stoked the fear to keep people in line. The main reason for the damage is the anti-drug programs in schools. You always get the kids first because then no matter how irrational the doctrine, they'll parrot it for life.

Most people who are against drugs justify their beliefs with obsolete information that is now easily disproven or countered with better policies, but as we are a democracy, the majority-rules politics comes full circle. You indoctrinate the kids, then when they grow up and become the majority opinion, you, as the government get to say, "See? People don't want decriminalization!" They've also infected international policy with this non-sense so that they can turn around and say, "See? Even the UN thinks drugs should be illegal." Well, the U.S. helped form modern UN drug policy when Reagan was in power!

Nationalism works the same way, btw.

Reagan didn't start that fire.
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

I do not see the DEA downgrading weed to schedule 2, it would put to many DEA agents out of a job. Federal prohibition will only end when Congress, or the Pres in conjunction with the Attorney general remove cannabis from schedule 1. I do not see a Republican Congress allowing that to happen, shame as the majority of Americans want the plants federal prohibition to end, but then again politicians know best don't they?

Clinton has said she will remove cannabis to schedule 2, allowing more research into the plant, too the pro weed folks that is your best shot.

And how will Clinton remove it to schedule 2 if it requires congress to do it?
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

And how will Clinton remove it to schedule 2 if it requires congress to do it?

DEA can reschedule as it pleases. It does not need Congress to do it.

It could have done it back in the early 80's when their own Administrative Law Judge recommended it, but the Agency refused for bureaucratic and selfish reasons.

They put it in NPRM in the Federal Register, and 90 days later it happens.
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

And how will Clinton remove it to schedule 2 if it requires congress to do it?

There are 3 methods to downgrade a drug from schedule 1, Congress must pass a resolution ending prohibition and pass it on to the Pres (No way this will happen with a GOP Pres or Congress), the DEA can downgrade the drug without Congressional approval (has been attempted MANY times and failed), or the Pres can sign an executive order removing the federal prohibition. Currently ZERO GOP candidates are in favor of the removal of the drug from schedule 1, Clinton has indicated she will move the drug to schedule 2. I hope that goes some way to explain, obviously there other factors, the Attorney General should be actively involved in all three of the processes.

As I said the DEA will go thru the motions, but no way will they downgrade cannabis, this is a well traveled road with nothing to show. Thus my comment about Clinton being the best bet to remove it from schedule 1.
 
Last edited:
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

There are 3 methods to downgrade a drug from schedule 1, Congress must pass a resolution ending prohibition and pass it on to the Pres (No way this will happen with a GOP Pres or Congress), the DEA can downgrade the drug without Congressional approval (has been attempted MANY times and failed), or the Pres can sign an executive order removing the federal prohibition. Currently ZERO GOP candidates are in favor of the removal of the drug from schedule 1, Clinton has indicated she will move the drug to schedule 2. I hope that goes some way to explain, obviously there other factors, the Attorney General should be actively involved in all three of the processes.

As I said the DEA will go thru the motions, but no way will they downgrade cannabis, this is a well traveled road with nothing to show. Thus my comment about Clinton being the best bet to remove it from schedule 1.

In reading up on this the Attorney General only has authority to put a drug temporarily in schedule 1 for public safety. other than they , nothing to do with the scheduling process.
The process of rescheduling involves the DEA, HHS and the FDA. it has to go through a lot of hoop jumping to get changed.
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

There are 3 methods to downgrade a drug from schedule 1, Congress must pass a resolution ending prohibition and pass it on to the Pres (No way this will happen with a GOP Pres or Congress), the DEA can downgrade the drug without Congressional approval (has been attempted MANY times and failed), or the Pres can sign an executive order removing the federal prohibition. Currently ZERO GOP candidates are in favor of the removal of the drug from schedule 1, Clinton has indicated she will move the drug to schedule 2. I hope that goes some way to explain, obviously there other factors, the Attorney General should be actively involved in all three of the processes.

As I said the DEA will go thru the motions, but no way will they downgrade cannabis, this is a well traveled road with nothing to show. Thus my comment about Clinton being the best bet to remove it from schedule 1.

Classification into the various schedules is not prohibition. It is merely a bureaucratic exercise, not prohibition.
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

Being a staunch prohibitionist myself, it's indeed excessive for marijuana to be a schedule 1 drug. But that still doesn't support the pro-regulation crowd's case against the DEA as a purportedly superfluous, inept governmental agency; I presume political considerations or ulterior motives played a role in the draconian classification.
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

Now that I skimmed through some of the posts in this topic, I once again find myself puzzled by the pro-drugs movement, and I also see Reagan had promptly made his appearance in this topic.

I'm not a conservative, and if I were to choose between a conservative tyranny or a liberal one, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat. But I still can't fathom the mentality that would advocate on behalf of poisons. Did I miss the scientific revelation that drugs are nonaddictive or that they're benign? If not, what am I missing?
 
Re: DEA considers dropping marijuana from most dangerous category of drugs in next th

Now that I skimmed through some of the posts in this topic, I once again find myself puzzled by the pro-drugs movement, and I also see Reagan had promptly made his appearance in this topic.

I'm not a conservative, and if I were to choose between a conservative tyranny or a liberal one, I'd choose the latter in a heartbeat. But I still can't fathom the mentality that would advocate on behalf of poisons. Did I miss the scientific revelation that drugs are nonaddictive or that they're benign? If not, what am I missing?
The concept of liberty. ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom