Dr. Sanjay Gupta says we have been misled on marijuana

[Evo]

More prevalent than alcohol?

Illicit, alcohol is legal here if you are 21 or older, and it is legal to drive with a blood alcohol level below .08. It used to vary by state, but I recently read that most states have agreed upon the lower .08 level.

 

[Monique]

I really don't get the replies here, the topic is that people have been misled on marijuana. What? It should be a schedule 1 drug, because you shouldn't smoke and drive? That's not a good argument, check the requirements for schedule 1 drugs:

* 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.

That's what should be argued.

 

[Evo]

I really don't get the replies here, the topic is that people have been misled on marijuana. What? It should be a schedule 1 drug, because you shouldn't smoke and drive? That's not a good argument, check the requirements for schedule 1 drugs:

* 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.

That's what should be argued.

Obviously marijuana does not fall under those three criteria. Unfortunately, attempts to remove it from the Schedule 1 classification have failed.

*Warning: the following wikipedia excerpt is not peer reviewed.

Since 1972, there have been numerous proposals in the United States to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs which have "no currently accepted medical use". Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I, and therefore the government is required by law either to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The government, on the other hand, maintains that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision.

continued...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act

Even if it were legalized, I wouldn't use it unless it was in a pill or liquid form. I am against inhaling concentrated smoke of any kind to avoid damage to my lungs.

 

[Monique]

Even if it were legalized, I wouldn't use it unless it was in a pill or liquid form. I am against inhaling concentrated smoke of any kind to avoid damage to my lungs.

A reason why I say more money needs to go to research and regulations should be less strict. A friend of mine is a senior in a company that researches these plants, but they always run into legislation and are regularly operating in a grey area. They have been on the verge of bankruptcy for years, but somehow manage to get by.

And if it is legal you don't have to use it, just like you don't have to smoke cigarettes just because they're legal (which are far more harmful btw).

 

[Evo]

Dr Gupta's show "weed" will be aired tonight on CNN at 7pm CST. Should be interesting.

 

[Curious3141]

Turns out that "Dr. Gupta" is an assumed name. This photo of "Dr. Gupta" in a candid moment should shed a whole lot of light on the matter.

(So shoot me, I thought the thread could do with some levity).

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Did anyone watch?

 

[Pythagorean]

No, I didn't watch it. Despite the importance of this debate, I think Dr. Gutpa is really just shifting towards popular opinion to stay relevant, honestly.

 

[Borg]

This made me laugh.

http://news.yahoo.com/cops-dealing-doritos-post-legalization-hempfest-070354736.html

 

[Borg]

In today's news. http://news.yahoo.com/feds-wont-sue-stop-marijuana-2-states-173520230--politics.html

the Justice Department said Thursday that states can let people use the drug, license people to grow it and even allow adults to stroll into stores and buy it — as long as the weed is kept away from kids, the black market and federal property.

The policy change embraces what Justice Department officials called a "trust but verify" approach between the federal government and states that enact recreational drug use.