UN votes to remove cannabis from strictest drug category
abcnews.go.com
abcnews.go.com
Isn't this kind of silly at this point? I'm not into weed (it's always weird to feel the need to append this disclaimer) but for God's sake at this point I think pretty much everyone recognizes where it lies on the harm spectrum and we still treat it like a deadly narcotic.
The baby stepping toward doing something that seems to extraordinarily black-and-white - particularly in countries that have laws that allow cigarettes and alcohol - is really quite absurd.
Not many people realize this yet, but weed is already legal in the US. With the legalization of "industrial hemp" [0], you can now buy cannabis sativa flower in all 50 states 100% legally. The law requires that it contain less than 0.3% THC by mass, so the strains you can get are selectively bred for that, but it actually isn't a big deal. CBD, and all the other cannabinoids in cannabis that aren't THC still absolutely get you high. You can also create extracts and cook with it for all the same effects as "regular" (high THC) weed. It's essentially like being able to buy beer but not liquor at this point.
[0] https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/12/14/the-farm-bi...
Hopefully they will just pass the MORE act and we'll have full legalization across the board, but at least it will be harder to change the law with respect to just hemp derived products now.
The entire Farm Bill was really clever. Republicans in congress and red state legislatures had pushed back against "medicinal" legalization over and over for years. But frame it as something to support rural farmers, and all of the sudden they're on board. I don't think they understood at all the actual reality of what it meant to legalize "industrial hemp". The floodgates are open and there's basically no stopping it now.
How much human use has there been of this drug throughout history?
If the answer is "not much", then you are basically experimenting on yourself.
Point taken though that everyone needs to consider the potential negatives before trying it themselves. Especially since some people react very negatively with regular cannabis. As always, it is important to know your body and know your drug.
It's not just about CBD. CBD is one of hundreds of cannabinoids contained in whole-flower cannabis sativa. The synergistic effect of them is what causes the effects of marijuana. THC is just one of many.
>"Are you speaking from firsthand experience?"
Absolutely, from someone who used medicinally for years in California.
According to other commenters, Delta-8 or CBG may.
¹Edit: interesting, about ten minutes after my higher post and 4 after this, this still has 1 point but its parent lost ⅓ of its peak 6.
The founding fathers were a mix of people who thought slavery today, tomorrow, and forever was the plan, people that wanted it gone ASAP, and everything in between. The compromise they came up with was to lock on it for a few decades absolutely plus give enormous power advantages to the people that economically depended on it to protect it going forward; there might have been some who hoped, or at least expected, it would be phased out over time after the lock in period, but for the most part even they would have been hoping future generations might overcome the barriers they set up that made they difficult, it's not like they built any foundation for it.
Is it new research?
I have read previously in many places (including NIH's webpage) that a link between marijuana OD and death is not (yet?) clearly established. Example:
> Overall, the committee identified no study in which cannabis was determined to be the direct cause of overdose death.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK425742/#_NBK425742_pub...
This is a few years older than what you linked, so maybe my knowledge is outdated. But I'm not sure "popular belief" is the right description.
Yes. Fortunately we're almost there. In the US we have majority support (68%) and is just a matter of time before it's fully legalized.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/323582/support-legal-marijuana-...
"contains the substances considered the most addictive and harmful."
American drug enforcement is tied as much to racism (marijuana with hispanic immigrants, crack cocaine with black americans) and politics (like hallucinogenics with the anti-war movement) as it is to science. Far more so.
(a) Schedule I shall consist of the drugs and other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated, listed in this section. Each drug or substance has been assigned the DEA Controlled Substances Code Number set forth opposite it.
(b) Opiates. Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any of the following opiates, including their isomers, esters, ethers, salts, and salts of isomers, esters and ethers, whenever the existence of such isomers, esters, ethers and salts is possible within the specific chemical designation (for purposes of 3-methylthiofentanyl only, the term isomer includes the optical and geometric isomers):
> Drug classification does not depend on the harm they do
I'm telling you that's explicitly the opposite of how they intend to classify drugs.
This “vote” was 27-25.
The 27 with a brain would best ignore this UN committee entirely. And stop any funding to it too.
This committee exists to take away people’s rights, not to give them any.
I look forward to a UN vote on mandatory mask requirements (will never happen).
I'm pretty sure East Timor is the only case of their stepping in for a government. Could be wrong? Other examples?
Their administration of Cambodia in the early 90s seems particularly full fledged:
> The United Nations Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC)[3] was a United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia in 1992–93 formed following the 1991 Paris Peace Accords. It was also the first occasion on which the UN had taken over the administration of an independent state, organised and run an election (as opposed to monitoring or supervising), had its own radio station and jail, and been responsible for promoting and safeguarding human rights at the national level.
I didn't know about Cambodia, that's another case, thanks.
Several of the 27 (sufficient to deny any of them a majority) voted against other loosening recommendations on marijuana, so I'm not sure that voting to move it from “like heroin” to “like cocaine” means much.
Anyone with a brain realized it's best to ignore the UN as an entity quite some time ago.
I guess this time around the strongly worded letters will be what? In support of asking people to perhaps (please) reconsider their legislative approach to or classification of cannabis?
The trope of the UN and their strongly worded letters has existed and been popularized for at least as long as I can remember. Is it really "against the grain" to simply make a call to their ineffectual, flaccid and outright farcical nature?
And if one really wants to debate their farcical nature, one need only look at their most recent candidates for election to the Human Rights Council.
Or their recent Universal Periodic Review where some of the worst modern assailants on human rights lined up for the 2 minutes hate in the name of virtue toward the USA.
If someone is willing to defend the UN and prove they're anything but a farce, I'm all ears.
* decriminalizes marijuana,
* removes it from the schedule system entirely,
* appears to just duct tape it to existing tobacco laws, and
* reinvests the funds in communities disproportionately effected by the "war on drugs"
just passed the House Rules Committee and goes up for vote in the house some time this week. The question is whether this will ever get through the senate
Everything in committee gets erased in 30 days, and will need to be reintroduced which requires your representative to: still be in the next session and still care about it instead of something relevant at that point in time.
Your bill is dead in the water.
This specific bill — which she knew would never even reach the floor of the Senate — was to counter her conservatism on drugs and incarceration as CA Attorney General.
She had one of — if not the — most "progressive" voting records in the Senate, but that's not to say she'll push these policies as VP or that they reflect what a Democratic majority would vote on (let alone pass.)
Is it really though? I assumed it was 100% for show, to have something they can use in campaign ads. I see 0% probability of it coming to the senate. So the House is just passing a bunch of laws that look good on their resume.
As a country, we are not there yet. 2022 Senate races are far too important to be trying to get ahead of where the country is. You lose suburban moms.
I think it's more of a generational thing.
“Ever” being sharply limited because the current Congress ends in a month and a day.
Also, no, it won't. Nor would it likely be signed into law even if it did.
A similar bill in the next Congress might have better prospects, maybe.
Many of the drug dealers just move on from marijuana to other illegal drugs. They don’t try to establish themselves with the drug they are selling.
Watch Hassan minhaj patriot act on the marijuana business. None of the benefits that marijuana legalization supporters rant about occurred.
If any benefit happens, it’s more people use the drug and that doesn’t benefit anyone.
I’ll add that Canada has faced zero consequences for ignoring this useless committee. I encourage all other countries to do the same.
I did think it was odd that while some countries are gradually attempting to wipe out tobacco smoking in public – you can smoke somewhere theoretically, but not in the park, on your balcony in a block of flats, or (if children could be present) in your own home or car – a change had been made in Uruguay that only increased the amount of public smoking.
Take away the mystique of its illegality and it suddenly becomes a lot less interesting to teenagers.
I am all for legalization though. Just fucking limit this smoking to some less public spots.
Nobody can expect the “UN Committee of Narcotic Drugs” to be anything but a political tool.
Is it really completely normalized? Like are senior members of society such as judges, doctors, military officers, teachers, politicians, etc completely comfortable smoking cannabis in public or would that still cause some surprise if they were that casual about it?
Because I don't think that is even the case with tobacco - people shamefully hide that even though it's always been legal - let alone cannabis?
I think the only drug which is completely normalized is alcohol. They serve alcohol at state dinners and expect most people will want it. I doubt they serve cannabis.
Friends in Toronto don't even buy a bottle of wine for a Friday night dinner with friends anymore, they buy weed.
Just the other day I was with a group of people who went out of their way to hide the beer cans they were walking with as a Police car drove past. They were openly smoking a joint the entire time.
> Like are senior members of society such as judges, doctors, military officers, teachers, politicians, etc completely comfortable smoking cannabis in public or would that still cause some surprise if they were that casual about it?
I don't think it's common to see people like that drinking alcohol in public, and weed feels kind of the same now.
From a legal standpoint, anywhere you can smoke a cigarette, you can smoke weed.
Huh? Canada has bars, pubs, restaurants, with people drinking in them in public all the time.
> I don't think it's common to see people like that drinking alcohol in public,
Here's Trudeau publicly drinking alcohol at an official function.
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2017/11/08/the-wednesday-news-br...
I doubt there's a recent photo of him smoking a joint? Let alone smoking a joint while working and representing the country? What about finishing off a meal with an edible?
I imagine your Parliament has an official bar on premises for members? Does it serve cannabis or just alcohol?
Nonsense.
Bars, pubs and restaurants are private places. Parks and sidewalks are public.
I can walk down the public sidewalk in the middle of town openly hitting a 6 ft bong. I can't drink even one can of beer like that.
Do any Canadians have to pass drug tests which test for cannabis use before they can get certain jobs?
I know in the US, even in states like California that have effectively legalized cannabis, many employers still test for cannabis use.
This is employment discrimination, so cannabis use won't be normalized until such tests are done away with.
Plenty of jobs mean you can't show up to work intoxicated, but it's perfectly fine to have consumed days prior then be fit and healthy for work on Monday morning. Same for weed and alcohol.
Based on perusal on the drug categories before this change one could get prescription of cocaine but not cannabis. This is absolutely hilarious.
Marijuana is seen as having no medically accepted use, therefore it’s more illegal than cocaine.
This just happens to work out for those with more money who are more likely to do cocaine than they are schedule 1 drugs like marijuana and crack (which is basically refined cocaine)
Except at this point it's obvious to even the most arrogant "evidence-based" medicine advocate that marijuana is indeed medically useful, and moreover that it is neither highly addicting nor dangerous, and that Schedule 1 classification for it makes absolutely no medical or legal sense.
“Milk of the poppy” is obviously a stand-in for opiates (derived from the opium poppy), not cocaine.
But, yes, There is a history of cocaine being used with opiates as a pain treatment, especially in end-of-life cases.
Still, having Cannabis at Schedule IV is funny.
At the end of the day, the rulers realized that there is a huge market and billions to be made in this industry.
What canada has found is that this giant market is illusionary. Overall cannabis use has not increased after legalization. The same amount of money is being spent now as before. Yes, there is a slight tax income, but the reality is that people are getting it from the same people they used to. Everyone buys from friends and family just as before. So the government, and all those investors, are not seeing the predicted profits.
I've read that the Canadian government mandated that legal cannabis be limited in potency, so that in order to get high potency cannabis people are forced to go to the black market.
Could such potency limits be what's keeping the Canadian black market alive?
my guess is that it got flagged to death.
As to your other claim I'm not so sure I agree with you: Italy has decriminalized all drug use a long time ago, but legalization of cannabis seems at least a decade away. In the current political climate it's ok to say that addicts should not be jailed, but there is still a lot of moral panic around distribution.