“Is The DEA Legalizing THC?”

Sure Shot

Sure Shot

Well-Known Member
Under the plan, THC derived from the marijuana plant would be classified as a Schedule III controlled substance,
while the plant itself would remain classified as a Schedule I illegal drug. Sound fishy? It is.:dunce:

Details here.
 
So, hash is schedule 3 but regular bud is still schedule 1? :lol:

Edit: Nevermind, since hash also would contain thc-a, cbd, cbc, etc so I guess this really only applies to dronabinol...
 
the U.S goverment is retarded. we wouldnt be in this recession if they just legalized it. but then again us profit growers would b fucked
 
Earlier this week Drug Czar Gil Kerlikowske sat down for a face-to-face interview with The Daily Caller’s Mike Riggs.

Riggs asked the Czar;
“You’ve said before that you don’t see medical benefits to smoked marijuana and also that the jury is still out on medical marijuana.
What sort of scientific consensus does the ONDCP require? How many studies have to come out arguing for medical benefits? What do you need to see?”

The czar replied;
“You know there are over 100 groups doing marijuana research, and they’re getting their marijuana from the University of Mississippi.
There are several things in clinical trials right now. So we’ll just have to wait for those.”

This is a flat out lie!

 a review of the U.S. National Institutes of Health website clinicaltrials.gov shows that there are presently only six FDA-approved trials taking place anywhere in the world involving subjects’ use of actual cannabis. Of these, two are completed, one is assessing the plant’s pharmacokinetics, and one is assessing pot’s alleged harms.
:cuss::cuss:


Source
 
Not to mention that the weed grown at the University of Mississippi is pure junk. I believe they grow shitty weed intentionally to skew the any test results to a pro legalization view.
 
for the record illinois was the first state ever to legalize medical marijuana.. this was doen in the 70's... but this law wouldnt come into effect untill the federal government lowwer the schedueling of marijuana to something lesser then a sched. 1... so that law has been hanging in limbo for decades..... under that law if the feds did this my state would have medical marijuana and without a need for a bitch ass senate vote wich we loss by 4 votes last year...
 
I doubt that. The guy that holds the only DEA license to grow weed at the Uni has been doing it for many, many, many years. I'm sure he is growing some righteous weed by now. He has no interest in skewing results, he is a true scientist. He is merely supplying a few others.

On another note, why won't anyone ask the DEA about that patent that the Department of Health and Human Services holds? A department of our federal government, holds a patent on the medical benefits derived from marijuana on diseases linked to oxidation, such as alzheimers, strokes, heart disease, and several other diseases and illnesses listed outright. If an arm of our own government believed strongly enough in the medical benefits of marijuana to file for a patent to control it, why is the head of the body stating that it has no benefits and therefore remains on the schedule one list? It is time to demand answers, and REMIND our government that it serves the people and their wishes. Any other function is a violation of our constitution and our rights as humans.

Fluxcap said:
Not to mention that the weed grown at the University of Mississippi is pure junk. I believe they grow shitty weed intentionally to skew the any test results to a pro legalization view.
Click to expand...
 
A tad tardy... but my rant/ramble,
"THC that is not contained in a FDA-approved pharmaceutical drug would remain classified as schedule I illicit substances."
Of course they will remain sched. I...It is all about $. As long as the FDA and big pharma are in bed together, they, along with their DEA henchmen, will fight tooth and nail to prevent people from helping themselves. How is it, in this day and age, that a member of the FDA can serve on the board of a pharma corp (too tired to dig up names atm)? And now that the FDA oversees big tob, they have a vested interest there too. Hmmm,: man gets lung cancer from FDA-overseen BT products (tax/profits); man gets treated with mega-expensive "kryponite" chemo (more tax/more profits); man dies anyway... one less sick person to be a burden under the new "health-care" plan... *insert evil chuckle here.*... after all, BP needs keep all the lovely "oids" to themselves... God forbid we feel better, or even possibly cure our own cancers.
/End rant/ramble
 
Serapis said:
I doubt that. The guy that holds the only DEA license to grow weed at the Uni has been doing it for many, many, many years. I'm sure he is growing some righteous weed by now. He has no interest in skewing results, he is a true scientist. He is merely supplying a few others.

On another note, why won't anyone ask the DEA about that patent that the Department of Health and Human Services holds? A department of our federal government, holds a patent on the medical benefits derived from marijuana on diseases linked to oxidation, such as alzheimers, strokes, heart disease, and several other diseases and illnesses listed outright. If an arm of our own government believed strongly enough in the medical benefits of marijuana to file for a patent to control it, why is the head of the body stating that it has no benefits and therefore remains on the schedule one list? It is time to demand answers, and REMIND our government that it serves the people and their wishes. Any other function is a violation of our constitution and our rights as humans.
Click to expand...

I actually went to a medical cannabis debate featuring the head editor of High Times and he said that he had smoked the weed used in these trials, he said it was litterly the shwaggiest weed he had smoked since he was teenager smoking that reggie shit in the early days. IDK if its true, thats just what he said, so i thought id throw that out there.
 
i forgot wher i heard this but if 2 states the examples that where given cali and nevada if they where to legalize those state alone would make enough reveun to take us out of th recission

this is a move in the right direction but it makes no common sense..
 
the gubment is nothing but a bunch of dirty greedy bastards. in school they said ''you have a voice, you make the changes'' they brainwash american youth from a very young age. the udder bullshit tht many americans are fed they eat and dont question. the process designed to make thing change were also design to outlast the people who want to change it.
 
Here is whats going to happen, it will eventually become legal. But the big ass companies will take it over. It will become like tabacco, and eventually it will all taste like shwag. The government doesn't want us to grow our own. They want to monopolize to just a few big grow warehouses. So its easier for them to tax us
 
  • Like
Reactions: vro
IDK, me worry these ARE the good old days, that this is the best-most legal its going to get in my lifetime. Once Obama is gone, the DEA will be back on the war path on M and maybe even MM.

Seems like things are either too good to be true or if it is true, it doesn't stay great forever, Every single thing I can think of that was great to have or do, did not last forever.

Like gas prices, its great that gas is under $2 a gallon but will it last or will it be $4 a gallon come summer...I doubt it looking at the price of oil but it be $4 a gallon again someday, just watch and see.

I sure hope I am wrong, it be the best thing to happen to me--legal weed for all adults in the USA, I could travel anywhere I please and I could smoke with any adult I wish to. But I'm not going to dream its going to happen, rather I worry about what if MM was no longer legal. I think about that more so
 
I know many will argue that it is worthless to do so, but vote and do so intelligently. Find out what the candidates' stances are on legalization and vote accordingly. If we keep voting in the same ole same ole, then things aren't going to change.

I would further argue that history proves that prohibition will eventually fail, it simply isn't sustainable when the people aren't behind it. The general populace is (surprisingly) becoming more educated on this matter and the Reefer Madness generation is in its decline. The inherent greed of industry and the growing turn away from tobacco by society are also in favor of legalization and as far as regulation favoring industry in a similar manner. I'm pretty certain you are allowed to grow your own small amount of tobacco (at least in Missouri), but most people are unaware of this or aren't willing to put forth the effort. No, I haven't tried to research the statutes, I'm basing this on the fact that an economics professor I know, claims a loss for not growing his allowed amount on his land. At any rate, I believe federal legalization will eventually come to pass, even if it's only because the greedy bastards realize what kind of profits can be reaped from doing so.

I hold hope that marijuana will become something more akin to craft beer, as it looks to already be doing.
 
G-13? Isn't that the govt weed? I don't keep up on shit like this,but I've read it before...
Remember the marijuana tax stamp? Same principle imo ..gotta do something illegal to get something legal...catch 22..catch 420? :-)
 
Damn, was really hoping they would just put the plant on schedule 3 like lots were hoping they would after those court hearings. Instead they put the psychoactive compound by itself on sched III? So backwards...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top