<p>Kudos for your empathy towards people who suffer from this brain disease (addiction). I just want to add that for the most part, those who have the disease were born with it (although it isn’t activated unless a mood altering substance is used). It isn’t true that “a wake-up call early on” would prevent people from from becoming addicts. For many who have this terrible disease, even multiple tragic experiences do not deter them from succumbing to their compulsion.</p>
<p>I do agree that “taking away a deterrent” is not in their best interests, but I believe that financial aid loss isn’t much of a deterrent. Financial aid is support for sober behavior and recovery. When considering whether to say “yes” or “no” to addicts, we need to consider what we are supporting, the disease or recovery. What we need to do, of course, is support only the latter.</p>
<p>Sk8rmom, current wisdom is that if drugs are decriminalized we will actually decrease rates of addiction and heartache with family members. Marijuana is generally non-addicting, but it does get people used to the feeling of being high, and sometimes they go seeking out a bigger high. Since they are already obtaining it illegally, they find it easier to seek out harder forms of drugs that will get them higher.</p>
<p>The belief is (and there is support for this in the Netherlands, where they have very low levels of addicts to harder drugs) that decriminalizing drugs, or even just marijuana, elimates that “gateway” between marijuana and the harder drugs.</p>
<p>The servitude and killings wouldn’t happen if the drug wasn’t illegal. It has a high value BECAUSE if it is illict. People aren’t getting killed over alcohol, why? Because you can walk to the grocery store and buy it. If you could go to the pharmacy and buy pot, no one would be dying over it because there’d be no black market for it. No one’s going to buy a dime bag from that sketchy guy on the corner when they can get the same bag for $7 at the drugstore.</p>
<p>And honestly, there are a lot of highly successful people in life who smoke pot all the time – the risk is not health or functioning, it’s simply getting caught for something that’s illegal because it’s illegal. I’m a graduate student who smokes it occasionally, and I’m getting my Ph.D from Columbia. There are plenty of medical, dental, doctoral students here who smoke pot :D</p>
<p>Juillet, I have said that I would support decriminalization of marijuana but that is different from legalization. Decriminiliization only removes the penalties, but does not sanction the unrestricted sale/use of the drug. There seems to be a confusion in this discussion between the regulation of this drug by the FDA as a Schedule 1 substance and law enforcement but they are two separate things. </p>
<p>The FDA has, and will likely continue to, refuse reclassification and that is not a political issue, it is based on scientific data and studies. A legitimate medical use would have to be proven first (and there are synthetic substitutes that have already been approved). The FDA has approved “Compassionate Use” petitions for medical marijuana in the past but I’m not sure this program is in effect today. The bottom line is that it’s not going to become an OTC med.</p>
Neither does legalization. If legalization were to occur there would likely be plenty of regulations on the sale of marijuana just like there is on alcohol or meat today. In Canada every lottery ticket has a statement along the lines of “if you need help overcoming your gambling addiction, call this hotline”. Convenience store clerks are trained to spot addictions as well and there’s no doubt that similar measures to prevent “unrestricted sale/use” of marijuana would be enacted if legalization were to succeed in the US.</p>
<p>
The FDA does not place controlled substances into schedules, that is the job of the DEA.</p>
<p>
What if I were to reverse this reasoning: if there are acceptable synthetic substitutes for marijuana that carry its major active component, doesn’t this mean that marijuana itself is an acceptable medication? Your reasoning does not hold considering the wealth of scientific information and personal testimonies ([url=<a href=“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A]here[/url”>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NY6UTnS6Z-A]here[/url</a>] is a funny one that gets the point across) that say otherwise. NIDA itself sends out pre-rolled joints to dozens of patients every month so to say that there is no medicinal benefit is ignorant at best.</p>
<p>^And you think the FDA is going to approve SMOKING a drug? I seriously doubt it. Btw, I did NOT say that there are not medical uses for marijuana - this has led to the synthetic substitutes. Not my policy, heck they didn’t even bother to ask me! But the FDA has repeatedly refused to consider reclassification of marijuana and, until the DEA and the administration also drastically alter their stance, I just really don’t see it happening.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The DEA and the FDA both classify drugs, but that is not what I was talking about. Without FDA approval, it would never become anything except a Schedule 1 substance since it could not be legally prescribed.</p>
<p>The law should be eased. Obviously a person seeking a college education is looking to improve themselves. An event like this that happened in the past shouldn’t prevent them from doing that. Moreover, although I disagree with using them, using drugs is a personal choice. Why ban marijuana and not cigarettes/nicotine? Oh wait, big money is behind one of them. Additionally, this law targets minority communities in particular because of the high rates of drug use caused by social and economic factors.</p>
It doesn’t have to; there are thousands of medical marijuana patients already. A doctor doesn’t need FDA approval to prescribe any OTC medication (which is the effective status of marijuana for medical patients in those states where it is legal) and marijuana has been legally prescribed in those states where it is legal already.</p>
<p>
You said: “A legitimate medical use [for marijuana] would have to be proven [for FDA reclassification to occur]”, which implies that there is no current proof available and thus no medical use for the substance. If you meant something else by that statement feel free to clarify.</p>
<p>
Holder has already said he won’t use federal agents (including DEA agents) to arrest medical marijuana patients so that leaves the issue up to the states. California has already had quite a bit of success with its program and most patients have not been arrested for their legally-prescribed marijuana.</p>
<p>
Yet again… It has already been legally prescribed in the 13 medical cannabis states and is legal to prescribe in Arizona under state law (only federal law prohibits prescribing a Schedule I substance but that is rendered moot by current AG’s policy towards medical marijuana). If a law is not enforced then a de facto level of legality is assumed. That is the current status of medical marijuana in those 13 states (plus Maryland where medical use is a valid defense in court).</p>