well it will be a few more years now, is my guess.
The DEA is full of sh*t. The medical value argument is idiotic. Just legalize it. The DEA probably just needs it illegal for job security. Why can't it be legal because it is a safe way to get high? What the hell is wrong with getting high? At least at home, not piloting the Exxon Valdez, I mean.
Does everything that feels good have to only be legal for a practical or medical purpose? What are we freakin Pilgrims, can only have sex for procreation?
Alcohol (in drinking form) negative medical value.
Coffee: zero medical value
Tobacco: Negative medical value
Chocolate: zero medical value
Bungee Jumping (more dangerous than dope) : no medical value
River Kayaking: (more dangerous than dope): no medical value
High school football: (more dangerous than dope): no medical value
Rock Climbing (more dangerous than dope): no medical value
Climbing Mt. Everest (extremely high death rate) : no medical value
Driving a car ( very risky, more dangerous than dope): no medical value
Sex (more dangerous than dope) no medical value
What about stuff like NyQuil, and legal over the counter things that just knock you on your *ss? Way more intense than herb! The government is stalling until the big Pharma corporations take over the pot market, then they will suck right up to them. It is the grassroots free market that is the problem.
Medical shmedical. Isn't just feeling a little better a medical value? It's legal here in Oregon, I rarely, almost never smoke, but it has totally put the brakes on anxiety attacks, better than any brainscramble psych med, I didn't have to be on a prescription, just used for an emergency, and bam, better right away, from an attack that literally had me collapsing. That is medical value. And that is nothing compared to folks who depend on it for much more serious conditions, pain and nausea, and on and on.
Start writing your congressional reps, this is totally one of those things that can budge with popular opinion. What a joke. Medical value MY *SS!!!
they have heard those arguments for a long time. i think all they are saying is we would like to have a more sophisticated argument. they seem to be open to allowing more research without reclassifying. they are asking the FDA for guidance.
it's another small step forward
and i still have no trouble finding a joint if i need to get high. 😛 😛 😛
I read the article you posted - it was all about holding off on reclassification until medical benefits are proven. If they are so concerned about medical benefits then why don't they outlaw all the other stuff out there that has zero medical value? I don't think they are stepping forward at all, seems like they are stalling.
Asking the FDA for help is like asking a coyote to guard your chickens!
Hell, you could outlaw water on the medical value argument.
well, keep fighting the good fight. 
truth. better to fire up than curse the darkness.
What part of "For the People - By the People" do the DEA not get?
No, president Obama is not going to use his presidential wand to legalize cannabis. This should be an indicator of what incoming president (trust me, it's a done deal, folks) Hillary Clinton's policy, stance and actions will be on marijuana.
For ages, voters have aligned themselves into blocs over various issues. They team up to vote for candidates that support their views and opinions on everything from abortion to firearms. I get that. Strength in numbers!
While I realize that cannabis legalization is not the biggest problem facing mankind, I have chosen it as my "pet" cause. Y'all want to own an AR-15? Fine with me. Want to go waste all your earnings and savings on "gaming"? Knock yourselves out! Abortion? Not hurting me any! Why can't I - a retired, tax-paying voter - have my own vice?
As stated, the laws on cannabis will stand for another 4-8 years. Unless we vote for a real "peoples candidate".
Go Gary, go!
The FDA approves drugs all the time that have nasty side effects yet they think the benefit outweighs the risk. Using cannibis has minimal side effects. Just watch a commercial on TV as they list them. It's big pharma. I bet there are former drug company executives now working in the FDA acting on behalf of the Pfizers of the world. To leave it a schedule 1 drug is outrageous. I have chronic pain plus i take a blood thinner which means I can't take NSAIDS. Opiates are out. I also have some anxiety. A little cannabutter and my back and hips feel alot better. IT has helped my quality of life for sure and BrerRabbit had some excellent points.
When Pfizer and Merck and Glaxxo can rein in the runaway free cannabis market it will be legal pronto. Big Pharma is threatened by the wealth being generated by the industry, it is a direct attack on their systems and control. The drug companies also need to figure out a way to process cannabis so that it has several pages of side effects, maybe mix it with Trichloropolybenzoassholescrewamine: the only good drug is a drug that screws you up so bad you need to buy more drugs so you get screwed harder and buy more drugs, until you die and are no longer a burden on the insurance company. Right now, marijuana does not fit into the Big Pharma profile of a "good drug". Why? Because it is a good drug.
Almost forgot the clincher- Monsanto doesn't own the seed stock. Of course MonsantObama won't allow it. And Oil doesn't have a monopoly on the harvest, and Nestle isn't geared up for hempseed production... it goes on and on. It won't be legal at the Federal level until the predators divvy up the kill, and that is going to take a long time.
Legalization is on the ballot this fall up here and I'm not sure I support it because of corporate take over of the industry. I don't want mom and pop caregivers to have to jump through hoops to serve their patients. With medical there are 8 dispensaries and 4 are owned by one corporation. I'm not sure about the other 4. I worry about a monopoly. As for the feds, what happened to states rights or the individuals rights for that matter.
Truth, seen. Still, gotta think about some kid who's life is ruined over a nickel bag. Fight the corporations after legalization.
What part of "For the People - By the People" do the DEA not get?
No, president Obama is not going to use his presidential wand to legalize cannabis. This should be an indicator of what incoming president (trust me, it's a done deal, folks) Hillary Clinton's policy, stance and actions will be on marijuana.
For ages, voters have aligned themselves into blocs over various issues. They team up to vote for candidates that support their views and opinions on everything from abortion to firearms. I get that. Strength in numbers!
While I realize that cannabis legalization is not the biggest problem facing mankind, I have chosen it as my "pet" cause. Y'all want to own an AR-15? Fine with me. Want to go waste all your earnings and savings on "gaming"? Knock yourselves out! Abortion? Not hurting me any! Why can't I - a retired, tax-paying voter - have my own vice?
As stated, the laws on cannabis will stand for another 4-8 years. Unless we vote for a real "peoples candidate".
Go Gary, go!
lets all rally around Gary and these clowns!
http://www.vice.com/read/what-does-the-latest-dea-decision-mean-for-weed-science?utm_source=homepage
Why It Matters that the Feds Are Opening the Doors for Weed Science
By Mike Pearl
Staff Writer
August 12, 2016
The United States government has once againrenewed its commitment to busting people for having weed, affirming this week that it will classify cannabis as a Schedule I drug. As you're probably aware, that puts marijuana in the company of heroin, bath salts, and LSD—all substances that are much scarier than weed, according to basic common sense.
But according to acting Drug Enforcement Administration chief Chuck Rosenberg, we should set aside scariness as a factor when assessing the logic of drug scheduling. In his statement on the decision Thursday, he said the drug schedule shouldn't be imagined as "an escalating 'danger' scale." The Schedule I classification just means that weed "has no currently accepted medical use," or at least not one that's recognized by the federal government.
That conclusion, based on an analysis by the Food and Drug Administration, appears to have driven the second half of the DEA's announcement: That it would remove existing roadblocks to marijuana research by allowing additional entities to grow weed for scientific study.
"If the scientific understanding about marijuana changes—and it could change—then the decision [on marijuana classification] could change," Rosenberg wrote.
To find out a little more about what this decision means for the future of research, I got in touch with Mark Kleiman, a veteran drug policy commentator who directs the crime and justice program at New York University's Marron Institute of Urban Management. He told us a lot about the current state of marijuana research, and why despite the DEA's latest decision, marijuana probably won't be a Schedule I drug much longer. Below is our conversation, edited for length and clarity.
VICE: So what should be our takeaway be from the DEA's decision this week? What does it mean about the drug scheduling system?
Mark Kleiman: It says if a drug has a medical use, then it goes in Schedules II through V, depending on how dangerous it is, which makes reasonable sense. And if it has no accepted medical use, and is highly dangerous, then it goes in Schedule I, and [the DEA] simply has no logical place for a drug that's not as dangerous as, say, heroin, but also doesn't have a currently accepted medical use. That's a logical gap in the law—there's no place to put that.
I'm pleased that they did the right thing on research availability, which I think is a much more important issue.
How is marijuana research going to change after this?
Up until now, there have been two barriers: One is that in order to get research cannabis, you had to go through a special process, because the [exclusive] license that the University of Mississippi had to grow cannabis only [allowed it] to sell directly to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.
If somebody was gonna get [marijuana] for research purposes, they had to get it from NIDA. There was no way you could just buy it. So that's been changed. They're going to allow people to apply for licenses to manufacture [marijuana] and sell it to anybody [the DEA] approves of as a buyer.
The other thing is that the University of Mississippi produced only a limited range of products. Any 15-year-old boy had better access to research cannabis than any research scientist.
What were those product limitations?
No extracts as far as I know, but also relatively narrow range of plant varieties. There are probably a couple of hundred cannabinoids. And the different plants produce very different ratios of those cannabinoids.
What might the effects of opening up research on marijuana? What can we expect to see if, or when, a bunch of scientific studies start coming out about its effects?
We might even learn something more about the risks than we now know. Here's a simple question: Do people who smoke high potency cannabis have more emergency room visits than people who smoke low potency cannabis? The obvious answer is yes, but I can't actually show you a paper that says yes.
More people could use that [kind of] research. When working for the Washington [State] Liquor and Cannabis Board, they said, "You gotta put a warning label on the high ratio stuff", and I said, "OK, tell us what the key ratio is." We went to the scientific literature: it's not there. So my slogan is, we need to know as much about cannabis as Pillsbury knows about brownie mix.
Do you think we'll also get more definitive information on the relative health risks of different smoking methods?
This will get us closer, and that will be a good thing.
Years ago, [the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies] wanted to do a study of whether vaporizers produce less carcinogens than joints—not even with human test subjects, just to test for stuff that came out of the end of the vaporizer. They asked for 10 grams of cannabis to do it with. It took them five years, and the final answer was no.
What does this mean for cannabidiol (CBD) research?
Epidiolex [a purified cannabis extract used to treat epilepsy] will be probably be approved this fall. I believe it's true that if [the FDA] approves a plant derivative, a plant extract, they'll have to de-schedule the plant as the feedstock.
So you're saying the government is probably going to change marijuana's schedule classification anyway, even after this latest decision? How does that work?
If something's Schedule I, it's contraband—nobody may possess Schedule I material except for research. So opium, for example, is not an accepted medicine in the US. But how do you make morphine? You take opium and extract morphine from it. So if opium were Schedule I, all those pharmaceutical manufacturers would be breaking the law. [Opium is a Schedule II drug because] of the Schedule II extract that's made from it.
So I think, when Epidiolex is approved, that would automatically down-schedule the plant.
[Editor's Note: Drug policy experts are divided over whether a decision on CBD would force the feds' hand on marijuana scheduling. Some experts we spoke to agreed with Kleiman; others were more skeptical.
"[If] the FDA, or the DEA in its own right, decided to accept the medical value of [CBD], but reject the medical value of THC, they would be able to do that," said John Hudak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution who researches marijuana policy. "I think the federal government would find a way to thread the needle."]
The real issue is recreational use. So let's say the Feds decide it has medical value, then they classify it as something only available thru prescription. Bingo, Big Pharma control and you still get busted unless you get it from a doctor. FDA is pushing for control over all supplements, vitamins, etc.
[Edited on 8/13/2016 by BrerRabbit]
"F*ck the United Nations,
if herb was a thing growing in the bloodclot United Nations
Jamaica could tell the United Nations what to do" - Peter Tosh
Legalize It
Peter Tosh
[Chorus]
Legalize it don't criticize it,
Legalize it yea-ah-yea-ah,
And I will advertise it
Some call it tamjee,
Some call it the weed,
Some call it marijuana,
Some of them call it ganja,
Never mind, got to.
Singers smoke it,
And players of instrument, too
Legalize it, yea-ha, yea-ah
That's the best thing you can do,
Doctors smoke it,
Nurses smoke it,
Judges smoke it,
Even lawyer, too
So you've got to
[Chorus]
It's good for the flu
Good for asthma,
Good for tuberculosis,
Even numara thrombosis
Go to
[Chorus]
Birds eat it,
Ants love it,
Fowls eat it,
Goats love to play with it
So you've got to
[Chorus]
Songwriters: PETER TOSH
© Universal Music Publishing Group
For non-commercial use only.
Hey "Goob"! Gary Johnson's "group of clowns" are certainly as or more relevant than the two clowns heading the two major parties. So far, the campaign between them has been nothing but a smear fest. Supporters of both of these two take more pride in pointing out the short-comings of the other than they do in heralding the strengths (are there any?) of their own candidate or addressing real issues. Although Gary Johnson is routinely ignored by the media, he addresses issues and has so far (with the exception of calling Trump a pussy), kept his remarks and comments in the adult room. Just get him into the debates! Let the voters hear all three in one room on the save evening! Peace!
I'm shocked that the security complex didn't reclassify its biggest source of revenue. Shocked I tell you, shocked!
Meanwhile Obama continues to look for his spine. Mr. President, it might be in the closet right next to your favorite bong. What a hypocrite.... 
I thought it was legal in Colorado! DEA busting relatively small grows? Come on. The penalties are pretty stiff.
Check out this story I came across from a group of mmj patients who are wary of legalization.
http://www.kktv.com/content/news/String-of-drug-busts-across-Colorado-Springs-Thursday-390660402.html
http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/marijuana-laws-and-penalties/colorado.htm
Some legalization. I hope the folks up here take a good look at what's on our ballot this fall. Once these laws are on the books it will be awfully hard to repeal.