Report on the news that matters to your community and don't let us miss a beat. Send in your stories and photos.
My Recent Comments
[beam]Jun 25, 2011
DID ANYONE EVEN LISTEN IN SCHOOL ??
EDUCATION IS BETTER THAN A GUN !!!
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Some might argue that the U.S. Constitution delegates powers to the feds to arrest MMJ providers because of the schedule 1 status of cannabis in the Controlled Substance Act . However, the CSA’s schedule 1 requirements are: “1) Schedule I.– (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.” Clearly, cannabis doesn’t qualify on B and C, and the Merck Medical Manual of Diagnosis and Treatment clearly states that cannabis is not physically addictive, so it doesn’t meet criteria for A either.
Conclusion: The power to regulate MMJ is not delegated to the federal government because it does not meet their own criteria to be a schedule 1 drug. Therefore, they have no power to regulate it and must reclassify or remove it from the list. Isn’t it ironic that tobacco meets all three criteria of the CSA Schedule 1, and yet, tobacco companies are instrumental in preventing the consumption of the non-addictive, medically safe and effective cannabis (visualize outstretched politician’s hands)? Meanwhile, tobacco, which clearly meets all three criteria of a schedule 1 drug (A) highly physically addictive, B) no medical use, C) not safe even when used under the directions of a physician and in fact proven to cause cancer), is legal, sold for a hefty profit, and the profits consequently used to influence the decisions of politicians making laws. When will the Fed arrest Big Tobacco???
Michael J. Smith
"The evidence in this record [9-6-88 ruling] clearly shows that marijuana has been accepted as capable of relieving the distress of great numbers of very ill people, and doing so with safety under medical supervision. It would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious for DEA to continue to stand between those sufferers and the benefits of this substance in light of the evidence in this record."
-- Judge Francis L. Young
DEA Administrative Law Judge
Administrative ruling on Petition to Reschedule Marijuana
Sep. 1988Jun 25, 2011