Jump to content

Rescheduling Of Cannibis


Recommended Posts

Cannibis has been found to be helpful to millions of "Patients" everyday, yet the classification for Schedule I indicates that no medicinal value is available.

 

Nixon, against all reason and any medical research banned "Marihuana", as well as the industrial "Hemp" plant, which contains zero psychological qualities.

 

How can modern medical researchers conclude the Cannibis plant has medicinal qualities, if it is banned?

 

Why not reclassify Cannibis to at least Schedule II, along side the recreationally abused, yet medicinal, cocaine, so Cannibis can at least be prescribed.

 

This is obsurd, and millions of people are suffering because of it...

 

 

Interesting resources:

http://www.google.com/search?q=rescheduling+marijuana+fda&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1

 

http://www.pain.com/go/default/practitioner/pointcounter-point/the-government-should-reclassify-marijuana/

 

http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/901405.html

 

http://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.additional-resource.php?resourceID=000158

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Tax Act along with Nixon's view on the counter cultural views of the 60's is what made marijuana a schedule 1 drug. Nixon just expanded the role the Tax Act had already played on making cannabis an illegal substance by setting up the DEA to start the war on drugs. The scheduling of drugs just allowed the DEA to do what ever they wanted to do to fight the war on drugs.

 

Now Big Pharm and the DEA have vested interests in keeping cannabis a schedule 1 drug. By not allowing individuals to grow their own medicine they have seen fit to secure their jobs and roles in todays society and of course make LOTS of money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im slightly confused. I have always assumed that the Marijuana Tax Act made marijuana illegal but it basically lays out guidelines for how txes are to be paid in the cannabis industry WHEN DID IT BECOME ILLEGAL?

 

It was a tricky law where the person had to already have the cannabis to purchase the tax stamp. Then you would get busted when you tried to purchase the stamp because you had cannabis without the stamp.

 

Tim Leary took it to the supreme court in 1969 and won.

 

Nixon was in office then and decided to circumvent the first amendment against the anti war folks.. "Hey! They all smoke pot! We can put them in jail for pot to keep them quiet." Recorded conversion that is now part of the Nixon Library.

 

Thus was born the federal controlled substance act.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all about the $$$$$$

 

You need to understand why it was outlawed to begin with.

 

Don't be a Bozo, do a little research into the 1937 Tax Act and you will understand.

 

The link listed below should keep you busy for a few days.

 

http://www.druglibra...ory/whiteb1.htm

 

I read the entire article, and noticed every "Act" or "Law" of prohibition and it's correlating punishments were to expand the government through the nations socio-economic division.

 

Thanks for pointing that out.

 

So, if the senate or congress lied under oath, and said the "AMA" found "Marihuana" was harmful and accepted their beliefs 100%, and passed the law anyway, why can't the laws of "Marihuana" prohibition be overturned?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a tricky law where the person had to already have the cannabis to purchase the tax stamp. Then you would get busted when you tried to purchase the stamp because you had cannabis without the stamp.

 

Tim Leary took it to the supreme court in 1969 and won.

 

Nixon was in office then and decided to circumvent the first amendment against the anti war folks.. "Hey! They all smoke pot! We can put them in jail for pot to keep them quiet." Recorded conversion that is now part of the Nixon Library.

 

Thus was born the federal controlled substance act.

 

The federal controlled substance act was to eliminate Marijuana Tax Act, since it was found unconstitutional because it was self-incriminating (5th Amendment). The federal controlled substance act also reduced penalties, and to setup a war on "DRUG USERS", "Drug Users" predominately being any lower socio-economic class, including minorities, counter-culture and working class citizens. The federal controlled substance act reduced penalties, but, it classified drugs into two major categories, with the exceptions to tobacco and alcohol. The catagories for scheduling were: what was the drug's medical use; and what was the drug's potential for abuse. The federal controlled substance act opened the doors for the "War On Drug Users". Timmothy Leary ran against Ronald Reagan in the California race for governor, and Ronald Reagan adopted the "War on Drugs" campaign against his opponent and won.

 

For a prime example of harsh crime vs. punishment strategies focusing on socio-economic factors, prior to the Controlled Substance Act, Virginia's penalties for first-degree murder charge carried a manditory minimum 15 year sentence, and it was far less than a simple marihuana possession charge with a manditory minumum 20 year sentence, and 40 years for marihuana dealing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...