I never thought I’d see this happen in my lifetime. If you had asked me in 2000, I’d have said (and in fact did say, on several occasions) “nope; not gonna happen” but here we are!
Would it be more politically realistic to leave it on the list, but moving it to a lower schedule? I’m not sold on complete legalization (though it’s not something I feel strongly about), but I’ve been saying for years that it makes no sense to pretend that pot is as bad as heroin and meth, and worse than cocaine and morphine.
I wouldn’t say that the Schedules are entirely about how “bad” the drugs are, although that’s certainly some of it. Schedule I is simply the worst of the lot that have no known medical usage, whereas Schedule II are the worst of the lot that actually are useful for something medically. It’s not until Schedules III and IV when it matter just how harmful and addictive the drug can be. That’s not to say that everything on Schedule II is just as bad as the stuff on Schedule I, because these are just shelves that we try to stuff everything into, and making discrete categories out of them unfairly lumps some stuff in with others. Nevertheless, I would hesitate to say that something being on Schedule II instead Schedule I somehow makes it “worse for you”.
But the Schedules do matter for things like sentencing, right? This is all about these drugs’ legal status, not their biochemical status. So in that sense, Schedule 1 drugs are “worse”.
Assuming it ever made it to the Trumpopotamus, he’d veto it anyway. Fugeddaboutit.
I’m all for legalization of marijuana, but not its commercialization. My basic take is that when you create interests whose fortunes increase as X increases, you’ll get more of X. So legalize getting stoned, but don’t create interests - marijuana growers, wholesalers, and retailers - who will have an interest in encouraging greater marijuana use.
I’d propose:
- Legalizing simple possession of marijuana in any amount.
- Legalizing small monetary transactions involving marijuana - under $500, say.
- Possession with intent to sell still a crime for $500+, but conviction must depend on communications leading to the attempted sale. Mere possession of marijuana of greater value not evidence in and of itself.
The point of (3) is to be a bar to commercialization, while protecting hobbyists with a sizable backyard marijuana patch. And (2) allows sale of moderate quantities to friends and acquaintances.
Well you would have to word it in such a way such that Agricorp doesn’t just happen to make 8,972 separate $499 transactions with Phillip Morris in the same week.
IANAL, but my recollection is that the Feds already have the legal tools to deal with blatant dodges of this sort.
Isn’t that pretty much what Prohibition did? It was not illegal to drink, and you could make your own booze for personal consumption, but you couldn’t sell it. IIRC, that didn’t work out so well. I’m not sure that your point #2 changes that substantially. It would just drive up the price of legal pot, making the illegal stuff more attractive.
I think that the main reason that Prohibition failed was that it’s just too easy to make alcohol. If you’ve got food, you can make booze. Marijuana is at least just one species of plant, and if you can’t get that species, then you can’t produce marijuana.
That said, that one species of plant is one that grows very well with very little effort in the North American climate, which means that it’s still a lot harder to control than, say, cocaine.
That’s an interesting idea. So what Schedule do you think it would fit under, based on your criteria?
[ul]
[li]Schedule I means no medical purpose, high abuse potential, and no accepted safety record. Examples (other than marijuana) include heroin, LSD, MDMA, peyote, and psilocybin. (None of these seem to fit the criteria, if you ask me.)[/li]
[li]Schedule II is the same as Schedule I but have accepted medical uses and thus accepted safety protocols. Examples include Amphetamines (including Ritalin and meth!), Cocaine, high dose codeine, most opiates, short-acting barbiturates, and PCP. [/li]
[li]Schedule III has less potential for abuse than the first two, but still low to moderate physical dependence or high psychological dependence, and accepted medical use. Examples include low dose codeine, ketamine, ergine, anabolic steroids, certain short-acting barbiturates when mixed with other drugs, and testosterone. [/li]
[li]Schedule IV is has even lower potential for abuse, but still some psychological or physical dependence. This includes the benzodiazepines, long-acting barbiturates, modafinil, Tramadol, and Soma. [/li]
[li]Schedule V is just IV but even less. Its main use seems to be for drugs that would otherwise be higher up, but are considered very low abuse potential when mixed with other drugs. Examples include cough syrups with low dose opiates, low dose opiates mixed with other drug used as antidiahrreals, some anticonvulsants like Lyrica, and Pyrovalerone, which is a norepinephrine-dopamine reuptake inhibitor used for chronic fatigue syndrome or as an appetite suppressant.[/li][/ul]
All require that they must be used for a medical purpose. The II and III don’t allow refills. II-IV require a prescription, and V requires one in practice. To me, it doesn’t seem like any of them fit for a recreational drug.
Depends on whether he thinks he cann sell Trump Marijuana for $500 per nickel bag.
To be honest, I think that using “no medical use” as a basis for a schedule is silly to begin with, as it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. Schedule 1 drugs are Schedule 1 because they have no known medical use; they have no known medical use because they haven’t been studied much; and they haven’t been studied much because it’s really tough to get permission to study Schedule 1 drugs. Aside from that, of course, marijuana does in fact have known medical use (it’s verified to help ameliorate the loss of appetite associated with chemotherapy).
Trump endorsed legalization a week before Schumer did.
This seems like a fairly unworkable standard.
Guy driving around a pickup truck full of marijuana bales: no crime?
How would you write a law like this that wouldn’t just result in drug dealers just not talking about sales? You’d end up with weird code phrases where variations on “I don’t sell pot” become indications that you actually do, and prosecution trying to convince a jury that “I don’t sell pot” really means they do sell it. Or something.
I don’t understand the idea that we should half-legalize something. I can see reducing the penalties. Like, say that possession of a small amount has a maximum $20 fine and 10 hours of community service. It’s still illegal as an indication that society disapproves.
But legalizing use is an indication that it’s ok to use certain drugs. So, if it’s ok to use them, why can’t it be ok to buy or sell them?