Why Isn't Marijuana Just Classified as an Herb (DISCLAIMER Included)?

[Jim_B]

DISCLAIMER: I do not take illegal drugs, nor have I ever, nor do I think other people ever should either. This thread is only about a hypothetical legal question. Please do not tell how you are presently using pot, or any other illegal drug. Please do not provide links to illegal or highly questionable drug sites either. Thank you for your compliance:).

I am sure there are far more poisonous plants that can get you high–just look in any old woman’s garden for that. I am sure there are far more dangerous herbs that it is perfectly legal to sell–like ephedra for example. Alcohol is apparent far more addictive. Just read this Merck on-line article:

Critics of marijuana cite much scientific data regarding adverse effects, but most of the claims regarding severe biologic impact are unsubstantiated, even among relatively heavy users and in areas intensively investigated, such as immunologic and reproductive function.

In any event, Marijuana is simply a plant, originally growing wild even in some areas of the United States. So why isn’t it just classified as a herb by the FDA, like say, Valerian is?

[John_Mace]

Because it gets you high. Period.

[Captain_Amazing]

Well, it’s more of a bush or shrub than an herb. But, I guess the answer is that the FDA doesn’t classify things as “herbs”…it classifies substances based on it’s real or assumed risk. The FDA has banned or ordered recalled some herbal substances…so calling marajuana an herb wouldn’t neccesarily make it legal.

[Fear_Itself]

*Originally posted by Jim B. *
**I am sure there are far more dangerous herbs that it is perfectly legal to sell–like ephedra for example. **

Not for long.

**CBS News Correspondent Sharyl Attkisson reports his death was a wake-up call in his home state of Illinois, which this week will become the first state to ban the sale of ephedra products.

Other states are considering their own bans, after ephedra supplements were linked to thousands of heart attacks, strokes and other adverse reactions, and more than a hundred deaths.
**

Just because something is an herb, shrub, bush or tree doesn’t confer any special status with regard to the law.

[ronbo]

Dangerous herbs should be labeled, not banned. If you wish to take the known risk, that is your choice.

I suggest the following symbol to be placed on all dangerous herbal products (including alcohol and tobacco):

:wally

[Ben_Hicks]

Oh, that’s easy. It’s because…it’s because…umm…I forget.

I’m hungry, anyone wknow the number of a good pizza joint?

[Monster104]

So why isn’t it just classified as a herb by the FDA, like say, Valerian is?

It’s because something like that wouldn’t happen without a powerful organized and well-funded lobby group willing to cough up a lot of dough to “donate” to the proper public officials’ (re)election campaigns.

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by Ben Hicks
I’m hungry, anyone wknow the number of a good pizza joint?

Huh huh, you said… um… what was it again?

[JThunder]

*Originally posted by ronbo *
**Dangerous herbs should be labeled, not banned. If you wish to take the known risk, that is your choice. **

Even if those herbs are likely to cause someone to harm another person?

Mind you, I’m not taking a stand on whether marijuana should be legalized or not. I’m just pointing out that it’s not as simple as saying “If you wish to take the known risk, that is your choice.”

[Ms2001]

Originally posted by JThunder
Even if those herbs are likely to cause someone to harm another person?

That’s a pretty big “if”.

If there were evidence that any particular herb caused a significant percentage of its users to harm others, a ban might be merited (though I would first consider other ways to reduce that harm). To the best of my knowledge, however, there is no such evidence.

[Duckster]

Racism??

In 1910 Dr. Hamilton Wright, considered by some the father of U.S. anti-narcotics laws, reported that U.S. contractors were giving cocaine to their Black employees to get more work out of them.(3) A few years later, stories began to proliferate about “cocaine-crazed Negroes” in the South who had run amuck. The New York Times published a story that alleged “most of the attacks upon white women of the South are the direct result of the ‘cocaine-crazed’ Negro brain.” The story asserted that “Negro cocaine fiends are now a known Southern menace.” Some southern police departments switched to .38 caliber revolvers, because they thought cocaine made Blacks impervious to .32 caliber bullets.(4) These stories were in part motivated by a desire to persuade Southern members of Congress to support the proposed Harrison Narcotics Act, which would greatly expand the federal government’s power to control drugs.(5) This lie was also necessary since, even though drugs were widely used in America, very little crime was associated with the users.(6)

When marijuana was popularized in the 20s and 30s in the American jazz scene, Blacks and Whites sat down as equals and smoked together. The racist anti-marijuana propaganda of the time used this crumbling of racial barriers as an example of the degradation caused by marijuana. Harry Anslinger, head of the newly formed federal narcotics division, warned middle-class leaders about Blacks and Whites dancing together in “teahouses,” using blatant prejudice to sell prohibition.(7) In 1931 New Orleans officials attributed many of the region’s crimes to marijuana, which they believed was also a dangerous sexual stimulant. During the Great Depression, the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act came into law, again using racism as its chief selling point. The same Mexicans who were vying with out of work Americans for the few agricultural jobs available, it was said, engaged in marijuana induced violence against Americans.

Source: http://www.drugpolicy.org/race/historyofpro/

[handy]

Who gets to sell it first is important. If the people sell it first then drug companies want it to be illegal. If drug companies get to sell it first, they want it legal by prescription.

A history of the FDA marijuana process written by a Harvard guy:

"Congress placed marijuana in Schedule I when drafting the Controlled Substances Act. S 202©, 21 U.S.C. S 812©; 21

C.F.R. S 1308.11. The placement of marijuana in Schedule I, however, was not intended to be permanent or unchangeable. Congress contemplated that drugs would be rescheduled as further information was developed concerning potential benefits and harms. "
http://leda.law.harvard.edu/leda/data/78/thunn.rtf