DEA blatantly ignores all evidence of cannabis being useful

>>66924
http://www.alternet.org/story/77339/debunking_the_hemp_conspiracy_theory

>>66927
It was an interesting article, but what is your point?

The DEA is definitely basing their decisions on something other than scientific research, but I doubt it is 100% racially motivated.

>>66924
Cancer pt here
Sure would like to try it, even though it probably wouldn't cure. Ondansetron for nausea sets me back $1,200 a month.

>>66933
>it probably wouldn't cure.
Cannabis isn't claimed to "cure" anything. It relieves symptoms.

There are cannabinoids pills available as prescription meds (dronabinol, nabilone), btw, though their efficacy for the usual range of symptoms is disputed by some end users -- the dose might just not be high enough.

www.webmd.com/cancer/tc/cannabis-and-cannabinoids-pdq-complementary-and-alternative-medicine---patient-information-nci-questions-and-answers-about-cannabis

And of course even though these are prescription meds, the DEA still flips a fucking shit about it, claiming the usual "no medicinal benefit":
www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids

USA keeping Mexico destabilized so that they have an excuse to let in Democrat voters from there and keep wages low while raising GDP.

>>66960
How do illegal border jumpers vote for a candidate?

>>66933
The cancer industry is, itself, cancer. Smoke, or better yet eat some bud, it'll probably work better anyway.

>>66948
Nope. They've proven in lab conditions that cannabis kills cancer cells.

>>67003
Oh does it now. I know of the study you are talking about but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume based on your statement that you both didn't understand it and have no idea what cancer really is.

>>67003
Cite the articles (from a scientific journal)

>>66924
>>cant be recreated in a lab.
That's because if it's in a lab, they can patent and sell the lab version legally and at high cost. Cannabis just "isn't" profitable in its current state.

>>67003
It's only certain kinds, others it has no effect on or in some cases can promote.

>>66971
Their non-voting children?

>>67003
In mice there have been limited, disputed results. There are the in vitro studies, but there's plenty of shit that kills cancer cells in vitro that has no effect in vivo. Regardless, another chemo drug is a far cry from a cure for some form of cancer.

Cannabis is far better studied for how much it can extend life during and after cancer treatment by relieving symptoms.

In related DEA bullshit, khat (which has the same neurophysiopsych effects as a strong cup of coffee, and used as such in many parts of Africa) is Schedule I: "John P. Gilbride, the special agent in charge of the DEA's New York office, described khat as 'highly addictive and devastating' to the people who use it." Zero fucking evidence (While extensive coffee and khat use has withdrawl symptoms, that's different from being addictive, and there is not one case of a person being devastated by coffee or khat.).

articles.latimes.com/2006/aug/22/nation/na-khat22

>>66924
>scientific evidence is not widely available.
We really need reform for scientific publications, especially from experiments that are funded by the public.
Having everything behind a paywall is nuts and it's a pain in the ass to contact individual authors for a copy whenever your department doesn't have that subscription.

>>67088
The problem isn't the paywall, the DEA has plenty of money for subscriptions, it's the willful ignorance of accepting the current body of scientific literature on the safety of many drugs because their funding would be cut if they rescheduled them. Not to mention the perpetuating loop of:
>There aren't any studies on (insert drug of choice)
>Let me do one
>No you can't

>>66927
>drugs are prohibited as a racist move from the white leaders against oppresed minorities
just playing white devil's advocate here, but maybe it goes like this:
>drugs are bad
>poor and socially oppresed people are more susceptible
>the richest countries (that as of the 20th centuries were white) were the first to take the healthy initiave to ban drug use
>in those countries, of course, racial minorities were the most deeply affected already
It's no wonder that the worst countries for the colored were the first to develop such scarring issues among minorities that drugs had to be banned by the (white) leaders

>>66924
Why would anyone give up power?
-Senator Harry Reid

>>67162
Ironic considering he's retiring at the beginning of next year.

>>67165
The quote was in reference to changes the Administration was implementing to the Affordable Care Act without the participation of Congress or the Senate. As for retirement he's said that before.

>>66971

CA is giving them drivers' licenses, and their kids born here become citizens.

All the left has to say is "Hey, these mean ol' Republicans want to secure the border and deny your countrymen all their free bennies." and bam, Democrat voter for life.

And convince everyone that preventing illegal immigration is racist... somehow.

>there are no studies on Cannabis hurr
>Meanwhile its illegal to study Cannabis, imagine that!
Fuck the government

Their decision is mostly motivated by money and the embarrassment they would have to face in the aftermath. Just imagine all of the people currently serving Marijuana related sentences that would have to be freed. And the retroactive repercussions for some type of reparations for those who were charged previously.

>>66924
>drug chemistry is not known
Just like most of the medication for the mentally ill? We have no clue how tranqs work apart from dopamine inhibition in certain regions of the brain, and they hand that shit out like candy. Furthermore, although we know not everything about weed, we know more than they let on. We understand cannibinoid receptors and other information surrounding those effects,and thats just off the top of my head. I honestly have a hard time understanding why people outright reject the usefulness of marijuana simply because the pothead culture, who, by the way, are probably the reason this sort of thing has been pushed so hard. Theyre annoying as fuck, but im glad theyve managed to be stubborn enough to make this stuff medical.

Hell, most people in the medical system are actually completely okay with marijuana, and some use it without most others knowing (anecdotal evidence from being in and out of the medical system for years). They just discourage it because its illegal and theyre supposed to.

>not reproducible
Thats a load of shit. given a day to plan, i bet i could come up with and set up reproducible experiments for marijuana ingestion, double blind, software data included. The reason there are no adequate safety studies and the like is because of the political bullshit going on.

>psychological dependence
Like many prescribed drugs? Xanax, pain meds, etc (and those are both physical and psychological). Furthermore, psychological and physical dependence are different. Psychological isnt that much of an issue unless it severe, and one can get psychologically addicted to anything that releases dopamine, including video games and shitposting.

>high potential for abuse
Id be willing to bet that those reasons are different from what would generally be interpreted by the skimming reader (high addiction rate). Id be willing to bet that it includes a variety of factors, including its cheapness, safety, and availability for the poor.

>>66933
do you have any idea how much weed you could buy with 1200 fucking dollars? Thats about 95 grams of the HIGHEST QUALITY to 260 grams of the LOWEST QUALITY shit you can find around here.

https://www.420magazine.com/gallery/data/500/Harvest_Brainstorm_Haze_3_260_4_Grams_-_001.JPG
^this is 260 fucking grams of marijuana because no pic posting (fuck you board owner).

Thats fucking bonkers.

>>67374
By reproducable they mean make synthetic cannabis. They are saying its not possible. Even if it is true I don't see how this is a reason to ban something.

I don't know what they mean by abuse. Abusing a drug usually means it is affecting your daily life and ability to function/safety, aka drunk driving or alcohol dependence killing you.

You can't abuse cannabis. You can do a heavy dose, freak out and call an ambulance, then sit in the hospital until it leaves your system because it's just fucking weed.

Isn't it possible for something to be addictive without being chemically addictive? That's like saying a gambler doesn't have a gambling problem because no chemical is compelling him to stay.

>>67315
I don't think convictions would or should be retroactively invalidated if marijuana laws are overturned. I mean, sucks for them, but it WAS against the law when they committed their offenses.

The DOJ and DEA will never allow weed to be legal until the big pharmaceutical companies have total control over production and sale. When that happens then they will surprisingly find out it's medical benefits and that it's not as addictive as originally thought.

>>66924
>high potential

Yes marijuana does have a high potential. Lolol

>>67420
Dopamine bro

>tfw want to care about the social and economic effects of legalized marijuana
>tfw care more about the intense butthurt of DUDE WEED LMAO parasites

>>67088
Abstracts are almost always free, just read those. It's likely it would be too technical for you anyways.

>>66971
Remember it's rayciss to require blacks and Mexicans to show ID to vote familam. :^)