Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RainDog

(28,784 posts)
25. This is absolutely an issue that can be addressed outside of Congress
Mon Jan 30, 2012, 10:02 PM
Jan 2012

Last edited Mon Jan 30, 2012, 11:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Drug Schedules are part of the Controlled Substances Act, passed by Congress in 1970, that defines federal drug policy. There are five schedules, or classifications for drugs, to determine federal policy on those substances. Cannabis is currently listed as a Schedule I substance.

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."

No prescriptions may be written for Schedule I substances, and such substances are subject to production quotas by the DEA.

Other schedules and substances designated for various schedules are available here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

The DEA and the FDA determine the scheduling of various substances, although Congress scheduled a substance via legislation in Feb. 2000. The Attorney General of the United States may also initiate a drug rescheduling hearing.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/21/811b.html

Cornell University Law School Legal Information Institute provides this information about the way in which a rescheduling may be put in motion, in this case, by the Attorney General:

...Proceedings for the issuance, amendment, or repeal of such rules may be initiated by the Attorney General

(1) on his own motion,
(2) at the request of the Secretary, or
(3) on the petition of any interested party.

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance.

...if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled , the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.

Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules

In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:

(1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
(2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
(3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
(4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
(5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
(6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
(7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
(8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

he made fun of the issue at a previous one Enrique Jan 2012 #1
This message was self-deleted by its author limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #4
After Obama mocked the topic last time, EFerrari Jan 2012 #2
How does not answering one question = "setting up fake town halls" JTFrog Jan 2012 #30
Town halls are about democracy, addressing the most important issues of a populace. EOTE Jan 2012 #67
If you think weed is the "most important issue" facing the country, well ... 11 Bravo Jan 2012 #95
I never said that, but thanks for putting words in my mouth. EOTE Jan 2012 #96
Would you rather get the blunt answer? TheWraith Jan 2012 #3
The Executive Branch can reschedule but they aren't doing that either and the busts go on. TheKentuckian Jan 2012 #7
The President cannot rewrite federal law by executive fiat. nt TheWraith Jan 2012 #13
Congress set up the DEA and the FDA to handle the drug schedules RainDog Jan 2012 #21
That's not good enough. EFerrari Jan 2012 #8
850,000 arrested in 2010 on marijuana charges, he needs to be 'pestered' on this. SammyWinstonJack Jan 2012 #9
"Stop pestering him about it?" That seems elitist and anti-democratic to me. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #12
Beating him up on issues he can't change isn't "democratic," it's silly. TheWraith Jan 2012 #15
What is "silly" is asking people to remain silent on this important issue. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #18
What's silly is ignoring that with this hostile congresss NOTHING is going to happen on this. Kurmudgeon Jan 2012 #60
The Prez. has moral authority and the power to persuade. He should speak out for what is right. limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #61
Just how much do you think the President can persuade Boehner, Cantor, and the GOP gang? Kurmudgeon Feb 2012 #102
The president himself does not support marijuana legalization. He agrees with Boehner. nt. limpyhobbler Feb 2012 #103
The invitation was not to discuss "things we can do with this Congress". EFerrari Jan 2012 #62
Everyone knows what you are...you can drop the pretense now DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #19
Don't be coy. What exactly are you saying? n/t JTFrog Jan 2012 #27
So, three out of six jurors think this was an OK statement to make. NYC_SKP Jan 2012 #35
Seems as though I don't need to answer anything. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #38
Why not just own your words and be explicit? JTFrog Jan 2012 #41
Mostly because I'm not as stupid as you'd like for me to be DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #42
Interesting that you make baseless unwarranted accusations against a DUer and when you get JTFrog Jan 2012 #45
Enough with the harassment DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #51
Ha ha. Well done. nt Bonobo Jan 2012 #56
Once again, your projection is hilarious. JTFrog Jan 2012 #63
what the fuck, dude? issues? DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #69
If you keep replying, I'll probably keep answering. JTFrog Jan 2012 #74
haha. As my kids would say, derp. DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2012 #80
Whatever. JTFrog Jan 2012 #84
Is that the way it works in real life? EOTE Jan 2012 #70
Feel free to hit the alert button. JTFrog Jan 2012 #73
No thanks, I'm not afraid of text like you are. EOTE Jan 2012 #79
+1000 ellisonz Jan 2012 #88
Agreed! Wind Dancer Jan 2012 #90
This is absolutely an issue that can be addressed outside of Congress RainDog Jan 2012 #25
Beating him up? morningfog Jan 2012 #32
Oh, bullshit. Warren DeMontague Jan 2012 #34
Beating him up? Asking him a question? LOL. Wow, sensitive! Logical Jan 2012 #47
He could at least show leadership rapmanej Jan 2012 #55
Leave Britney alone!!1! girl gone mad Jan 2012 #59
LOL. That's exactly what I'm hearing. EOTE Jan 2012 #71
I've been trying to tell them that... ellisonz Jan 2012 #89
Yeah "Your issues don't matter!" doesn't seem like the greatest campaign slogan. EOTE Jan 2012 #91
That's what I'm hearing from a lot of people... ellisonz Jan 2012 #92
That's not blunt. You want blunt? Here it is. Bonobo Jan 2012 #14
Probably so RZM Jan 2012 #53
I expected more from him AND from Clinton. You are SUPPOSED to hold your side Bonobo Jan 2012 #54
This Obama supporter says you're right. ellisonz Jan 2012 #57
~lol CrispyQ Jan 2012 #86
Go right ahead. ellisonz Jan 2012 #87
Only you would think ignoring it is better. Logical Jan 2012 #46
Was that an unintentional pun? RZM Jan 2012 #52
Congress has delegated the decision to the DEA already. The DEA reports to Obama. Romulox Jan 2012 #75
this is an outrage. nt limpyhobbler Jan 2012 #5
There's nothing right about perpetuating the insane drug war, especially the war against marijuana. Cali_Democrat Jan 2012 #6
Hey, it's Campaign 2008 Obama! joshcryer Jan 2012 #10
Thanks for the great response, Barack. Get use to being called Barack, again ... T S Justly Jan 2012 #11
oh yeah everyone is a single issue voter SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #39
I'm so tired of these ignorant remarks regarding this issue RainDog Jan 2012 #40
Well... SunsetDreams Jan 2012 #43
I don't think people who are for rational laws will refuse to vote for him RainDog Jan 2012 #44
Not only are they not going to "discuss" legalization SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #16
do you have any links for this? RainDog Jan 2012 #22
It's in the bill: SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #49
As one of the many millions who favors some kinds of legalization/decriminalization... zappaman Jan 2012 #17
There are bigger fish to be fried than legalization on weed. bluestate10 Jan 2012 #20
+1 young but wise Jan 2012 #24
all of those issues relate to this one RainDog Jan 2012 #26
Why is alcohol allowed to remain legal and kills millions every year - and weed kills nobody slay Jan 2012 #29
Yep, that's just what he should get on his agenda during this election year. Why not add demosincebirth Jan 2012 #33
Since medical mj has polled at 70% support for more than a decade RainDog Jan 2012 #36
Political cowardice has its price. ellisonz Jan 2012 #58
He doesn't really want my vote anyways slay Jan 2012 #97
That is a narrow view. SomethingFishy Jan 2012 #37
That's not how "democracy" works. nt Romulox Jan 2012 #76
I support marijuana legalization AND will still vote for Obama. FarLeftFist Jan 2012 #23
Obama doesn't care about us or what we want - he cares about getting re-elected slay Jan 2012 #28
He should have asked him if he wanted to ban hand guns. :sarcasm: demosincebirth Jan 2012 #31
IMHO He's taking the wrong tack hootinholler Jan 2012 #48
The thing is Congress is not necessary. Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #64
I seem to remember hearing that assertion before hootinholler Jan 2012 #66
Why not ignore something that you cannot bullshit your way out of? Rex Jan 2012 #50
If you can not answer all questoin, you should not pretend that you are taking all Bluenorthwest Jan 2012 #65
Did not say I agreed with it, but it was a smart move Rex Jan 2012 #78
Without a cooperative Congress, it's pointless to discuss this. randome Jan 2012 #68
That's not the way it works. EOTE Jan 2012 #81
Obama in 2004 called the drug war an "utter failure".. Upton Jan 2012 #72
In 2009, he began persecuting Medical Marijuana patients/caregivers to a degree unheard of Romulox Jan 2012 #77
Middle East going to hell, an economy that's on shaky ground, Republicans baying for his blood Arkana Jan 2012 #82
How long would it take him to dictate the executive order to reschedule? nebenaube Jan 2012 #83
Excuses, excuses, excuses for President Obama's policies. They never stop. Better Believe It Jan 2012 #85
How does it feel to rage against the machine Arkana Feb 2012 #101
No, we want him to STOP focusing on weed. EOTE Jan 2012 #93
Well, it is hard to not do something. theaocp Jan 2012 #100
hemp can be used for every petrol product currently produced RainDog Jan 2012 #94
Obama is always saying that he wants us to hold his feet to the fire. Utopian Leftist Jan 2012 #98
too many people here don't want to know about legitimate problems RainDog Jan 2012 #99
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Obama ignores marijuana q...»Reply #25