From that case you cited, I quote in part:

"On the merits, the question before the court is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits. Rather, the limited question that we address is whether the DEA’s decision declining to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana under the CSA was arbitrary and capricious. These questions are not coterminous. “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). On the record before us, we hold that the DEA’s denial of the rescheduling petition survives review under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard. The petition asks the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III, IV, or V drug, which, under the terms of the CSA, requires a “currently accepted medical use.” The DEA’s regulations, which we approved in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994), define “currently accepted medical use” to require, inter alia, “adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.” Id. at 1135. We defer to the agency’s interpretation of these regulations and find that substantial evidence supports its determination that such studies do not exist."

Not only do those studies exist but I just cited those findings.

So, I don't put too much faith on most doctors medicine these days.

Please remember that medical doctors only have a license to "practice" medicine. If you ever notice, most deaths in America occur directly under a doctor's care, i.e, a hospital or medical clinic and so forth.

You pimping for the drug addicts again?

He does it continually. He's a one-note charley.

I don't put too much faith on most doctors medicine these days.

Neither do I. Medical schools have become too lax. There is too much emphasis on affimitive action and too little on the rigors of medicine.

Are you a real person or a machine?

From that case you cited, I quote in part:

"On the merits, the question before the court is not whether marijuana could have some medical benefits. Rather, the limited question that we address is whether the DEA’s decision declining to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana under the CSA was arbitrary and capricious. These questions are not coterminous. “The scope of review under the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard is narrow and a court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). On the record before us, we hold that the DEA’s denial of the rescheduling petition survives review under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard. The petition asks the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III, IV, or V drug, which, under the terms of the CSA, requires a “currently accepted medical use.” The DEA’s regulations, which we approved in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994), define “currently accepted medical use” to require, inter alia, “adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.” Id. at 1135. We defer to the agency’s interpretation of these regulations and find that substantial evidence supports its determination that such studies do not exist."

Not only do those studies exist but I just cited those findings.

Are you a brain-damaged kangaroo?

Read the first sentence for context. You did not cite any adequate and well-controlled study proving efficacy.

The DEA’s regulations, which we approved in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131 (D.C. Cir. 1994), define “currently accepted medical use” to require, inter alia, “adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.” Id. at 1135.

There are no adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy.

There are NO SUCH studies. There is only (a) doper bullshit that does not qualify as adequate and well-controlled studies that have claimed to prove efficacy, and (b) adequate and well-controlled studies that do not prove efficacy.

A group of dopers on a mission, engaging in a self-congratulatory circle jerk, is a qualified peer-reviewed article in the same way that this site's dopers congratulating each other's profound discoveries is certification of scientific merit.

DEA: "proof of concept studies generally are not sufficient to prove efficacy of a drug because they provide only preliminary information about the effects of a drug."

DEA, 81 FR 53779-53781, August 12, 2016

Status of Research Into the Medical Uses for Marijuana

State-level public initiatives, including laws and referenda in support of the medical use of marijuana, have generated interest in the medical community and the need for high quality clinical investigation as well as comprehensive safety and effectiveness data. In order to address the need for high quality clinical investigations, the state of California established the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR, www.cmcr.ucsd.edu) in 2000 ''in response to scientific evidence for therapeutic possibilities of cannabis[9] and local legislative initiatives in favor of compassionate use'' (Grant, 2005). State legislation establishing the CMCR called for high quality medical research that would ''enhance understanding of the efficacy and adverse effects of marijuana as a pharmacological agent,'' but stressed the project ''should not be construed as encouraging or sanctioning the social or recreational use of marijuana.'' The CMCR funded many of the published studies on marijuana's potential use for treating multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain, appetite suppression and cachexia. However, aside from the data produced by CMCR, no state-level medical marijuana laws have produced scientific data on marijuana's safety and effectiveness.

FDA approves medical use of a drug following a submission and review of an NDA or BLA. The FDA has not approved any drug product containing marijuana for marketing. Even so, results of small clinical exploratory studies have been published in the current medical literature. Many studies describe human research with marijuana in the United States under FDA-regulated IND applications.

However, FDA approval of an NDA is not the only means through which a drug can have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. In general, a drug may have a ''currently accepted medical use'' in treatment in the United States if the drug meets a five-part test. Established case law (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, 15 F.3d 1131, 1135 (D.C. Cir. 1994)) upheld the Administrator of DEA's application of the five-part test to determine whether a drug has a ''currently accepted medical use.'' The following describes the five elements that characterize ''currently accepted medical use'' for a drug[10]:

i. the drug's chemistry must be known and reproducible

''The substance's chemistry must be scientifically established to permit it to be reproduced into dosages which can be standardized. The listing of the substance in a current edition of one of the official compendia, as defined by section 201 G) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 321G), is sufficient to meet this requirement.''

ii. there must be adequate safety studies

''There must be adequate pharmacological and toxicological studies, done by all methods reasonably applicable, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, that the substance is safe for treating a specific, recognized disorder.''

iii. there must be adequate and well- controlled studies proving efficacy

''There must be adequate, well- controlled, well-designed, well-conducted, and well-documented studies, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, on the basis of which it could be fairly and responsibly concluded by such experts that the substance will have the intended effect in treating a specific, recognized disorder.''

iv. the drug must be accepted by qualified experts

''The drug has a New Drug Application (NDA) approved by the Food and Drug Administration, pursuant to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 355. Or, a consensus of the national community of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, accepts the safety and effectiveness of the substance for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. A material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding of consensus.'' and

v. the scientific evidence must be widely available

''In the absence of NDA approval, information concerning the chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and effectiveness of the substance must be reported, published, or otherwise widely available, in sufficient detail to permit experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, to fairly and responsibly conclude the substance is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder.''

Marijuana does not meet any of the five elements necessary for a drug to have a ''currently accepted medical use.''

Firstly, the chemistry of marijuana, as defined in the petition, is not reproducible in terms of creating a standardized dose. The petition defines marijuana as including all Cannabis cultivated strains. Different marijuana samples derived from various cultivated strains may have very different chemical constituents including delta9-THC and other cannabinoids (Appendino et al., 2011). As a consequence, marijuana products from different strains will have different safety, biological, pharmacological, and toxicological profiles. Thus, when considering all Cannabis strains together, because of the varying chemical constituents, reproducing consistent standardized doses is not possible. Additionally, smoking marijuana currently has not been shown to allow delivery of consistent and reproducible doses. However, if a specific Cannabis strain is grown and processed under strictly controlled conditions, the plant chemistry may be kept consistent enough to produce reproducible and standardized doses.

As to the second and third criteria; there are neither adequate safety studies nor adequate and well-controlled studies proving marijuana's efficacy. To support the petitioners' assertion that marijuana has accepted medical use, the petitioners cite the American Medical Association's (AMA) 2009 report entitled ''Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes.'' The petitioners claim the AMA report is evidence the AMA accepts marijuana's safety and efficacy. However, the 2009 AMA report clarifies that the report ''should not be viewed as an endorsement of state-based medical cannabis programs, the legalization of marijuana, or that scientific evidence on the therapeutic use of cannabis meets the same and current standards for a prescription drug product.[11]''

Currently, no published studies conducted with marijuana meet the criteria of an adequate and well-controlled efficacy study. The criteria for an adequate and well-controlled study for purposes of determining the safety and efficacy of a human drug are defined under the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 21 CFR 314.126. In order to assess this element, FDA conducted a review of clinical studies published and available in the public domain before February, 2013. Studies were identified through a search of PubMed[12] for articles published from inception to February 2013, for randomized controlled trials using marijuana to assess marijuana's efficacy in any therapeutic indication. Additionally, the review included studies identified through a search of bibliographic references in relevant systematic reviews and identified studies presenting original research in any language. Selected studies needed to be placebo-controlled and double-blinded. Additionally, studies needed to encompass administered marijuana plant material. There was no requirement for any specific route of administration, nor any age limits on study subjects. Studies were excluded that used placebo marijuana supplemented by the addition of specific amounts of THC or other cannabinoids. Additionally, studies administering marijuana plant extracts were excluded.

The PubMed search yielded a total of 566 abstracts of scientific articles. Of these abstracts, a full-text review was conducted with 85 papers to assess eligibility. Of the studies identified through the search of the references and the 566 abstracts from the PubMed search, only 11 studies met all the criteria for selection (Abrams et al., 2007; Corey-Bloom et al., 2012; Crawford and Merritt, 1979; Ellis et al., 2009; Haney et al., 2005; Haney et al., 2007; Merritt et al., 1980; Tashkin et al., 1974; Ware et al., 2010; Wilsey et al., 2008; Wilsey et al., 2013). These 11 studies were published between 1974 and 2013. Ten of these studies were conducted in the United States and one study was conducted in Canada. The identified studies examine the effects of smoked and vaporized marijuana for the indications of chronic neuropathic pain, spasticity related to Multiple Sclerosis (MS), appetite stimulation in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) patients, glaucoma, and asthma. All studies used adult subjects.

The 11 identified studies were individually evaluated to determine if they successfully meet accepted scientific standards. Specifically, they were evaluated on study design including subject selection criteria, sample size, blinding techniques, dosing paradigms, outcome measures, and the statistical analysis of the results. The analysis relied on published studies, thus information available about protocols, procedures, and results were limited to documents published and widely available in the public domain. The review found that all 11 studies that examined effects of inhaled marijuana do not currently prove efficacy of marijuana in any therapeutic indication based on a number of limitations in their study design; however, they may be considered proof of concept studies. Proof of concept studies provide preliminary evidence on a proposed hypothesis involving a drug's effect. For drugs under development, the effect often relates to a short-term clinical outcome being investigated. Proof of concept studies often serve as the link between preclinical studies and dose ranging clinical studies. Thus, proof of concept studies generally are not sufficient to prove efficacy of a drug because they provide only preliminary information about the effects of a drug.

In addition to the lack of published adequate and well-controlled efficacy studies proving efficacy, the criteria for adequate safety studies has also not been met. Importantly, in its discussion of the five-part test used to determine whether a drug has a ''currently accepted medical use,'' DEA said, ''No drug can be considered safe in the abstract. Safety has meaning only when judged against the intended use of the drug, its known effectiveness, its known and potential risks, the severity of the illness to be treated, and the availability of alternative remedies'' (57 FR 10504). When determining whether a drug product is safe and effective for any indication, FDA performs an extensive risk-benefit analysis to determine whether the risks posed by the drug product's side effects are outweighed by the drug product's potential benefits for a particular indication. Thus, contrary to the petitioner's assertion that marijuana has accepted safety, in the absence of an accepted therapeutic indication which can be weighed against marijuana's risks, marijuana does not satisfy the element for having adequate safety studies such that experts may conclude that it is safe for treating a specific, recognized disorder.

The fourth of the five elements for determining ''currently accepted medical use'' requires that the national community of experts, qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, accepts the safety and effectiveness of the substance for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. A material conflict of opinion among experts precludes a finding of consensus. Medical practitioners who are not experts in evaluating drugs are not qualified to determine whether a drug is generally recognized as safe and effective or meets NDA requirements (57 FR 10499-10505).

There is no evidence that there is a consensus among qualified experts that marijuana is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. As discussed above, there are not adequate scientific studies that show marijuana is safe and effective in treating a specific, recognized disorder. In addition, there is no evidence that a consensus of qualified experts have accepted the safety and effectiveness of marijuana for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder. Although medical practitioners are not qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, we also note that the AMA's report, entitled ''Use of Cannabis for Medicinal Purposes,'' does not accept that marijuana currently has accepted medical use. Furthermore, based on the above definition of a ''qualified expert'', who is an individual qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of a drug, state-level medical marijuana laws do not provide evidence of a consensus among qualified experts that marijuana is safe and effective for use in treating a specific, recognized disorder.

As to the fifth part of the test, which requires that information concerning the chemistry, pharmacology, toxicology, and effectiveness of marijuana to be reported in sufficient detail, the scientific evidence regarding all of these aspects is not available in sufficient detail to allow adequate scientific scrutiny. Specifically, the scientific evidence regarding marijuana's chemistry in terms of a specific Cannabis strain that could produce standardized and reproducible doses is not currently available.

Alternately, a drug can be considered to have a ''currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions'' (21 U.S.C. 812(b)(2)(B)), as allowed under the stipulations for a Schedule II drug. Yet, as stated above, currently marijuana does not have any accepted medical use, even under conditions where its use is severely restricted.

In conclusion, to date, research on marijuana's medical use has not progressed to the point where marijuana is considered to have a ''currently accepted medical use'' or a ''currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.''

- - - - - - - - - -

[9] In this quotation the term cannabis is interchangeable with marijuana.

[10] 57 FR I 0499, 10504–06 (March 26, 1992).

[11] In this quotation the term cannabis is used interchangeably for marijuana.

[12] The following search strategy was used, ‘‘(cannabis OR marijuana) AND (therapeutic use OR therapy) AND (RCT OR randomized controlled trial OR ‘‘systematic review’’ OR clinical trial OR clinical trials) NOT (‘‘marijuana abuse’’[Mesh] OR addictive behavior OR substance related disorders).’’

You pimping for the drug addicts again?

That is his whole reason for being....it is his life.

You pimping for the drug addicts again?

This article isn't about recreational marijuana you "Reefer Madness" freaks.

The Journal of American Medical Association that contradicts what DHHS has to say about cannabis. Had my mom been prescribing to cannabis rather than the continuous chemo treatments she was getting, she would be still be alive today.

I'm sorry for your loss. Unfortunately some of the posters on this thread would much rather see someone suffer and die rather than to allow them access to cannabis.

I wonder how many would let their own children or parents suffer if cannabis was the only substance that could promise relief from pain or seizures?

Unfortunately some of the posters on this thread would much rather see someone suffer and die rather than to allow them access to cannabis.

...you have no evidence to support your allegation,

The ignorant posts made by you and the other freaks here would lead anyone to the same conclusion I've reached

I wonder how many would let their own children or parents suffer if cannabis [were] the only substance that could promise relief from pain or seizures?

...you have no evidence to support your allegation,

An irresponsible and false conclusion by anyone is not evidence.

... whatever point you neglected to make.

The point I am making is that you and the others here who would deny cannabis to a sick child for relief from pain or seizures, or to help a veteran cope with PTSD, or to allow a chemo patient to keep down his food are sadistic ghouls, blinded by the propaganda fed to you by the government concerning the medicinal value of cannabis.

No one here is in a position to deny cannabis to anyone.

You countenances are totally asinine.

No one here is in a position to deny cannabis to anyone.

Be honest for once in your miserable life.

Huh....you can't?

Then STFU already....you dope pimp.

You pimping for the drug addicts again?

This article isn't about recreational marijuana you "Reefer Madness" freaks.

Yes it is. The intention is to come in the back door with an argument presenting an argument that marijuana is benign and "natural" then later expand the argument to say there there is no reason to object to its use as a recreational drug.

The best testimony in rebuttal is the debilitated condition of the people who use it and are obsessed with it.

That is an irresponsible vindictive claim where you show malicious ill will and a desire to hurt motivated entirely by spite and ignorance. You have no evidence to support your allegation, a allegation that is completely false in that there have been no events such as that you allege.

No that is not true. The DHHS is not in the business of practicing medicine and therefore they are not the experts in making such determinations about cannabis. Let the doctors in the research and development do their job.

There has been research done on the medicinal purposes of this herb. Furthermore, cannabis has already been included in many medicines doctors prescribe however it is not as effective because it has been mixed with other FDA medicines making it less effective. If the patients were administered just the raw dosage of cannabis, they would get results more promising than just a mixture compressed with other drug elements. The reason why cannabis has been mixed with other drug elements is so that the cannabis loses its true purpose of healing and this is good for the doctors and hospital administrations as they making a huge profit. Were cannabis to be administered in raw form and under close supervision, there would be positive results and it would put the hospitals out of business. Hospitals and doctors are not in the business of healing people. Your illness is their opportunity to staying in business. You are nothing to them but a walking paycheck everytime you need their services which is why the first thing they prey on is your health insurance policies because if you don't have enough to cover those outrageous hospital and medical expenses, they will take your home.

I'm sorry for your loss. Unfortunately some of the posters on this thread would much rather see someone suffer and die rather than to allow them access to cannabis.

Some assholes would tell the world that heroin should be legal. Then lots of kids would try it and fuck themselves for life.

You and your sicko ilk are ok with that. You don't know right from wrong.

Anyone can go buy some pot. Just ask Fred. He deals it for lunch money.

Anyone can go buy some pot. Just ask Fred. He deals it for lunch money.

Wrong answer, Retardo.

I only deliver it for nothing on rare occasions...from friend to friend...small potatoes.

Need a pipe screen? Brass or stainless steel?

Unfortunately some of the posters on this thread would much rather see someone suffer and die rather than to allow them access to cannabis.

That is an irresponsible vindictive claim where you show malicious ill will and a desire to hurt motivated entirely by spite and ignorance. You have no evidence to support your allegation, a allegation that is completely false in that there have been no events such as that you allege.

Still, you fail to furnishg evidence to support Deckars's allegation, a allegation that is completely false in that there have been no events such as that he alleged.

Infowars

Another site that is also listed as a source of fake news.

Infowars Another site that is also listed as a source of fake news.

That is not fake news.

It may have different opinions but it is not fake.

A bunch of the stuff on that list isn't fake.

CNN is fake though. They edited Trump speeches to make him say something else.

www.infowars.com/angela-merkel-calls-for-ban-on-burka/

Is this fake?

www.infowars.com/angela-merkel-calls-for-ban-on-burka/

I don’t trust anything that Angela Merkel says even if I hear it first hand from her.

And I certainly will not trust what Infowars tells me she said is true.

Still, you fail to furnishg evidence to support Deckars's allegation, a allegation that is completely false in that there have been no events such as that he alleged.

I didn't fail to furnish evidence. You failed to read what I cited. Re-read post #38.

Deckard: Unfortunately some of the posters on this thread would much rather see someone suffer and die rather than to allow them access to cannabis.

Gatlin: That is an irresponsible vindictive claim where you show malicious ill will and a desire to hurt motivated entirely by spite and ignorance. You have no evidence to support your allegation, a allegation that is completely false in that there have been no events such as that you allege.

I read your response, it had absolutely nothing to do with my statement. Your response was about DHHS and not about Deckard’s claim.

Therefore, you failed to furnish evidence to support Deckard’s claim that “some of the posters on this thread would much rather see someone suffer and die rather than to allow them access to cannabis.”

Re-read post #38.

I read you post again.

Had my mom been prescribing to cannabis rather than the continuous chemo treatments she was getting, she would be still be alive today. And what's worse is that at the same time she was getting those chemo treatments, those same doctors were administering flu shots on her which caused her to go code blue.

What evidence can you provide that your mother would have been alive today had she been prescribed cannabis?

David Hibbitt tried it …

David Hibbitt was a patient diagnosed with bowel cancer. He decided to try cannabis oil after he was diagnosed with terminal cancer. Last January he revealed he was cancer-free and credited cannabis with his miracle recovery. But the cancer returned in March this year and spread to his lungs and brain. It claimed his life earlier this month.

don’t trust anything that Angela Merkel says even if I hear it first hand from her.

And I certainly will not trust what Infowars tells me she said is true.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation." William Paley

don’t trust anything that Angela Merkel says even if I hear it first hand from her.
And I certainly will not trust what Infowars tells me she said is true.

"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which can not fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance-that principle is contempt prior to investigation." William Paley

Your principle does not apply to me since I do not bar ALL information. I only discount information presented in yellow journalism articles and fake news sites.

“There is a principle that serves as a bar against all false and misleading information, which is proof for ferreting out truth to keep a man in everlasting comfort that knowledge is bliss and lets the ignorant read and believe only what the ignorant want to believe. ~ Gatlin

This article isn't about recreational marijuana you "Reefer Madness" freaks.

The DEA ruling is directly on point about so-called medical marijuana.

DEA, 81 FR 53779-53781, August 12, 2016

Marijuana does not meet any of the five elements necessary for a drug to have a ''currently accepted medical use.''

- - - - - - - - - -

Currently, no published studies conducted with marijuana meet the criteria of an adequate and well-controlled efficacy study.

- - - - - - - - - -

In addition to the lack of published adequate and well-controlled efficacy studies proving efficacy, the criteria for adequate safety studies has also not been met. Importantly, in its discussion of the five-part test used to determine whether a drug has a ''currently accepted medical use,'' DEA said, ''No drug can be considered safe in the abstract. Safety has meaning only when judged against the intended use of the drug, its known effectiveness, its known and potential risks, the severity of the illness to be treated, and the availability of alternative remedies'' (57 FR 10504).

- - - - - - - - - -

The Court in Americans for Safe Access et al v. DEA confirmed the ruling of the DEA.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/12CBD2B55C34FBF585257AFB00554299/$file/11-1265-1416392.pdf

Americans for Safe Access et al v. DEA, 11-1265 (D.C. Cir. 22 Jan 2013)

To establish accepted medical use, the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted, and well-documented scientific studies, including studies performed in a large number of patients (57 FR 10499, 1992). To date, such studies have not been performed.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1520a

50 U.S. Code § 1520a - Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) · US Code · Notes

(a) Prohibited activitiesThe Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)—

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or

(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b)Exceptions

Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.

(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.

(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

(b) only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject. (

c) Informed consent required The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection

(d) Prior notice to Congress Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.

(e) “Biological agent” definedIn this section, the term “biological agent” means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing—

(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or

(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

(Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title X, § 1078, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1915; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, § 1067(4), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774.)

What evidence can you provide that your mother would have been alive today had she been prescribed cannabis?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1520a

The DHHS is not in the business of practicing medicine and therefore they are not the experts in making such determinations about cannabis. Let the doctors in the research and development do their job.

This is absolute bullshit and directly contrary to Federal statute law.

DHHS is emphatically assigned the authority and responsibility for the scientific and medical evaluation, and the DHHS recommendation is binding on the Attorney General per 21 U.S.C. § 811.

The binding scientific and medical recommendation of DHHS holds that all of your blather about marijuana studies fails to have met the required medical and scientific standards. In addition, due to treaty obligations, marijuana cannot be assigned to less than Schedule 2.

DEA Dockets 426 and 427 Responses of 12 August 2016 - requests to reschedule Marjuana DENIED

These are the actual DEA responses of 12 August 2016 to requests to Reschedule Marijuana, DEA Dockets 426 and 427, as taken from the Federal Register.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/322683127/81-Fed-Reg-No-156-12-Aug-2016-53668-53766-Proposed-Marijuana-Rules-Denial-Docket-DEA-426

81 Fed Reg No 156 (12 Aug 2016) 53668-53766, Proposed Rules Denial, Docket DEA-426

Dear Ms. Raimondo and Mr. Inslee:

Essentially the same as DEA-427 below, but sent to different addressees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

https://www.scribd.com/document/322683217/81-Fed-Reg-No-156-12-Aug-2016-53767-53845-Proposed-Marijuana-Rules-Denial-Docket-DEA-427

Dear Mr. Krumm:

81 Fed Reg No 156 (12 Aug 2016) 53767-53845, Proposed Rules Denial, Docket DEA-427

You requested that DEA remove marijuana from schedule I based on your assertion that:

1. Marijuana has accepted medical use in the United States;

2. Studies have shown that smoked marijuana has proven safety and efficacy;

3. Marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision; and

4. Marijuana does not have the abuse potential for placement in schedule I

In accordance with the CSA scheduling provisions, after gathering the necessary data, DEA requested a scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). HHS concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse, has no accepted medical use in the United States, and lacks an acceptable level of safety for use even under medical supervision. Therefore, HHS recommended that marijuana remain in schedule I. The scientific and medical evaluation and scheduling recommendation that HHS submitted to DEA is attached hereto.

Based on the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data, DEA has concluded that there is no substantial evidence that marijuana should be removed from schedule I. A document prepared by DEA addressing these materials in detail also is attached hereto. In short, marijuana continues to meet the criteria for schedule I control under the CSA because:

(1) Marijuana has a high potential for abuse. The HHS evaluation and the additional data gathered by DEA show that marijuana has a high potential for abuse.

(2) Marijuana has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Based on the established five-part test for making such determination, marijuana has no ‘‘currently accepted medical use’’ because: As detailed in the HHS evaluation, the drug’s chemistry is not known and reproducible; there are no adequate safety studies; there are no adequate and wellcontrolled studies proving efficacy; the drug is not accepted by qualified experts; and the scientific evidence is not widely available.

(3) Marijuana lacks accepted safety for use under medical supervision. At present, there are no U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved marijuana products, nor is marijuana under a New Drug Application (NDA) evaluation at the FDA for any indication. The HHS evaluation states that marijuana does not have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. At this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in wellcontrolled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy.

The statutory mandate of 21 U.S.C. 812(b) is dispositive. Congress established only one schedule, schedule I, for drugs of abuse with ‘‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’’ and ‘‘lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision.’’ 21 U.S.C. 812(b).

Although the HHS evaluation and all other relevant data lead to the conclusion that marijuana must remain in schedule I, it should also be noted that, in view of United States obligations under international drug control treaties, marijuana cannot be placed in a schedule less restrictive than schedule II. This is explained in detail in the accompanying document titled ‘‘Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations.’’

Accordingly, and as set forth in detail in the accompanying HHS and DEA documents, there is no statutory basis under the CSA for DEA to grant your petition to initiate rulemaking proceedings to reschedule marijuana. Your petition is, therefore, hereby denied.

Sincerely,

Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator

Attachments:

Preliminary Note Regarding Treaty Considerations

Cover Letter from HHS to DEA Summarizing the Scientific and Medical Evaluation and Scheduling Recommendation for Marijuana.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—Basis for the Recommendation for Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

U.S. Department of Justice—Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Schedule of Controlled Substances: Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, Background, Data, and Analysis: Eight Factors Determinative of Control and Findings Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 812(b)

Dated: July 19, 2016.

Chuck Rosenberg,
Acting Administrator

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-21/chapter-13/subchapter-i/part-b/sec.-811/

Chapter 13 - Drug Abuse Prevention and Control (Sections 801 - 971)

Subchapter I - Control and Enforcement (Sections 801 - 904)

Part B - Authority to Control; Standards and Schedules (Sections 811 - 814) Sec. 811 - Authority and criteria for classification of substances

21 U.S.C. § 811 (2014)

§811. Authority and criteria for classification of substances

(a) Rules and regulations of Attorney General; hearing

The Attorney General shall apply the provisions of this subchapter to the controlled substances listed in the schedules established by section 812 of this title and to any other drug or other substance added to such schedules under this subchapter. Except as provided in subsections (d) and (e) of this section, the Attorney General may by rule—

(1) add to such a schedule or transfer between such schedules any drug or other substance if he—

(A) finds that such drug or other substance has a potential for abuse, and

(B) makes with respect to such drug or other substance the findings prescribed by subsection (b) of section 812 of this title for the schedule in which such drug is to be placed; or

(2) remove any drug or other substance from the schedules if he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule.

Rules of the Attorney General under this subsection shall be made on the record after opportunity for a hearing pursuant to the rulemaking procedures prescribed by subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5. 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.

(b) Evaluation of drugs and other substances

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. In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (c) of this section and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of such subsection. The recommendations of the Secretary shall include recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule, if any, under which such drug or other substance should be listed. The evaluation and the recommendations of the Secretary shall be made in writing and submitted to the Attorney General within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and 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.

(c) 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. (d) International treaties, conventions, and protocols requiring control; procedures respecting changes in drug schedules of Convention on Psychotropic Substances

(1) If control is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970, the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations, without regard to the findings required by subsection (a) of this section or section 812(b) of this title and without regard to the procedures prescribed by subsections (a) and (b) of this section.

[snip]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_cancer_chemotherapy

… there are attorneys on standby doing a service to this country taking calls from patients who suffered irreparable damage from the chemo treatments.

Of course there are. You must know there is an overabundance of lawyers, many of who are unemployed, who will take calls from anyone to do anything.

The fact that there is an over abundance of lawyers looking for cases to try still does not answer this question:

What evidence can you provide that your mother would have been alive today had she been prescribed cannabis?

[goldilucky #72] You ask for evidence and I'm going to show you that chemo falls under human testing experimentation under Title 50 USC Sec 1520

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1520a

You cite Title 50 USC Sec 1520 but link to the different statute section 50 USC Sec 1520a.

[goldilucky #75 to Gatlin] From my post #72 here is more to support that claim about chemo falling under Title 50 Sec 1520 (which you failed to read again)

- - - - - - - - - -

[goldilucky #76] You say my post was bullshit. I refer you to post #72 because that is a federal statute and is still in the books today. You choose to argue the differences of facts.

Read it yourself. § 1520 was repealed 18 years ago.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, correcting your incorrect citation, you meant 50 U.S.C. 1520a. At least it wasn't repealed 18 years ago, but an assertion of authority citing 50 U.S.C. § 1520a is idiotic, as well as bullshit.

You fantasize that marijuana falls under Title 50 on WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, in CHAPTER 32 on CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM, in the subsection 1520a on Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.

http://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title50-section1520a&num=0&edition=prelim

50 USC 1520a: Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents

Text contains those laws in effect on December 5, 2016

From Title 50-WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

CHAPTER 32-CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM

Jump To:
Source Credit
Codification
Amendments

§1520a. Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents

(a) Prohibited activities

The Secretary of Defense may not conduct (directly or by contract)-

(1) any test or experiment involving the use of a chemical agent or biological agent on a civilian population; or

(2) any other testing of a chemical agent or biological agent on human subjects.

(b) Exceptions

Subject to subsections (c), (d), and (e), the prohibition in subsection (a) does not apply to a test or experiment carried out for any of the following purposes:

(1) Any peaceful purpose that is related to a medical, therapeutic, pharmaceutical, agricultural, industrial, or research activity.

(2) Any purpose that is directly related to protection against toxic chemicals or biological weapons and agents.

(3) Any law enforcement purpose, including any purpose related to riot control.

(c) Informed consent required

The Secretary of Defense may conduct a test or experiment described in subsection (b) only if informed consent to the testing was obtained from each human subject in advance of the testing on that subject.

(d) Prior notice to Congress

Not later than 30 days after the date of final approval within the Department of Defense of plans for any experiment or study to be conducted by the Department of Defense (whether directly or under contract) involving the use of human subjects for the testing of a chemical agent or a biological agent, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the Committee on Armed Services of the Senate and the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives a report setting forth a full accounting of those plans, and the experiment or study may then be conducted only after the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date such report is received by those committees.

(e) "Biological agent" defined

In this section, the term "biological agent" means any micro-organism (including bacteria, viruses, fungi, rickettsiac, or protozoa), pathogen, or infectious substance, and any naturally occurring, bioengineered, or synthesized component of any such micro-organism, pathogen, or infectious substance, whatever its origin or method of production, that is capable of causing-

(1) death, disease, or other biological malfunction in a human, an animal, a plant, or another living organism;

(2) deterioration of food, water, equipment, supplies, or materials of any kind; or

(3) deleterious alteration of the environment.

( Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title X, §1078, Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1915 ; Pub. L. 106–65, div. A, title X, §1067(4), Oct. 5, 1999, 113 Stat. 774 .) Codification

Section is comprised of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105–85. Subsec. (f) of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105–85 amended section 1523(b) of this title. Subsec. (g) of section 1078 of Pub. L. 105–85 repealed section 1520 of this title.

Section was enacted as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998, and not as part of Pub. L. 91–121, title IV, §409, Nov. 19, 1969, 83 Stat. 209 , which comprises this chapter. Amendments

1999-Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 106–65 substituted "and the Committee on Armed Services" for "and the Committee on National Security".

You fantasize that marijuana falls under Title 50 on WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE, in CHAPTER 32 on CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WARFARE PROGRAM, in the subsection 1520a on Restrictions on use of human subjects for testing of chemical or biological agents.

No I did not say that about marijuana but I did say that about chemotheraphy falling under Title 50 on War and Biological warfare. Please read my post #75. Chemotheraphy has long been used as a chemical biowarfare agent and should never have been used to treat patients with cancer. But of course you knew that already, didn't cha?

Infowars

Another site that is also listed as a source of fake news.

Uh - you do realize that Infowars and Alex Jones were the biggest Trump supporters on the internet, right?

Alex Jones first choice: Alex Jones Endorses Rand Paul/Ted Cruz Ticket for 2016

You fantasize that marijuana falls under Title 50 on WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

Well the US Gov did tell farmers to grow Cannabis for the war. And a hemp parachute saved George "New World Order" Bush so that he could go on to bomb a bunch of Iraqis.

The Feds said that film didn't exist. You don't care, do you.

Jesus Christ Himself could come back and tell you that you've been lied to
about Hemp and you'd complain about his bare feet and long hair, then tell him he's delusional.

#6630507

You fought a war against a plant and lost! ROFL Loser

Farmers around the world grow hemp. Legally. And they've been doing so for thousands of years. Hemp is a plant grown from a seed. It can get up to 15 to 20 or so feet tall. It is an annual, herbaceous, long fibre plant similar to flax (linen), jute and ramie. It's the sister plant to marijuana but it won't get you high. However, it's good at doing almost anything else except making you “high.”

There is nothing wrong with a 100% natural hemp rope. In fact, it has many advantages and is readily available for purchase. Amazon even offers the Shibari 100% Natural Hemp Rope with overnight delivery.

Alex Jones first choice: Alex Jones Endorses Rand Paul/Ted Cruz Ticket for 2016

So what? Jones had Trump on his show and supported him BIG TIME through the entire campaign.

You should retract your claim about "Infowars" being fake news or admit Trump is a "conspiracy theorist".

You are still pimping for the mainstream media by parroting their "fake news" psy-op.

So what? Jones had Trump on his show and supported him BIG TIME through the entire campaign.

Infowars is nothing more than ground zero for the modern conspiracy movement, acting a a central forum for ignorant people who believe the government is going to wipe them out. Infowars is merely a grab bag of links, opinion, ads and goofiness showing collections of conspiracy-driven news articles from outside sources (some mainstream and some fringe) and pieces about tyranny, surveillance and things the government “isn’t telling you.” The stuff you’ll see at Infowars is usually just their spin version of a legitimate news story. You are the CT freak, I am not….you can believe their spin, I will not.

So what? David Duke supported Trump BIG TIME through the entire campaign?

Did David Duke have Trump on his radio show? Alex Jones did.

Did Trump denounce Alex Jones? No, but he denounced Duke.

Nice try queerbaiat but by all means go ahead and keep right on parroting the "fake news" psy-op that has been perpetuated by the MSM in a bizarre reaction to Trump's win.

You'll always be a sheep.

I place no credence in what he has to say….you can of course continue to worship at his alter.

It's "altar" you idiotic commie POS.

And no, I don't. I rarely read his site and I can't even remember the last time I posted anything from Infowars.

Meet The Leftist Professor Who Wrote The 'Hit List' Of "Fake News" Sites

Actually, Fake News, also called News Satire is a type of parody presented in a format typical of mainstream journalism, and calledsatire because of its content.

Not all of the sites listed as "Fake News" are satire. Most are alternative sites run by tireless, dedicated, truth-seeking journalists (real journalists, not the kind you trust).

"Fake News" used in this context is a term created by the leftist media (working from a "list" created by a leftist professor) because the alternative media were instrumental in enabling Hillary's defeat.

Zimdars published and circulated a list of “fake, false, or regularly misleading websites that are shared on Facebook and social media.” She said she began writing the list because she didn’t approve of the sources her students were citing.

The problem?

In addition to some satirical and bogus sites, her list attacks the credibility of well-established news organizations such as Breitbart, BizPac Review, Red State, the Blaze, the Independent Journal Review, Twitchy, the Daily Wire, WND and James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas. In many cases (such as with her WND listing), she offers no explanation for why the news organizations were included on the list.

Mainstream media outlets such as the Los Angeles Times circulated Zimdars’ growing list. The Times headlined its story, “Want to keep fake news out of your newsfeed? College professor creates list of sites to avoid.” The Times offered no details concerning Zimdars’ qualifications or background.

News organizations such as CNN, the Washington Post, Boston Globe, New York Magazine, USA Today, Business Insider, the Austin American-Statesman, the Dallas Morning News and others spread the list like gospel and cited it in their reports.

Edit - Jones did have David Duke on his show - for a DEBATE.

Contrast the tone of the debate with this interview of Trump.

Yet bet I will, keep denouncing fake news...

Attaboy! Keep siding with the liberal MSM who is pushing the "fake news" psy-op.

MSNBC Liberals Demand that Google and Facebook Ban “Fake News”

Interesting timing that this cry for social media to crack down on so-called “fake news” comes within the same period that the EU has demanded social media companies comply with censoring fake news or potentially face legal action…

Your support of foreign governments controlling social media should also be noted.

Farmers around the world grow hemp. Legally. And they've been doing so for thousands of years. Hemp is a plant grown from a seed. It can get up to 15 to 20 or so feet tall. It is an annual, herbaceous, long fibre plant similar to flax (linen), jute and ramie. It's the sister plant to marijuana but it won't get you high. However, it's good at doing almost anything else except making you “high.”

There is nothing wrong with a 100% natural hemp rope. In fact, it has many advantages and is readily available for purchase. Amazon even offers the Shibari 100% Natural Hemp Rope with overnight delivery.

You contradict your statement when said that Farmers have been growing hemp; a plant grown from a seed. Hemp comes from the cannabis family. Sources here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemp#frbanner3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_sativa

Finally, if there is nothing wrong with hemp, than there is nothing wrong with cannabis either. Both are used to aid in medical treatments just as they may be used for other purposes as well. I would prefer taking these as alternative medicine than the toxic poison approved by the FDA which has killed many people, including my mom.