As of right now, cannabis is considered a schedule 1 drug in the United States. The government has it listed with other drugs such as heroin and LSD. But an ambitious Senator thinks that should change, and proposed legislation to remove cannabis from the Schedule 1 list.
With no known overdose amount, cannabis should be the furthest thing from a schedule 1 drug. Schedule 1 narcotics are described as a drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse, a drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical treatment use in the U.S., and a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or substance under medical supervision.
But putting it in the same category as dangerous drugs such as heroin has made the government massive amounts of revenue in the continual war on drugs. Even though that should all change, it probably won’t.
On Tuesday a Democratic senator from New Jersey proposed legislation that would remove marijuana from the federal list of controlled substances. The proposal, if adopted, would also financially punish states that fail to decriminalize marijuana if they have racial disparities in their arrest and incarceration rates connected to marijuana.
If the boneheaded politicians didn’t take our freedom to begin with, we wouldn’t need legislation allowing us the permission to consume a plant. This legislation is bound to make Attorney General Jeff Sessions go into pure panic mode.
Senator Cory Booker announced his legislative maneuver in a Facebook post.
The measure would withhold criminal justice federal funding to anti-marijuana states if data shows a racially disproportionate prison and arrest rate for marijuana. An American Civil Liberties Union study in 2013 found that African-Americans are four times more likely to be charged with marijuana crimes compared to whites—even though the rate of usage is similar between the two groups.
The legislation also creates a $500 million annual “Community Reinvestment Fund” grant program to “reinvest in communities most affected by the War on Drugs.” –ARSTECHNICA
Despite the proposal’s zero chance of being passed (because of the vast amount of money the bill would require annually), the measure highlights that marijuana use has become more mainstream. Just a few years ago, not a single state had legalized pot for recreational purposes. Now eight states have done so and 29 states and the District of Columbia have pro-medical marijuana laws on the books.
Booker’s inability to draft a simple bill that would remove cannabis from the Schedule 1 list will be its downfall. Would it really have been all that hard to write a one-page bill only removing marijuana from the list? Is that too much to ask that we don’t waste more money?
Delivered by The Daily Sheeple
We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).
Contributed by Dawn Luger of The Daily Sheeple.
Dawn Luger is a staff writer and reporter for The Daily Sheeple. Wake the flock up – follow Dawn’s work at our Facebook or Twitter.
#1: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
Schedule I says nothing about the drugs being "dangerous".
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-03 10:52:06 Reply Private Reply
#2: misterwhite To: Deckard (#0)
The article in a nutshell.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-03 10:54:41 Reply Private Reply
#3: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#2)
Even if this bill fails, it does gain a certain amount of intellectual momentum. Miniscule, since Booker is an idiot. But it has been introduced into the marketplace of ideas and the policy debate.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-03 10:58:59 Reply Private Reply
#4: Tooconservative To: Deckard, misterwhite (#0)
If Booker hadn't larded up this bill with Dem pork and overreach, he might have gotten Rand Paul to co-sponsor. It's the kind of bill that can go nowhere without bipartisan sponsorship.
As it is, Booker is grandstanding with a bill that has zero chance of passing because it is overbearing to the states, has a bunch of pork, and extends federal power at the expense of federalism.
Tooconservative posted on 2017-08-03 11:01:58 Reply Private Reply
#5: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#4)
Another way of summarizing the article.
misterwhite posted on 2017-08-03 11:23:39 Reply Private Reply
#6: nolu chan To: Deckard (#0)
Booker could always consider addressing the Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules, instead of this crap:
http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2014/title-21/chapter-13/subchapter-i/part-b/sec.-811/
nolu chan posted on 2017-08-03 16:18:52 Reply Private Reply