The CSA of 1970 is basically the law in the US that makes drugs illegal. All drugs listed on the CSA are subject to various restrictions based on the schedule they're placed in:
- Schedule 1 drugs have zero approved medical use and a high potential for abuse.
- Schedule 2 drugs have approved medical use, but also a high potential for abuse
- Schedule 3 drugs have approved medical use, but also a medium potential for abuse
- Schedule 4 drugs have approved medical use, but also a moderate potential for abuse
- Schedule 5 drugs have approved medical use and slim potential for abuse
Abuse in this case is defined as when you use a drug in a way that harms yourself or others.
In general, the higher a drug's schedule is, the fewer people are allowed the access it and the harsher the penalties are for getting caught with it.
That first point is crucial because it essentially blocks all independent research of higher scheduled drugs, which is harmful for a variety of reasons.
The classifications are also notoriously bullshit: marijuana, LSD, and psilocybin mushrooms are all schedule 1, yet have very slim to no addiction potential, and have no known overdose (you cannot overdose on any of these three drugs AFAIK). Meanwhile cocaine and meth (both highly addictive and notoriously deadly stimulants) are both in schedule 2, even though cocaine is very rarely used in the medical scene these days and meth is usually passed on in favor of Adderall and Ritalin.
It's time for this law to be abolished once and for all. Having a blanket law covering all drugs is stupid. It'd be better if each drug just had it's own individual law, or even if they separated medical drugs from recreational drugs (that is, essentially making two different laws for each group of drugs).
Here's how I'd do it. Instead of blanket prohibition, each drug would be individually researched and evaluated to see the effects of the drug on both users and the people around them.
If it's decided that the drug and/or the majority of its users cause no overall harm to society, it will be legally available as a recreational substance. Laws regarding amounts you can posess/sell, who's allowed to manufacture it, what age you can buy/use it, where you're allowed to use it, etc, would be tailored to the specific drug in question. This is what I believe would happen to drugs like weed, LSD, psilocybin mushrooms, and to a lesser extent MDMA and (maybe) cocaine.
If it's decided that the drug and/or the majorit
... keep reading on reddit ➡
Agenda:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-71/notice
Video:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20171002/-1/27983
[Edit: Controlled in that it is not OTC technically for humans. Not that it’s actually a scheduled drug. ]
Presumably, we have doctors and train them specifically so that they can prescribe these controlled substances if/when it is appropriate to use them.
So the idea that a “layperson” can sue because they want to use a specific controlled substance sounds like they are taking the prescription pad out of the doctors’ hands and writing the script(s) themselves.
Ivermectin is my example because it is (obviously) the recent example, but what’s stopping anybody from using these cases as precedent down the road and suing their doctors (I’m assuming they’re suing doctors?) because they want more mood stabilizers or steroids or this or that. I can’t imagine a judge will say, “yes doc, hand over the hard narcotics” but, to be honest, it wouldn’t surprise me either.
Can I just pick some legal minds here for a minute on this?
Edit: I posted this question out of genuine curiosity and desire to learn. Being downvoted on follow up questions to helpful comments is… well… is there a legal subreddit specifically to just learn?
The war on drugs certainly sounds like a large scale experiment for studying the social, psychological, economic, criminological, legal, cultural, and political consequences of drug prohibition. All the news stories of large drug busts and conflicts between the people involved in the drug trade (from the grower to the user to everyone in between), and law enforcement (from the neighborhood watchers and the weekend volunteers to the DEA agent and the military police) are scripted and scheduled in a certain way to be as realistic as possible, as both of them are given the necessary supplies and staged the conflict to be broadcasted over various news sources. Some members of participating parties secretly volunteer to actually die as well. Even gang conflicts are staged.
On October 27, 2020, 50 years after the Controlled Substances Act was signed into law by President Richard Nixon, the newly President of the United States, in his first State of the Union address, declares the experiment to be over as the act was only intended to last 50 years, no more and no less. The President also sends his condolences and prayers to the families of those who secretly volunteered to die in the staged conflicts and promises that those who were convicted of a drug-related crimes will be pardoned and those currently serving prison time for drug-related crimes will have those charges dropped.
After this information comes out, what happens next?
https://www.reddit.com/r/cmhoc/comments/3iny4w/m2_a_motion_to_form_a_committee_to_evaluate/
I don't understand the language in the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. Is it illegal to TRY to get a green card in Canada?
Introduced: Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary which will consider it before sending it to the Senate floor for consideration.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA] is the ranking member of the committee.
Introduced: Sponsor: Rep. Morgan Griffith [R-VA9]
This bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce which will consider it before sending it to the House floor for consideration.
Rep. Morgan Griffith [R-VA9] is a member of the committee.
Forgot to proofread the title. It should be: Tobacco and alcohol preparations are now schedule I and other drugs have been either rescheduled or descheduled.
Agenda:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-72/notice
Video:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20171003/-1/28007
http://www.cpac.ca/en/direct/hoc2/135509/health-12/
Agenda:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-71/notice
Video:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20171002/-1/27983
http://www.cpac.ca/en/direct/hoc5/135347/health-11/
Introduced: Sponsor: Rep. Jerry McNerney [D-CA9]
This bill was referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce which will consider it before sending it to the House floor for consideration.
Rep. Jerry McNerney [D-CA9] is a member of the committee.
Day 1 Agenda:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-71/notice
Full Video:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20171002/-1/27983
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/53279789
Day 2 Agenda:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-72/notice
Full Video:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20171003/-1/28007
Part 1:
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/53427955
Part 2:
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/53427969
Part 3:
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/53427983
Agenda:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-72/notice
Video:
http://parlvu.parl.gc.ca/XRender/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20171003/-1/28007
Part 1:
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/53427955
Part 2:
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/53427969
Part 3:
http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/in-committee-house-of-commons/episodes/53427983
