Why it is a conflict of interest for the DEA to determine drug scheduling

[markpkessinger]

Most of you have probably read that despite the growing push for legalization of medical marijuana by many states, the DEA has nevertheless determined that there are insufficient studies documenting marijuana's "medical value," hence marijuana will remain a Schedule 1 drug (while cocaine and morphine remain schedule 2). Obama's DEA has made it quite clear that it intends to crack down on any growing operations, regardless of whether or not the operations' product is intended for medical distribution.

But I think it is inherently a conflict of interest for the DEA, a law enforcement agency, to be deciding which substances do/do not have medicinal value and hence which schedule any given substance gets classified under. Any organization, suborganization, agency, department, etc. (whether government or non-government), seeks continually to justify its own existence. Let's face it: marijuana is an easy target for the DEA, particularly when compared with the much more problematic substances like heroine or methamphetamine. But by keeping the numbers of marijuana-related arrests high, the DEA can claim "progress" in the "War on Drugs" and thereby continue to be able to make a case for more government resources (i.e., tax revenue) to flow into it. But whether or not something has medicinal value is (or should be) a medical determination, made on the basis of medical research; it should not be a political determination, as it clearly is under the current system. The DEA claims that there aren't sufficient studies documenting the efficacy of marijuana for medical purposes, yet it simultaneously creates an environment where such research cannot now and never will take place. If a substance's medical efficacy is in dispute or not fully established, there should be a lower classification until such time as research can establish such efficacy one way or the other.

Actually, come to think of it, why is medical efficacy the determinant in any case? After all, what medical efficacy has ever been firmly established for tobacco? And alcohol was legal long before there were any studies showing that moderate consumption may have health benefits. If we're going to arbitrarily apply such criteria for legitimacy to some substances, why should we not apply the same criteria to all of them, including alcohol, tobacco and caffeine? It seems to me that a more logical system would be one that focuses on societal harm rather than on presumed lack of medical efficacy; but, of course, if we were to do that, alcohol and tobacco would both come in near the bottom of the list, now wouldn't they? (And if we were to go on the basis of societal harm, they'll have to do a whole lot more by way of evidence than "Reefer Madness!"). Maybe the best solution is to drop the idiotic hypocrisy of the entire WoD and instead permit adults to make their own decisions.

[izquierdista]

1. Because....

When I think of who should be evaluating medical efficacy, I think

Clancy Wiggum!

[Mimosa]

2. Excellent. K&R. n/t

[RainDog]

8. another k&r here n/t

[cojoel]

3. Should be the FDA

The FDA should have sole authority over the medical side. The DEA could perhaps recommend downgrading things based on specific enforcement issues that would make higher restrictions impractical, but that should be it.

[Uncle Joe]

4. That's the foundation of the problem by turning what should be

an educational, medical and/or personal privacy issue in to a criminal one, they create a dysfunctional, corruptive, conflict of interest, aspect of governance and this plays out in all manner of way, not just the DEA but police systems, for profit prisons, and the state legislatures, judges and Congresses that lobbying and bribing from all that circular loop money can buy.

That corruptive, dysfunctional, circular system which leaves the most knowledgeable authorities out of the loop is self-feeding and can only grow with time in increased atrocity against the people; both here and abroad.

Thanks for the thread, markpkessinger.

[RainDog]

5. It's like a lobby for some industry getting to write govt policy

like Enron back the the Bush days with energy policy - while excluding the Sierra Club from any meetings.

[Cool Logic]

6. Whether or not it is a conflict of interest or not doesn't matter.

Note to Conservatives: If the recently enacted health care legislation is Unconstitutional, so are federal Drug Laws.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Regrettably, this amendment has been virtually read out of the Constitution.

[RainDog]

7. can you explain that to me

I've heard other mention this (it's unconstitutional) argument and I'd love it if someone could give me more information.

[Cool Logic]

9. The United States has a federal structure, with power divided between the states and the fedgov.

The same powers Congress referenced to justify HCR, authorize all fedgov drug laws. If you believe that health care is not interstate commerce, then growing marijuana plants in your backyard is certainly not interstate commerce. With the exception of drugs that are actually transported interstate, banning the possession of narcotics is no less "interstate commerce" than mandating health care.

On the other hand, State drug laws are Constitutional, for State govs can act in any sphere not prohibited to them, as defined by the 10th Amendment. Likewise, the fedgov can only legislate in areas specifically delegated to it in Article 1 of the Constitution.

Consequently, a substantial amount of fedgov law regulating numerous spheres, is legally premised on the exercise of the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause, along with the Fourteenth Amendment and spending power, allows Congress to do things that effects the States.

Most of the un-Constitutional expansions of fedgov power were initially struck down by the SC. In an effort to get around the Constitution, Roosevelt proposed increasing the number of justices on the SC from nine to fifteen. Subsequently, the SC Court reversed course and upheld the un-Constitutional legislation.

Nevertheless, to the knowing observer, it is clear that the drug war and the laws that prohibit the private consumption of certain drugs are un-Constitutional. Prohibition laws, themselves, violate every tenet of limited government that is embodied in the Constitution. That is why it was necessary to amend the Constitution in order to prohibit the drug known as alcohol. In view of that, how can it possibly be Constitutional to prohibit other drugs without going through the formal amendment process?

The fedgov should either abide by the 9th and 10th Amendments, or repeal them. To pretend that they do not exist is an insult to the People's intelligence and an offense to their heritage.

[RainDog]

10. thanks

and, can you also explain the Commerce Clause for those here, like me, who could benefit - if you don't mind - and how it has been applied to cannabis prohibition?

[RainDog]

11. Why The DEA Should Not Have The Final Say On Cannabis

http://www.businessinsider.com/because-we-say-so-2011-7

someone else agrees with you.

If the medication involved were a typical blood pressure pill or arthritis treatment, this sort of pronouncement would come from the Food and Drug Administration, which is charged with determining whether medications are safe and effective. But the drug is cannabis, and the ruling came from the Drug Enforcement Agency.

...The DEA’s website contains plenty of pages explaining why marijuana is so bad. On one, it claims that marijuana is harmful because it “contains more than 400 chemicals, including most of the harmful substances found in tobacco smoke.” If harmful side effects disqualified pharmaceuticals from medical use, we would not see many of the warning-laden advertisements that populate prime-time network television.

On another page, the DEA says marijuana actually does have a medical use, but that the smoked form of the drug does not need to be legal because the active ingredient, THC, has already been isolated and replicated in the synthetic prescription drug Marinol. So, according to the DEA, marijuana needs to be kept away from people because it is harmful in the same ways as cigarettes – which are excluded from the Controlled Substances Act – but marijuana is also different because it is medically useful, while cigarettes are not.

Screwy logic, but that is not the DEA’s fault. It is not in the business of writing laws; it is in the business of enforcing them. Why ask cops to play doctor?