Approved LA Dispensary Raided

[headiez247]

For the record

1) Didn't intend for this to go anywhere near prop 19

and

2) even if it did pass, these dispos would of still gotten raided so its a moot point.

 

[Madrus Rose]

Mark my words. There will never be legalization without taxation, lots of rules and restrictions, and corporate interests. I commend people for the desire to have looser laws, if you want to consider legalization seriously we need to get our heads out of the clouds.

Like this new proposed bill that Dragonfly is behind, what a load of crap. It will never happen. I mean common, why not ask for free weed for all to and put that in the bill.

Taxation but first a system of licensed, regulated cannabis sale and production and then taxed

Cannabis and Hemp both have to be taken off the outdated 1970's CSA Schedule I classification of MJ being a "Narcotic Addictive Schedule I Drug" ... that alcohol & tobacco were exempted from . The current status of MJ is one that hasn't changed essentially since the passing of the 1970 CSA (Controlled Substances Act) of which then there was considerable question as to how to classify this plant.

Understanding much of this involves recognizing that decades ago when the DOJ created the DEA to enforce the 1970 CSA there was also already in place an International Narcotics Treaty Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 which almost all nations ended up subscribing or acceding to.

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 ...where it mostly started
(United Nations International Treaty)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_Convention_on_Narcotic_Drugs


Rescheduling proposals

There is some controversy over whether cannabis is "particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects" and whether that "liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages," as required by Schedule IV criteria. In particular, the discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system in the late 1980s revolutionized scientific understanding of cannabis' effects, and much anecdotal evidence has come to light about the drug's medical uses. The Canadian Senate committee's report notes,[42]

At the U.S.’s insistence, cannabis was placed under the heaviest control regime in the Convention, Schedule IV. The argument for placing cannabis in this category was that it was widely abused. The WHO later found that cannabis could have medical applications after all, but the structure was already in place and no international action has since been taken to correct this anomaly.The Commentary points out the theoretical possibility of removing cannabis from Schedule IV:[43]

Those who question the particularly harmful character of cannabis and cannabis resin may hold that the Technical Committee of the Plenipotentiary Conference was under its own criteria not justified in placing these drugs in Schedule IV; but the approval of the Committee's action by the Plenipotentiary Conference places this inclusion beyond any legal doubt. Should the results of the intensive research which is at the time of this writing being undertaken on the effects of these two drugs so warrant, they could be deleted from Schedule IV, and these two drugs, as well as extracts and tinctures of cannabis, could be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II.

Cindy Fazey, former Chief of Demand Reduction for the United Nations Drug Control Programme, has pointed out that it would be nearly impossible to loosen international cannabis regulations. Even if the Commission on Narcotic Drugs removed cannabis from Schedule IV of the Single Convention, prohibitions against the plant would remain imbedded in Article 28 and other parts of the treaty. Fazey cited amendment of the Articles and state-by-state denunciation as two theoretical possibilities for changing cannabis' international legal status, while pointing out that both face substantial barriers.[44] See Cannabis reform at the international level.

In a 2002 interview, INCB President Philip O. Emafo condemned European cannabis decriminalization measures:[45]

It is possible that the cannabis being used in Europe may not be the same species that is used in developing countries and that is causing untold health hazards to the young people who are finding themselves in hospitals for treatment. Therefore, the INCB's concern is that cannabis use should be restricted to medical and scientific purposes, if there are any. Countries who are party to the Single Convention need to respect the provisions of the conventions and restrict the use of drugs listed in Schedules I to IV to strictly medical and scientific purposes.

However, the European Parliament's Committee on Citizens' Freedoms and Rights, Justice and Home Affairs issued a report on March 24, 2003 criticizing the Single Convention's scheduling regime:[46]

These schedules show that the main criterion for the classification of a substance is its medical use. In view of the principle according to which the only licit uses is those for medical or scientific purposes (art. 4), plants or substances deprived of this purpose are automatically considered as particularly dangerous. Such is the case for cannabis and cannabis resin which are classified with heroin in group IV for the sole reason that they lack therapeutic value. A reason which is in any event disputable, since cannabis could have numerous medical uses.

There have been several lawsuits over whether cannabis' Schedule IV status under the Single Convention requires total prohibition at the national level. In 1970, the U.S. Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act to implement the UN treaty, placing marijuana into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. His letter to Harley O. Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional[47]:

Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue."

The reference to "certain studies" is to the then-forthcoming National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. In 1972, the Commission released a report favoring decriminalization of marijuana. The Richard Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however. In 1972, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws filed a rescheduling petition under provisions of the Act. The government declined to initiate proceedings on the basis of their interpretation of U.S. treaty commitments. A federal Court ruled against the government and ordered them to process the petition (NORML v. Ingersoll 497 F.2d 654 (1974)).

The government continued to rely on treaty commitments in their interpretation of scheduling related issues concerning the NORML petition, leading to another lawsuit (NORML v. DEA 559 F.2d 735 (1977)). In this decision, the Court made clear that the Act requires a full scientific and medical evaluation and the fulfillment of the rescheduling process before treaty commitments can be evaluated. See Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.


(The DEA is not going to relinquish easily the reclassifying MJ as a lessor Schedule substance , for that would hamper its greater investigations not just domestic but internationally . And since most of them are on steroids (naturally or unaturally) that's something they're not soon likely to do ! )

 

[Madrus Rose]

Alcohol Prohibition and Drug Prohibition , a very good read

Alcohol Prohibition and Drug Prohibition , a very good read

"Alcohol Prohibition and Drug Prohibition
Lessons from Alcohol Policy for Drug Policy"
Harry G. Levine and Craig Reinarman

* This is one of the very best essays offering a complete foundation to understanding Alcohol Prohibition & the current Drug Prohibition & the lessons one can learn from the first in effecting change in the laws currently
http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/levine.alcohol.html

The rise of global drug prohibition

In the 20th century, the cause of drug prohibition was first taken up by committed alcohol prohibitionists. In the U.S., national drug prohibition developed out of national alcohol prohibition. National drug prohibition is not "similar to" or "like" alcohol prohibition, it is a historical extension and continuation of it. cont'd

Drug use and policy in the era of global drug prohibition

The Single Convention of 1961 was put into place just as the world it was designed to govern was being transformed. Over the next two decades the use of prohibited drugs, especially of cannabis (marijuana), moved from the margins to the mainstream and the middle class. Except for cannabis, none of this was very large, and most of it was drug use and not abuse.

By about 1979, most forms of illegal drug use in the U.S. were higher than anytime before or since. By 1993, 22% of Americans aged 18 to 25, and 6% over age 25 had used marijuana once or more in the last year. And by 1993, 5% of American aged 18 to 25 and 2% over age 25 had used cocaine once or more in the last year. With some fluctuations, these rates have remained at roughly the same levels since. Heroin, LSD, psychoactive mushrooms and other illegal drug use is lower than cocaine use, and the levels of MDMA (ecstasy) use is similar to the levels of cocaine use (Reinarman and Levine, 1997:28-33).

The rise of illegal drug use in the 1960s and 1970s, and the persistence of use since 1980, have created enormous pressures on the drug prohibition systems in many Western countries. Different countries have responded to drug use and abuse in a variety of ways. Global drug prohibition is best understood as a long continuum -- with a harsher more punitive and criminalized end (as in the US), and a more tolerant, regulated and public health-oriented end (as in the Netherlands and growing numbers of European counties).

U.S. drug prohibition gives long prison sentences for repeated possession, use, and small-scale distribution of forbidden drugs. Many U.S. drug laws explicitly remove sentencing discretion from judges and do not allow for probation or parole. In the U.S. in the 1980s, the Reagan and Bush administrations substantially increased criminal penalties for drug possession and launched an expensive "War on Drugs." The U.S. now has nearly half a million men and women in prison for violating its drug laws. Most are poor people of color and are imprisoned for possessing an illicit drug or "intending" to sell small amounts of it. The mandatory federal penalty for possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine, for a first offense, is 5 years in prison with no parole (Reinarman and Levine, 1997; Duke and Gross, 1993; Gray, 1998 and McWilliams, 1992
cont'd

The harm reduction movement within drug prohibition

The harm reduction movement was born in the early 1980s as a pragmatic, remarkably effective response to the spreading hepatitis and AIDS epidemics. Since then, harm-reduction workers and activists in Europe and increasingly throughout the world have sought to provide drug users and addicts with a range of services aimed at reducing the harmful effects of drug use. In the United States, conservative pundits and even liberal journalists have accused harm-reduction advocates of being “drug legalizers” in disguise, but in most other countries many prominent politicians, public-health professionals, and police officials who are strong defenders of drug prohibition also have supported harm-reduction programs as practical public-health policies (Heather et al. 1993). Even the UN agencies that supervise worldwide drug prohibition have come to recognize the public-health benefits of harm-reduction services within current drug prohibition regimes (INCB 2000: 59–60).
cont'd

The growing opposition to punitive drug policies

In many countries increasing numbers of people––physicians, lawyers, judges, police, journalists, scientists, public health officials, teachers, religious leaders, social workers, drug users and drug addicts––now openly criticize the more extreme, punitive, and criminalized forms of drug prohibition. These critics, from across the political spectrum, have pointed out that punitive drug policies are expensive, ineffective at reducing drug abuse, take scarce resources away from other public health and policing activities, and are often racially and ethnically discriminatory. Criminalized drug prohibition violates civil liberties, imprisons many nonviolent offenders, and worsens health problems like the AIDS and hepatitis epidemics. Harm reduction is a major part of the critical opposition to punitive drug policies. Indeed, harm reduction is the first popular, international movement to develop within drug prohibition to openly challenge drug demonization and the more criminalized forms of drug prohibition (Reinarman and Levine, 1997, Levine 2002, 2003).

The cannabis crisis

Global drug prohibition's most glaring weakness and greatest vulnerability is cannabis. As UN experts point out, cannabis is by far the most widely used illegal drug in the world. Cannabis grows wild throughout the world, and is commercially cultivated in remote areas, in backyard gardens, and in technologically sophisticated indoor growing operations. Just as it was impossible for prohibitionists to prevent alcohol from being produced and used in the U.S. in the 1920s, so too it is now impossible to prevent cannabis from being produced and widely used, especially in democratic countries. As a result of this enormous and unstoppable production and use, global cannabis prohibition faces a growing crisis of legitimacy (Zimmer, 1997).

The end of global drug prohibition?

Global drug prohibition is in crisis. The fact that it is becoming visible is one symptom of that crisis. In the short run, that crisis seems almost certain to deepen, especially for cannabis prohibition and the more punitive and criminalized drug policies. Over the next century, for a variety of practical and ideological reasons––especially the spread of democracy, information and trade––democratic governments in Europe and elsewhere are likely to transform and eventually dismantle world-wide drug prohibition.

If and when this happens, it would not mean the end of all local or national drug prohibition. Rather, ending global drug prohibition, like ending constitutional alcohol prohibition in the US, would clear the path for hundreds of local experiments in drug policy. Many communities and some nations would likely retain forms of drug prohibition and continue to support vigorous anti-drug crusades. But most democratic and open societies probably would not choose to retain full-scale criminalized drug prohibition. Over time democratic societies could gradually develop their own varied local forms of regulated personal cultivation, production, and use of the once prohibited plants and substances. Many places could also allow some forms of commercial growing, production, and sale––first of all of cannabis. cont'd

 

[David762]

Cannabis is already reclassified Schedule 3 ...

Cannabis is already reclassified Schedule 3 ...

How would you like it if this latest proposition had passed and you grew 101 plants thinking you were safe, then signed the federal tax doc's admitting that you have broken a Class 1 narcotics law. They'd give you 10 years minimum for being stupid and another 5 for the grow. First things first, get the classification law changed from a Class 1 narcotic to a Class 3, your representatives can do this, they will listen to constituents if you scream enough. It would be nation wide, cops wouldn't waste their time if they couldn't confiscate.

Cannabis is already reclassified Schedule 3 ... by the DEA and not Congress, but solely for the benefit of Big Pharma. If the cannabis extract is not obtained through a Big Pharma prescription, then it "must" be contraband. The plant itself is still Schedule 1, because the DEA has always considered the plant and smoked marijuana to be a "narcotic". The DEA is conflating the cannabis plant to the poppy plant, which is treated in a similar fashion, and of course is totally unjustified.

It was Congress that passed the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, if you recall your USA history. You were required to buy a Tax Stamp for each ounce of Marihuana, or it was considered illegal contraband. But you couldn't buy the Tax Stamps, and if you tried then you incriminated yourself in an illegal enterprise. Nice bit of convoluted "Catch-22", perfect for the rise of the Police State. Looks like very little has actually changed since the National Bureau of Narcotics became the Drug Enforcement Administration -- furnishing jobs for all those unemployed jack-booted goose-stepping fascists left over from the Prohibition of Alcohol.

I am not so sure that "screaming" at your Representatives in both Houses of Congress will have much positive effect. They know Who pays into their election|reelection campaigns, and it isn't Us. "Our" incumbent politicians have little to fear from the voters turning them out of office -- they covered that issue when they passed the Help America Vote (Our Way) Act of 2002, which made easily hacked electronic voting machines virtually ubiquitous. Just so long as the corporate-owned MSM reports voter polling data that closely tracks the election results, the peons don't have a chance to make real changes at the ballot box.

There is one thing that would disturb "our" politicians enough to make some real changes in re-legalizing cannabis, but I hesitate to mention it here because i don't condone violence. If the level of violence currently seen in Mexico against LEOs, Federal agents, judges, and politicians were to erupt all across the USA, change would eventually come. But first, the Police State would become even more repressive -- something that "our" Congress-critters have already passed the enabling legislation for, evil greedy corrupt fascist fuckers that they are.

 

[TruthOrLie]

By the time that level of violence reached American streets I think the politicians would already have been very corrupted.

Wait.

 

[Madrus Rose]

Anyone wishes to give Wikipedia's treatise on " Controlled Substances Act" a --->full read and ---->Guarantee it is extremely Illuminating !!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act


Especially follow all the hot links in the treatise ....and it all goes back to "Tricky Dick Nixon" and his warped crooked & corrupt cronies. They wanted to empower the police state authority, centralizing it on the Fed level , while forcing MJ into that evil drug status schedule 1 classification , even though the first commission/report to congress recommended that there was no real evidence that it should be treated so . This was to have the power to go after & arrest & prosecute the demonstrators & radicals of that era he percieved as a threat to his maniacal paranoid , unbalanced personality . (he was a drunk too)

Nixon was an impeached criminal , pathological liar & was a disgrace to his country & the office of President... just read the first two opening paragraphs below & not feel outraged what they got away with while he lied repeatedly to the American Public and impeached for it .

"Controlled Substances Act"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

In 1969, President Richard Nixon announced that the Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, was preparing a comprehensive new measure to more effectively meet the narcotic and dangerous drug problems at the federal level by combining all existing federal laws into a single new statute. The CSA did not merely combine existing federal drug laws but changed the nature of federal drug law and policy, expanded the scope of federal drug laws and expanded federal police power enormously.

Part F of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 established the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse—known as the Shafer Commission after its chairman, Raymond P. Shafer—to study marijuana abuse in the United States.[4] During his presentation of the commission's First Report to Congress, Shafer recommended the decriminalization of marijuana in small amounts, saying,

<<<< "[T]he criminal law is too harsh a tool to apply to personal possession even in the effort to discourage use. It implies an overwhelming indictment of the behavior which we believe is not appropriate. The actual and potential harm of use of the drug is not great enough to justify intrusion by the criminal law into private behavior, a step which our society takes only 'with the greatest reluctance." >>>>

 

[Madrus Rose]

Cannabis is already reclassified Schedule 3 ... by the DEA and not Congress, but solely for the benefit of Big Pharma.

Both Cannabis & Hemp are still classified by the Feds as CSA Schedule 1 david if you do the simplest search & research ....maybe in the case of Marinol you may be thinking off, but your statement is completely incorrect .

In the Case of the original 1961 United Nations International "Single Convention of Narcotic Drugs" which preceded the DOJ's creation of the DEA by a decade , Cannabis was thrown into the Schedule IV classification by International agreement under pressure from the United States which is the equivilient of Schedule I in the Feds Class I schedule that remains today in both cases . If you read that link in the earlier post fully for the United Nations International Treaties on Narcotic drugs you would know this .

Now if you care to get the full true picture of where it stands today with the Dept of Health & Human Services, FDA & the DEA you can refer to this link here on the efforts for the removal of Cannabis (& hemp) from DEA Schedule I & the UN's schedule IV which to this day have failed for very clear reasons .

History & facts of

"Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule

If an international treaty, ratified by the U.S., mandates that a drug be controlled, the Attorney General is required to "issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations" without regard to scientific or medical findings.[15] Under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, cannabis and cannabis resin are classified under Schedule IV, that treaty's most strictly controlled category of drugs.[16] However, Article 4(c) of the Single Convention specifically excludes medicinal drug use from prohibition, requiring only that Parties "limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs".[16] On the other hand, Article 2(5)(b) states that for Schedule IV drugs:

* A little more than your consiracy theories of big Pharma , think you should review this one paragraph from the above , though that link has one of the more complete histories & facts on this subject than most care to take the time to read ...note the first sentence & now you have a clue . It involves pursuing international treaty which gives the DEA & Attorney General all power to ignore any medical findings & schedule anything as it fits their agendas .

 

[Rednick]

None of this shit would be going on had Prop 19 passed just saying.

Your Sweettooth must be some good shit.
Prop 19 would have made it worse...A whole new unit would be designated 'Cali Recreational Enforcement'.
Remember the Feds stated that if Cali passed Recreational that they would disregard that. A lot more dumbasses would be opening up shop, just ripe for the pickins!

The storm hasn't hit Colo yet, but I'm sure it will. Every week cities and counties are shutting down dispensaries for various reasons (usually some quasi-legal bullshit on the part of the city/county)...
It is only a matter of time before the stragglers are honed in on by the wolves.
Just good for us, out in Cali there are plenty of fuck-ups, and they ain't quitting anytime soon.

 

[Rednick]

You are probably right that DEA making raids cordinate with federal prosecutors. However most of the busts injuring this community are state level charges.

Yeah, but he said DA.
Federal prosecutors don't give a fuck what the DA thinks. They tell the DA what to think.
Chain of command people.
DAs want to become Federal Prosecutors/Judges, not the other way around.

 

[Rednick]

You are missing the fact that prop 19 would of forbid local authorities from working with the Feds. Raids, in theory, would of come to a screatching halt.

In theory, Communism works.

Come to Colorado. See how you feel about the passing of bad regulation, just for the sake of regulation.

A lot of people that gave away their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS to Amendment 20, so they could play ball with the State, are now shitting their pants when the State says, "Oh, you forgot to dot an I, we can't accept your application. And don't go underground, we know who you are, we have: three years tax filings, SSN, bank account #s, fingerprints, fucking everything short of blood we took."

It has been soo good for soo long in Cali, now you are all crying foul when the boat gets rocked by the Feds and blaming those in your State who would not get down on their knees and kiss the Royal Pinky.

 

[Rednick]

Maybe Mom and Pop's were worried their bud wouldn't be as good as WalMarts?

Maybe 'Mom and Pops' don't have as good a job as JJ 'cept selling weed?
Not everyone can afford to run a micro-cab.
'Specially not in Cali!

 

[jd4083]

Get the hell outta here.....you mean that pot is still federally illegal? Why didn't anybody tell me this?

 

[Madrus Rose]

Get the hell outta here.....you mean that pot is still federally illegal? Why didn't anybody tell me this?

lol...

Well , just couldn't let his statement of Cannabis being reclassified as schedule III go unchallenged & then go on with that long post of conspiracy theories of Big Pharma when his first premise is wrong .

What people fail to realize but made clear in my last post is even 10yrs before the creation of the DEA by the DOJ under the Nixon era crooks .... the US had already entered into the UN International Narcotics Treaty agreements for drug classifications & controls that the DEA only followed & mirrored in scheduling Cannabis (and Hemp) as dangerous addictive narcotic drugs . It was pressure by the US then that made the UN put Cannabis on the dangerous narcotics list and again later by the impeached President Nixon & his crooked administration.

In the paragraph cited it clearly expresses why any challenges so far to de-classify Cannabis have gained support even by some DEA officials & judges themselves but the bigger picture is that the Attorney General & the DEA underneath it all retained this severe classification by right of International Treaty obligation & their desire to pursue this on that level . It states clearly they have the power to maintain this current stance regardless of any medical evidence presented to prove medical benefit or disprove retarded claims of MJ being an inordinately dangerous addictive substance with high potential for abuse . That would take away their power to intervene on an international level & pursue as they see fit their WAR ON DRUGS ...which they dont even seem to be winning .

 

[decarboxylator]

Why do these places keep large money and product around there? Why not use a double hand off random delivery of a few quarter ounces as needed every hour or so? How about a money pickup several times a day.Keep the grow hidden and secret. Keep just enough product to do business as needed. Not making good sense security wise IMHO...

that is ridiculous. you've obviously never been to a dispensary.

They keep large money on hand to pay vendors.

They keep needed amounts of inventory on hand and no more. They know the fed can steal inventory anyday at any time.

Money pickup, they do that once a day or more, but the inventory far surpasses the amount of cash on hand at any time.

They keep just enough business to stay open. You do know the big dispensaries sell over 25 grand per day, an 1/8 and a brownie at a time.

You should check out a dispensary, it's like any store, they need variety and consistency. Dispensaries aren't dudes on the corner with some 1/8s of one kind of bud...

 

[decarboxylator]

Cannabis is already reclassified Schedule 3 ... by the DEA and not Congress, but solely for the benefit of Big Pharma.

Agreed if you replace Cannabis with Cannabinoids. Actual Cannabis is still schedule 1

 

[decarboxylator]

Up your game, grow good bud and you'd never have to worry about WallyWeed......

The same was said of small town America and mom-n-pop retail shops across the nation. This has clearly proved to be false.

 

[Rednick]

It is okay Decarb.
BrnCow is still used to selling dimebags on the corner to school children...Hasn't yet learned that the real money is selling to professional adults.

"See boy, the real money is in bootlegging, not your childish vandalism", Homer Simpson.
"Oh, so many wasted nights", Bart Simpson.

 

[Rednick]

The same was said of small town America and mom-n-pop retail shops across the nation. This has clearly proved to be false.

Again, Decarb, don't let them get to you like they do me.
JJ has already stated in his posts that he has a good paying job out in NY and so really doesn't give a fuck about the people who support their families with MMJ.
He just cares about Cali passing legalization so that he can sleep better at night about his micro-cab.

 

[decarboxylator]

It is okay Decarb.
BrnCow is still used to selling dimebags on the corner to school children...Hasn't yet learned that the real money is selling to professional adults.

"See boy, the real money is in bootlegging, not your childish vandalism", Homer Simpson.
"Oh, so many wasted nights", Bart Simpson.

(8(l) D'oh! bootlegging ey...?

 

[Madrus Rose]

After a two years of hearings back in the Mid 1980's even the DEA's own Chief Administrative Law Judge recommended that Cannabis be rescheduled and he :

declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man

The DOJ/DEA have no intention admitting there's health benefits or lack of reason for decrimializing Cannabis.... if it means limiting their ability to wage War & hampers any investigations they choose on an international scale .
Period ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act


In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6, 1988, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II".[27]

Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against re-scheduling cannabis based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992. This statement was quoted by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in its membership drives.[28]