2 Answers

• Reputation: 22 Q&A: 1 0 0 3 1 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Follow Following 0

  1 0 Educate the masses as to how it can be used medicinally, prove to people who don't have a clue that it does create a better quality of life for some. Not everyone, some. Alot of people still think that it's all a bunch of recreational users making an excuse. Show them how it does have medicinal purposes, then show them the definition that describes qwite the opposite of a schedule 1 drug....then let them decide for themselves. Truth shall prevail.......... Axle Foley answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question New comments are not being accepted at this time.

  Share this answer with a friend:

• Reputation: 68 Q&A: 2 0 0 29 1 0 Classifieds: 0 0 what's this? Expert: 2 topics 420: The Straight Dope About Pot Weed Week Follow Following 0 Alison Holcomb

  0 0 The answer depends on whether you think whole-plant cannabis should continue to be treated as a controlled substance, like prescription medications, or instead primarily as an herb that has both medicinal and intoxicant uses.  If the latter, there's no reason to reschedule it - you could remove it from the federal Controlled Substances Act altogether and place it under different regulatory controls, perhaps like legal intoxicants or herbal remedies. The legal mechanics of rescheduling (to, say, Schedule II, III, or IV), and the U.S. history of attempts, are covered pretty well here.  Politically, one would want to continue to build the science base around the medical benefits and actual (versus imagined or exaggerated) potential for harm, which the federal government has made extremely difficult through its stifling of research into the therapeutic uses of cannabis. Removing whole-plant cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act altogether ultimately has to happen at both the federal and international level (due to treaty obligations), but needs to start with the states.  Congress is not likely to move until states push them to do so. To move the states, you have to move the people - and not just the people who are already with you.  Sen. Jeanne Kohl-Welles's introduction of SB 5615 and Rep. Dave Upthegrove's introduction of HB 1177 in the Washington state legislature in 2009; Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson's introduction of HB 2401 in 2010; and Rep. Dickerson's introduction of HB 1550 in 2011 all provide great examples of how to move a state's conversation around cannabis law reform from the choir to the mainstream: see Exhibit A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H.  Creating a space for dialogue that is free of both the Reefer Madness and Cheech & Chong stereotypes allows us to engage a broader audience in a serious discussion about whether a new approach to cannabis - one based on a public health model rather than prohibition and criminalization - might serve our communities better. Once you've engaged people in talking about the possibility of a new approach, you can start to hammer out the details of what that new approach might look like.  And then you can ask them to vote it into law. The proposal might meet a court challenge, but until a state's legislature or voters demonstrate the political will to try something new, Congress will not be moved to change federal law to allow the experiment to proceed. Alison Holcomb answered in Weed Week about 1 year ago | Report Comment on this answer Enter your comment or ask a new question New comments are not being accepted at this time.

  Share this answer with a friend: