It's really indisputable. If it were about freedom and liberty, the potential risks of fentanyl would not be a factor, because freedom is scary and dangerous.Repeating a specious argument doesn't make it any truer.
Nothing has been shown that supports the idea pot is better or unique in it's capabilities as a prescription medicine.That statement in its absolute phrasing is simply incorrect.
What is certainly correct is that there is very little data to support the claims of wide ranging benefits that got the medical marijuana scam passed in so many states.
And, you can literally drink sufficient water to die. It's not about the potential harm - at least not in accordance with the definitions of the Schedules.Again, how hard is this to understand ? The physical harm from MJ if all the criminal justice issues are removed is quite limited and certainly not worse than alcohol and nicotine. You can drink yourself to death, its near impossible to kill yourself using the pharmacologic compound in MJ. There have been people who have come to grief after extremely high doses, but that's the 'I believe I can fly' stuff you see with alcohol every day. Yes, there is a single digit percentage risk of suffering a psychotic episode after high doses of THC, but that's not on par with the risk of death from fentanyl or predictable cardiac damage from stimulants.
And, you can kill yourself with a car, or a knife, or a big tall tree and a short piece of rope (according to CDB). The Schedule definitions:
As you can see, the "danger" consideration is only provided for Schedule II. This is why I suggest that - while pot is very technically accurately put in Schedule I, based on the definitions - pot would just as easily be put in Schedule III. This would still not be OTC drugs, recreational use, etc.DEA said:Schedule I
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are:
heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote
Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are:
Combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin
Schedule III drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence. Schedule III drugs abuse potential is less than Schedule I and Schedule II drugs but more than Schedule IV. Some examples of Schedule III drugs are:
Products containing less than 90 milligrams of codeine per dosage unit (Tylenol with codeine), ketamine, anabolic steroids, testosterone
Schedule IV drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a low potential for abuse and low risk of dependence. Some examples of Schedule IV drugs are:
Xanax, Soma, Darvon, Darvocet, Valium, Ativan, Talwin, Ambien, Tramadol
Schedule V drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with lower potential for abuse than Schedule IV and consist of preparations containing limited quantities of certain narcotics. Schedule V drugs are generally used for antidiarrheal, antitussive, and analgesic purposes. Some examples of Schedule V drugs are:
cough preparations with less than 200 milligrams of codeine or per 100 milliliters (Robitussin AC), Lomotil, Motofen, Lyrica, Parepectolin
If one is about Freedom and Liberty, one wants every bit of this schedule-definition to go away. If one believes the government has a reasonable role in restricting the use of the drugs by having such a schedule system, then one is no longer about Freedom and Liberty, but merely negotiating how much of that freedom and liberty we are willing to give up.
This is NOT the same thing as saying a four-year-old should not have ready access to a Glock. That is absolutely true. The question is, who should regulate the four-year-old's access to the Glock? Should it be the parents, or the county sheriff, or the state legislature, or people like AOC in the national legislature? If you love Freedom and Liberty, you choose the former. If you are fine with governmental controls over your right to keep and bear arms, it's up to the latter categories.
Personally, I am fine with the Schedule definitions for drugs, because we have already given the government control over our entire incomes and simply thank them when they exercise less of it instead of control over more of it. In doing so, we have allowed the government to take our wealth and disperse it to whomever they choose, including those unwilling to work or those who incapacitate themselves with drugs and injure themselves or others - and we take care of those medical bills as well. So, limiting who gets what is fine with me as a part of limiting how much control over my wealth the government takes.
I am less inclined to willingly accept the control over my weapons, but that is a different subject altogether.