This message was self-deleted by its author

[RainDog]

100. rescheduling would not completely decriminalize

morphine and cocaine are schedule II, not I. Heroin and cannabis are considered equally harmful according to our govt - which is insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act

Activists have worked to reschedule - this is the incrementalism of pragmatists who recognize that changes are most often made in steps - as in the mmj laws in CA in 1996 to the current total legalization activism - and, fwiw - this has worked within the framework of draconian law - Ahnuld decriminalized all mj in CA just before the 2010 legalization vote. I doubt that would've happened if not for the push for legalization - so these are the sorts of "small" victories along the way that change bad policy. If the legalization initiative had passed, the decriminalization would've been 'meh' - but since it didn't, the law took another step toward sanity.

The prop. failed 54 to 46. None of the national-level democrats supported it. Some people didn't like *that particular* proposition and wanted a better one. Some growers wanted to maintain the price for their product and started a big campaign against the Prop. among the MMJ community. iow, those coming down as for or against that particular Prop were not aligned according to the black and white breakdowns of the "usual suspects" for certain issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Substances_Act

...a report published in The Lancet Journal, researchers have introduced an alternative method for drug classification in the UK. This new system uses a “nine category matrix of harm, with an expert Delphic procedure, to assess the harms of a range of illicit drugs in an evidence-based fashion.” The new classification system suggested that alcohol and tobacco were in the mid-range of harm, while cannabis, lysergic acid diethylamide ("LSD&quot and MDMA ("Ecstacy&quot were all less harmful than the two legal drugs.

this would make more sense b/c the reality is that alcohol is more dangerous than cannabis.

if cannabis were REMOVED from the drug schedules, that would be the equivalent of decriminalizing in the same way that alcohol is not on the drug schedules. But that's not what activists have tried to do. They have worked to change the scheduling - the "small step" that eventually changes bad law.

If the DEA held rescheduling hearings - and, honestly, I don't see how they can avoid this in the next 2 years b/c of the applications from governors and the Sativex issue, this would be a process, not a "VOILA!" moment. Our govt would hold hearings and compile evidence from experts. So, the small step of signaling a desire for hearings would not immediately result in rescheduling for at least another couple of years.

this link talks about the process -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117069