{"componentChunkName":"component---common-build-tags-template-js","path":"/tag/schedule-1/","result":{"data":{"allArticle":{"edges":[{"node":{"id":"Article_2726-markdown","title":"World Health Organization Opens the Door to Cannabis Law Reforms","slug":"world-health-organization-opens-the-door-to-cannabis-law-reforms","content":"A World Health Organization (WHO) committee met earlier this month to go over a pre-review of the research it’s done on cannabis. This pre-review, which deems marijuana a “relatively safe drug” and includes a number of studies pointing to the plant’s beneficial effects, could ultimately bring about cannabis law reform all around the world. The WHO, which is made up of 194 member countries including the U.S., works within the United Nations framework to “achieve better health for everyone, everywhere”—meaning, it can and does influence the legal classification of various drugs by its member countries.\n\nFOLLOW US ON [FACEBOOK](https://www.facebook.com/pg/hellomdcompany/posts/) & [INSTAGRAM](https://www.instagram.com/hellomd_com/?hl=en)\n\nPrior to the WHO meeting, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked the general public to weigh in on whether marijuana should remain a [Schedule 1 drug](https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml) on par with LSD and heroin—as designated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency. The FDA received over 17,000 comments, the majority of which favored an end to cannabis prohibition. These comments were submitted to the WHO’s Expert Committee on Drug Dependence (ECDD), the group conducting the formal review on cannabis’s safety and medical value.\n\n### The WHO Highlights Cannabis’s Beneficial Effects With Certain Conditions\n\nThe ECDD reaffirmed its preliminary findings, released back in December 2017, with a critical review that states cannabidiol (CBD) has no negative health-related problems associated with its consumption. Rather, it concludes, “[CBD is generally well tolerated with a good safety profile](http://www.who.int/medicines/access/controlled-substances/WHOCBDReportMay2018-2.pdf?ua=1),” and no potential for abuse or dependency.\n\nMeanwhile, the committee’s pre-review included a look at current research on cannabis and cannabis resin, extracts and tinctures, tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and THC isomers. When it comes to the therapeutic use of marijuana for specific conditions, here’s some of what the committee found:\n\n* **Appetite stimulation in HIV/AIDS infection:** “Dronabinol and smoked cannabis led to significantly greater weight gain. … Both dronabinol and smoked cannabis … did not adversely affect viral load.”\n* **Chronic pain:** “Many randomized, controlled clinical trials have shown cannabis to be an effective analgesic. … [However,] no randomized, placebo-controlled trials of cannabis for treatment of chronic pain have been published.”\n* **Crohn’s disease:** In the only randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the use of smoked cannabis for patients with Crohn disease, … the cannabis smokers group had a significant response on the Crohn Disease Activity Index.”\n* **Dementia:** “Cannabis oil containing THC as an add-on pharmacotherapy for dementia produced a significant reduction in clinical global impression (CGI) and neuropsychiatric inventory (NPI) scores.”\n* **Diabetic neuropathy:** “Inhaled cannabis was found to be associated with a dose-dependent reduction in pain associated with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.”\n* **Migraine and cluster headaches:** “Acute administration of cannabis as abortive therapy decreased attack pain from both migraines and cluster headaches [in participants with a history of childhood migraine].”\n* **Nausea and vomiting due to chemotherapy:** “[Six] studies [of oral THC capsules] suggested a greater benefit of cannabinoids versus both placebo and active comparators, but these benefits did not reach statistical significance in all studies.” \n* **Parkinson’s disease:** “In an open-label, uncontrolled, observational study of smoked or vaporized cannabis …, cannabis significantly decreased motor disability and pain scores.”\n* **Sleep disorder:** “While many patients report that cannabis improves their sleep due to its propensity to reduce sleep latency, cannabis has also been shown to reduce REM sleep. … Therefore, the quality of sleep achieved with cannabis may be poor.”\n* **Tourette syndrome:** “In two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials …, dronabinol produced either significant improvement in tics or a trend toward such improvement, as well as a significant improvement in obsessive-compulsive behavior.”\n\n### Cannabis Isn’t Good for Everyone, Though More Research Is Needed \n\nThe ECDD concluded that randomized, controlled studies were scarce or non-existent for a number of other ailments such as autism and opioid withdrawal, making it impossible for the committee to review marijuana’s effectiveness in treating quite a few conditions. \n\nThough the committee found that “cannabis is not associated with acute fatal overdoses,” it did highlight potential adverse effects as follows:\n\n* Smoking cannabis was reported to raise testicular cancer risk two-and-a-half times the norm.\n* Cannabis consumers gave birth to babies who weighed on average of 109 g less than [that of] moms who didn’t consume marijuana. \n* Cognitive issues included short-term memory loss, impaired judgment, and reduced motor coordination.\n\n### A Final Recommendation From the WHO Will Go to the UN Secretary General\n\nThat said, the positives appear to outweigh the negatives in the ECDD critical review as well as its pre-reviews. A more extensive review will take place, and any new scientific data discovered will get rolled into a final recommendation presented to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.\n\nAs Portugal’s prime minister, Guterres led the country in decriminalizing all drugs, including marijuana. So, it’s safe to assume that he’d look positively on a change to international cannabis laws, one that might remove marijuana from Schedules I and IV of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs—an international treaty meant to block the production and supply of illicit drugs.\n\nWere this to happen, it could then open the door for the UN’s participating countries to reform their own cannabis laws, making the plant more accessible for both research and consumption purposes. \n\nAs Jahan Marcu, chief science officer of Americans for Safe Access, explained it to [_Weed News_](https://www.weednews.co/the-world-health-organization-takes-first-steps-to-reschedule-marijuana/), “The reports posted by WHO are supportive of nations considering rescheduling or de-scheduling CBD, pure-THC, cannabis and cannabis extracts.\n\n“Hopefully, the work of the WHO will allow international leaders to expand access with policy recommendations and changes with reports showing that the public health risk of cannabis and its extracts are minimal.”\n\nPhoto credit: [Xiquinho Silva](https://www.flickr.com/photos/xiquinho/)\n\nIf you’re new to cannabis and want to learn more, take a look at our Cannabis 101 post. [HelloMD](https://hellomd.com/) can help you get your medical marijuana recommendation; it's easy, private and 100% online.","image":{"childImageSharp":{"fluid":{"base64":"","aspectRatio":1.3605442176870748,"src":"/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/14b42/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.jpg","srcSet":"/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/f836f/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.jpg 200w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/2244e/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.jpg 400w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/14b42/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.jpg 800w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/47498/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.jpg 1200w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/0e329/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.jpg 1600w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/4d692/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.jpg 1631w","srcWebp":"/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/58556/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.webp","srcSetWebp":"/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/61e93/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.webp 200w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/1f5c5/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.webp 400w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/58556/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.webp 800w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/99238/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.webp 1200w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/7c22d/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.webp 1600w,\n/static/eee13ae5b9201f40b0f457d06a79912f/57ec4/3b9422ff3aac77d73eac874391a3b465.webp 1631w","sizes":"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px"}}}}},{"node":{"id":"Article_2160-markdown","title":"Have We Come Too Far Too Soon?","slug":"have-we-come-too-far-too-soon","content":"I have never been a fan of states getting [too far ahead](https://www.hellomd.com/health-wellness/580e6623b3a976000a79dfa9/why-i-am-voting-no-on-prop-64) of the federal government on drug policy. \n\nYes, I want to push the legalization agenda forward and I believe all drugs (not just cannabis) should be legal. However, we live in a country with both state and federal laws, and federal agencies like the DEA have significant power over citizens everywhere.\n\nWith President Obama in office, and the expectation that President Hillary Clinton would be next, it was frustrating that the feds had not moved the ball forward on cannabis, but not too much of an issue since the states seemed to be doing their part. The [Cole]( https://www.justice.gov/iso/opa/resources/3052013829132756857467.pdf) and [Ogden]( https://www.justice.gov/opa/blog/memorandum-selected-united-state-attorneys-investigations-and-prosecutions-states) memos gave cannabis entrepreneurs some comfort that they at least would not be arrested (assuming they were following all local laws). That said, there were still exceptions to this with people getting [harassed by the DEA]( https://www.newcannabisventures.com/dea-and-local-law-enforcement-raid-care-by-design-cannabis-company/), sometimes seemingly without good cause or reason.\n\nMoreover, it did appear that at least on medical cannabis, there was a growing [sense of acknowledgement]( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/08/11/what-congress-is-saying-about-the-deas-refusal-to-change-course-on-pot/) by members of congress, the [medical establishment]( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/15/more-and-more-doctors-want-to-make-marijuana-legal/) and others of the plant's medicinal benefits. This summer the DEA even [considered]( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/dea-considers-dropping-marijuana-dangerous-group-article-1.2591306) rescheduling cannabis from its ludicrous classification as a Schedule I drug, which states there are no benefits at all, medicinal or otherwise. Unfortunately, that [did not happen]( http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article94999837.html).\n\n[Proposition 64](https://www.hellomd.com/health-wellness/58099f9b6b40a8000bf0584e/about-prop-64-what-you-should-know) was passed with strong support from California voters, choosing to make it legal for anybody over the age of 21 to consume cannabis for recreational purposes. This brings the total to eight states that now have recreational cannabis laws passed, if not yet implemented. \n\n### How Things Have Changed\n\nIn just a few short weeks, the world looks very different as we sit in California looking east to Washington DC, wondering what might be coming our way.\n\nPresident Elect Trump, has stated that he [supports medical cannabis]( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/29/trump-wants-marijuana-legalization-decided-at-the-state-level/) and believes it’s an issue for the states to decide, but his nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions has many in the industry reeling. The Senator’s opinion on cannabis seems more in line with that of the late Nancy Reagan than Mr. Trumps. He considers cannabis a gateway drug (which has widely been refuted now), and has [stated]( https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-good-people-dont-smoke-marijuana/) as recently as April 2016 that “good people don’t smoke marijuana.”.\n\nWithout being alarmist before Mr. Trump has even taken office, it’s important to understand that - assuming his nomination is confirmed - Senator Sessions, as the country’s most senior law enforcement official will oversee the considerable resources of the DEA and have federal law on his side. If he were to follow his instincts, with nothing more than a simple instruction the DEA could begin arresting people across the nation at will and dragging them into federal court. This includes growers, retailers, delivery services, technology companies and anyone else involved in supporting the industry. Even investors, lawyers and accountants could be charged with aiding and abetting the illegal distribution and sale of a Schedule I controlled substance, in some cases putting their professional licenses at risk. \n\n### How Likely is This to Happen?\n\nThe frustrating answer to this is, nobody has any idea at the moment. All we have to go on is what these two gentlemen have stated publicly.  Since Mr. Trump will be President, one would hope that his opinions on medical and states’ rights would determine policy, and he does appear to be somewhat of an autocratic leader. Additionally, there are a lot of policy proposals he must deliver on, and cracking down on the cannabis industry would not seem to be one of them. So perhaps Trump and his Attorney General will be too busy with things like illegal immigration to spend any time on cannabis in the imminent future, at least for a time. \n\nOn the other hand, it’s not like the law needs to change, or resources appropriated to initiate a crackdown. The DEA makes it their business to go after drug offenders and I suspect that the ‘hands off’ approach of the Obama administration has been a period of frustration for them in this regard.\n\n### Medical vs. Recreational\n\nIf there is a compromise to be found between state lawmakers and the federal government, it’s likely in the distinction between medicinal and recreational use. While one can argue whether [all use is medicinal]( http://thefreethoughtproject.com/war-weed-quicker-realize-all-cannabis-medicinal/) (as some do), where states have passed specific laws billed as ‘recreational use’ it’s a distinction like to fall on deaf ears at the federal level. \n\n![](https://hellomd-production.s3.amazonaws.com/articles/5835e3743b6fb90008d8e5ab/embedded_images/5835e4dc74b2ca00084f3224/Screen_Shot_2016-11-23_at_10.48.29_AM.png)\n Senator Sessions is unlikely to like this guy.\n\nMore to the point, resistance is unlikely to be through the courts (since it's already illegal) but more likely to come from the DEA arresting people. One would assume that that the first targets on the list to be charged would be those oriented around recreational use rather than medicinal (nothing more than an assumption). At least in California we have 20 years of medicinal history to point to, whereas recreational cannabis has yet to be implemented.  \n\nStates with strong medical programs, product manufacturers with medically oriented positioning, and retailers focused on the needs of legitimate medical patients are likely in a better position than those clearly oriented to the needs of recreational users.\n\n![](https://hellomd-production.s3.amazonaws.com/articles/5835e3743b6fb90008d8e5ab/embedded_images/5835e6d674b2ca000c4c20f9/Screen_Shot_2016-11-23_at_10.57.20_AM.png)\nA less offensive image for those at the DEA\n\nI would like to emphasize that this is nothing more than an assumption, since both medical and recreational use of cannabis are equally illegal in the eyes of the federal government. There is so much uncertainty now, it’s very difficult to predict what will transpire over the next four years. \n\nOthers may disagree, but my advice for those in the cannabis industry, is to consider taking a small pause on any plans for recreational cannabis use, allow the new administration to take office and see how things look after the first quarter of 2017. If there is no change in federal policy, there will be time before January 2018 (when California’s law takes effect) to deliver on plans for a recreational market. If on the other hand it becomes clear that the DEA is going to start reasserting itself, I would not want to be one of the most visible, recreational cannabis vendors for the DEA to make an example of. \n","image":{"childImageSharp":{"fluid":{"base64":"","aspectRatio":1.5151515151515151,"src":"/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/ee604/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.png","srcSet":"/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/69585/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.png 200w,\n/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/497c6/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.png 400w,\n/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/ee604/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.png 800w,\n/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/6c104/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.png 1167w","srcWebp":"/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/58556/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.webp","srcSetWebp":"/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/61e93/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.webp 200w,\n/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/1f5c5/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.webp 400w,\n/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/58556/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.webp 800w,\n/static/e35a87614b537078d1e5cf5a99c1677a/be444/f7f07e6199392c8a659d010f8cc6b95e.webp 1167w","sizes":"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px"}}}}},{"node":{"id":"Article_2223-markdown","title":"Why I am voting NO on Prop 64","slug":"why-i-am-voting-no-on-prop-64","content":"Prop 64 sounds great, right? Let’s legalize marijuana for everyone. \r\n\r\nI have been advocating this position my entire life. The drug war has been a miserable failure and has cost our society billions of dollars, ruined countless lives through incarceration and violence, and created an entire criminal underworld built on the lucrative commerce of illegal drugs. \r\n\r\nOn the other hand, a legal drug market - not just cannabis, but all drugs - would destroy the cartels, improve the quality of drugs used by addicts (and thus the safety of the same) and generate tax revenues that could be put to good social projects (like schools). At the end of the day, I believe that people that want to use drugs will do so, regardless of their legal status. Better to let them do so under safer conditions, with education rather than creating criminal addicts and everything else we see happening with this misguided drug war.\r\n\r\nBefore we talk about change, and get mired down into the complexities of legislative language, let’s take a moment to reflect on how things stand now for the lucky people of California.\r\n\r\n### California Under Proposition 215 \r\n\r\nSince 1996 California has been operating under the rules of Proposition 215, a system that continues to thrive.\r\n\r\n•\tMarijuana is readily and widely available at affordable prices. San Francisco alone has more than 100 dispensaries. They are on almost every block. Additionally, you can get product delivered right to your door within an hour, or sent by courier statewide within a day of your purchase. Those are Amazon-like service levels. \r\n\r\n•\tFarmers and others are able to grow, distribute and generate profits without significant risk (despite the Schedule 1 classification, meaning that regardless of state law, cannabis remains illegal as far as the federal government is concerned). Occasionally they may be visited by law enforcement, but my understanding is that this is almost always the result of a complaint by neighbors due to some obnoxious condition on the grower’s property. \r\n\r\n•\tEntrepreneurs of every description are entering the market, creating innovative new products and marketing them openly through dispensaries, at trade shows, events and online. Those with good business skills are outshining their competitors with better service, quality products, marketing and education. Cannabis is one of the most innovative and fastest growing industries around, and its creating employment for thousands. \r\n\r\n•\tPatients can easily connect with doctors that are open-minded about the use of cannabis for most medical issues. Becoming a legal medical marijuana patient costs around $49 (per year) from HelloMD and others, and includes the advice of a doctor on the use of cannabis for your health & wellness. There is no need to register your information with the state, your health insurance company or your employer. Your information is confidential and protected by HIPAA laws.\r\n\r\n\r\nSo why would I vote no on 64? Let’s take a look at the Proposition.\r\n\r\nIf you wanted to legalize recreational marijuana, you could do it with legislation of a few pages. The first hint of a more muscular agenda afoot is the length of the [actual proposition]( https://www.oag.ca.gov/system/files/initiatives/pdfs/15-0103%20%28Marijuana%29_1.pdf?). Over 60 pages of legalese. What could they possibly find to write about? As it turns out, quite a lot. \r\n\r\nIn the words of the actual Proposition: “The purpose of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is to establish a comprehensive system to legalize, control and regulate the cultivation, processing, manufacture, distribution, testing, and sale of non-medical marijuana, including marijuana products, for use by adults 21 years and older, and to tax the commercial growth and retail sale of marijuana.”\r\n\r\nSo not really to ‘Legalize marijuana for recreational use” as most people think Prop 64 is all about.\r\n\r\n### What’s Wrong with Prop 64?\r\n\r\nRather than go through the entire bill and its intent, I am going to highlight the parts that I find most problematic.\r\n\r\n#### Excessive Taxes\r\n \r\nProp 64 imposes a cultivation tax of $9.25 per ounce for flowers, and $2.75 for leaves, along with a 15% tax on the retail price. Moreover, local municipalities are left free to impose their own taxes as well. So if you want to sell marijuana in your local town, they will determine what taxes you need to charge on top of the state tax, which might just eliminate your market. \r\n\r\nWhat will the additional new tax burden be to consumers? It’s hard to tell without the local tax rate information, but I think it’s likely to be at least 29%, which will drive up the price to consumers considerably. Don’t forget that a black market also exists today, and so excessive taxation can have the effect of just perpetuating the existing (untaxed) illegal market. \r\n\r\nHow much of this revenue (estimated to be up to $1 billion annually) would be allocated to public schools and other worthy projects? None of it at all. Instead it goes into a special fund created by Prop 64 itself, the California Marijuana Tax Fund, where much of the money has already been allocated to various interests including the apparatus of managing the industry itself.    \r\n\r\n#### Three Tier Distribution\r\n\r\nProp 64 mandates that all distribution of cannabis from growers to retailers, will now have to pass through the hands of third party (licensed) distributors. [Big alcohol distributors](http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/marijuana-legalization-big-business-alcohol-214198) are already muscling into these incredibly lucrative positions, potentially further driving up the costs by as [much as 30%]( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/marijuana-legalization-big-business-alcohol-214198).\r\n\r\nThis is a big change to the current system. Today if you are a grower, or an edibles manufacturer, you can choose to do business with a distributor, or you can choose to go directly to the retailer yourself. Many deal direct, because they have relationships, like to control their own delivery of product and feel it’s a competitive advantage to their business. Why should the government take this business decision out of the hands of the entrepreneurs?  \r\n\r\nMoreover, these new distributors are going to be in very powerful positions (since they cannot be avoided). They will mark up the cost of product, make a profit of their own and control where and how all cannabis products are distributed. This is the very definition of what is known as ‘big business’ and the end result is never good for consumers, or small business owners. I personally think that markets function best with less government interference.\r\n\r\n#### Destruction of the Existing Medical System\r\n\r\nFor the past 20 years, being a medical marijuana patient in California has been very straightforward. An annual doctor’s consultation was all it took. No need to register with the state, no need for your medical insurance rates to rise, or your employer to find out or discriminate against you because of your choice to medicate. With the introduction of [Telehealth services like HelloMD](https://www.hellomd.com/), this has become even more convenient. That annual doctor’s consult now happens from the privacy of your home, at a time of your choosing.\r\n\r\nRELATED: [ABOUT PROP 64 - WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW](https://www.hellomd.com/health-wellness/about-prop-64-what-you-should-know)\r\n\r\nNot so under Prop 64. Now (if you want to remain a medical cannabis consumer) you will need to register with the state, and (in addition to what you pay your doctor) you will have to pay a $100 state fee. For many, this state registration is problematic in that there is no guarantee that your insurance company or your employer won’t find out about your medicating. Let’s also not forget that you are still committing a federal crime, and so if you work in government or think you might in the future, or you are worried about your citizenship or any other involvement or dealing with the federal government, state registration is really an issue that is going to prevent you from getting a medical card.   \r\n\r\nLet’s not forget too that the DEA is a federal agency. The FEDS have stated their intention not to interfere too much with those in compliance with their state laws, although there is nothing stopping them from doing so. Right now, Californian’s using cannabis have the protection of the medical system on their side. IE: they have doctors that have specifically authorized them to use cannabis for their health, and the protection of Prop 215, passed by the people of California on their side. Under Prop 64, for those that are considered recreational users, there is no such protection from the Feds, moral, medical or otherwise. The federal government is still trying to get its head around the idea of medical marijuana. Recreational cannabis put Californians further out of alignment with where federal policy is today. \r\n\r\nFor those of us that believe in the medical benefits this plant has to offer society, it’s important for the continued progression of the industry from the shadows of stigma, that a strong medical / health & wellness orientation is maintained. If medical cannabis is overwhelmed in the state of California by the momentum of the recreational market, we may never see the adoption of the plant by tens of millions of Americans that do not want to be associated with recreational use, but may benefit in using cannabis for their health & wellness. I am thinking of the 110m Americans with chronic pain, the 60 million that suffer from insomnia, the 76 million with migraines (the list goes on and on). For these everyday Americans to enter the market, they need to see it as an acceptable, mainstream solution to their medical concerns, without the negative association of recreational use and all that it entails. \r\n  \r\n#### Legislators Ability to Interfere\r\n\r\nDo you think you will get what you are voting for? Prop 64 includes a rare provision allowing the legislative body to make alterations to the law after it gets passed. Unlike Prop 215 which can only be changed with another voter approved measure, Prop 64 can have key elements changed by the legislature with a simple majority vote on the sections pertaining to Medical and Adult Use, and just about anything at all can be changed by a two thirds vote of the legislature. This includes tax rates, taxes on medical, the intrusion of big business in the industry, or your rights to grow plants at home.\r\n\r\nIf you think this is unlikely, consider what happened in the state of Washington. Just six months after the first recreational stores opened in Washington, the legislature introduced a measure to end the states 15-year-old medical marijuana program, [close all medical dispensaries](http://weedrush.news21.com/washington-merges-recreational-and-medical-marijuana-to-stop-illegal-sales/) and dramatically limit how much patients could grow at home. This was a deliberate move to force medical patients into the heavily taxed recreational system, where they face a whopping [37% tax on their medication](http://www.thecannabist.co/2015/07/01/washington-state-pot-law-overhaul-marijuana-tax-reset-at-37-percent/37238/), on top of the already inflated price of cannabis. Compare that sorry situation with how things currently look in California under Proposition 215!\r\n\r\n### Are My Concerns Warranted?\r\n\r\nI am not the type of person to worry excessively. I will be the first to admit that a lot of what I have written above pertains to what ‘might happen’ as opposed to what ‘will happen’. Ultimately, a lot of the consequences will be determined by the people and companies involved as the market evolves. These are for the most part at this time, simply unknown.\r\n\r\nThat said, we should not take our rights to use, purchase, grow and possess cannabis as medical patients for granted. The system in place under 215 has served Californian’s very well indeed, and continues to do so today. I personally feel no restriction to access to under the current system, and I am pleased to have the advice and oversight of my doctor in my choice to medicate. Medical cannabis is currently in place in California, is not a broken system and helps people every day. Do we really need to replace it?\r\n\r\nProposition 64 at best introduces a lot of change and uncertainty, and at worst could practically destroy the medical system in California as we know it. With the Feds refusing to reschedule marijuana for the time being, I believe that California would do better to continue with the medical system created by Prop 215 firmly in place, irreplaceable other than through a voter approved initiative. \r\n\r\nWe have a lot on the line here. Let’s not screw this up. \r\n\r\nJoin me in voting NO on Prop 64.\r\n\r\n(Whether you agree or disagree - post a comment below and let me know why)\r\n \r\n","image":{"childImageSharp":{"fluid":{"base64":"","aspectRatio":1.3333333333333333,"src":"/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/14b42/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.jpg","srcSet":"/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/f836f/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.jpg 200w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/2244e/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.jpg 400w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/14b42/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.jpg 800w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/47498/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.jpg 1200w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/54ac5/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.jpg 1365w","srcWebp":"/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/58556/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.webp","srcSetWebp":"/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/61e93/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.webp 200w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/1f5c5/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.webp 400w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/58556/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.webp 800w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/99238/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.webp 1200w,\n/static/aba1debc3397d6275619f4652ac72bd9/5e0b8/cabf9966e0b8574c8c193f6b7beac913.webp 1365w","sizes":"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px"}}}}},{"node":{"id":"Article_2147-markdown","title":"The DEA Drops the Ball","slug":"the-dea-drops-the-ball","content":"The DEA announced this week that marijuana will continue to remain illegal for any purpose. After considering rescheduling marijuana from its current position as a schedule I substance to a schedule II substance, the DEA has decided to keep marijuana where it is. This decision to maintain marijuana’s current position means that the DEA believes that cannabis has absolutely no medicinal use. The DEA cited a lack of scientific studies and no consensus among medical experts for its decision, “at this time, the known risks of marijuana use have not been shown to be outweighed by specific benefits in well-controlled clinical trials that scientifically evaluate safety and efficacy,” [stated](http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/08/11/dea-marijuana-remains-illegal-under-federal-law/88550804/) the report. \r\n\r\n### What are the positives?\r\n\r\nThere are some positives that have come out of this new report by the DEA. The report found no evidence that the use of marijuana leads to abuse of other illicit substances, officially putting an end to the “gateway theory”. Once a rallying cry for anti-marijuana advocates, the DEA has finally discredited the “gateway theory” due to lack of evidentiary support. The report by the DEA was also followed by a series of new rules in the Federal Register to dictate the future of cannabis research. The DEA has officially removed the monopoly on the production of cannabis for research, which was previously held by the University of Mississippi. This new expansion, in theory, allows for more competition in the production of marijuana for study, providing the platform for the growth of higher quality marijuana for use in medical studies. \r\n\r\nThese relaxed growing regulations also come with an expanded ability for marijuana research. The research of marijuana is no longer limited to universities, so private companies can now dive into cannabis research as well. This will allow for even more pilot programs that can hopefully provide the clinically tested evidence that the DEA is looking for.\r\n\r\n### What does it mean for the current industry?\r\n\r\nThere should not be much noticeable change in the current marijuana programs that are run in states that have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. The Ogden memos, put into place by the Obama administration, currently allow for the continuation of state-legalized industries despite the Controlled Substances Act. There could even be some positive aspects from the cannabis industry continuing in its current position, however precarious it is. Alex Halperin reported in Rolling Stone that, “[I]f the federal government determines that medical marijuana must be subjected to FDA approval, companies would have to enter a process that can take years to complete and cost more than $1 billion per product. Few, if any, cannabis companies in the U.S. have the resources for that, which might open the door for Big Pharma to muscle in and take over the business.” Cannabis maintaining its position as a schedule I substance could save the industry a lot of money and allow for the continuation in the diversity of products we see on the market today.\r\n\r\n### What do people in the industry have to say?\r\n\r\nThere have been mixed responses from people across the marijuana industry, ranging from content to skeptical with the decision. HelloMD’s Chief Medical Officer, [Perry Solomon, MD](https://www.hellomd.com/people/PerrySolomonMD),  had much to say about the DEA’s newest decision. \r\n\r\n>\"The FDA making more growing sites available is wonderful. Unfortunately, it will take several years for whatever product the other sites grow to become available for study and all studies will still have to be approved. Then the studies have to be done and results evaluated which can take another year or so. So, the time frame from today to seeing published studies can be 2-5 years from now, perhaps longer, doubtfully shorter.\r\n\r\n>It is, however, a terrific public relation stunt. It makes it look like the FDA is actually moving forward with allowing more research to be done, which it is…years from now. There are thousands of studies from all over the world that have shown the efficacy of using cannabis for many medical conditions. 25 states and DC currently have cannabis laws in place that allow for it to be used for various medical conditions.\r\n\r\n>Part of the denial from the DEA could also be in their self interest. With 2.8 BILLION dollars in their budget, they have their own self perpetuating agency to maintain. Part of the issue that the DEA is also left with is how to schedule cannabis. If they move it to Schedule 2 like Percocet, how is the prescription written by a physician? You can’t just write “cannabis”. There is no exact analysis of what you are prescribing as there is with any “normal” drug like aspirin or even Percocet. Who will be manufacturing the cannabis, how is it dispensed to patients, is it edible, tinctures, etc?  The logistics are enormous. The easiest course is to de-schedule cannabis completely, so it can be over-the-counter. The patient can then pick whatever type of product, concentration, etc. of cannabis they want. Of course analysis of the product needs to be tightly controlled in that situation as well.\"\r\n\r\nIt is clear to people in the medical marijuana industry that the good cannabis can do is undeniable, but the DEA continues to deny it. The DEA, however, does not benefit from legalized marijuana. The DEA receives billions of dollars a year, a lot of which goes to searching out and seizing illegal drugs. Much of the DEA’s revenue comes from seizing products like marijuana, meaning that legalizing marijuana would cut off one of their main sources of revenue. Though it may be a long road coming, this commotion around marijuana rescheduling could help the future of the cannabis industry. \r\n\r\n### What does this mean for the future of cannabis?\r\n\r\nAll of the news coverage on the DEA’s decisions to maintain the status of cannabis has definitely brought the marijuana industry prominently into the daily news cycle. From investors to everyday people, the issue of marijuana is front and center in peoples minds. With more opportunities for research, hopefully more private companies will look into researching marijuana. The coverage on cannabis has also brought the issue of marijuana legalization into the minds of voters. Marijuana legalization is up for a vote eight states this coming November, and current country wide polls show an overwhelming majority of the American people in favor of medical marijuana legalization and over 50% in favor of recreational legalization. It is not likely that marijuana’s maintained position as a schedule I substance will change its political standing, even with the impending presidential change. Both Clinton and Trump, the democratic and republican presidential nominees respectively, are in favor of maintaining the current system of state-run marijuana industries. In the coming years, hopefully we will see a variety of clinical marijuana studies that show what we see time and time again in anecdotal evidence, that marijuana can be extremely beneficial for aiding people with a range of medical conditions.","image":{"childImageSharp":{"fluid":{"base64":"","aspectRatio":1.5037593984962405,"src":"/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/ee604/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.png","srcSet":"/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/69585/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.png 200w,\n/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/497c6/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.png 400w,\n/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/ee604/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.png 800w,\n/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/035d9/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.png 990w","srcWebp":"/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/58556/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.webp","srcSetWebp":"/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/61e93/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.webp 200w,\n/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/1f5c5/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.webp 400w,\n/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/58556/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.webp 800w,\n/static/4ab433f84ed209e101824603e976aa3c/8b5b8/1cd94091c3635f9373ee00565932e200.webp 990w","sizes":"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px"}}}}},{"node":{"id":"Article_2110-markdown","title":"When Marijuana is Rescheduled by the Feds","slug":"when-marijuana-is-rescheduled-by-the-feds","content":"People who are familiar with marijuana are also familiar with its often\ncontested spot on the list of Schedule I Controlled Substances. For\nyears, advocacy groups have been fighting to have marijuana re-listed or\ndelisted entirely, but as yet there's been no movement. This unfortunate\nsituation makes marijuana harder for patients to access and makes it\nmore difficult for scientists to study marijuana to uncover more of its\nmedicinal benefits. Here's what consumers need to know about the messy\nhistory of marijuana's classification:\n\n**The Low-Down on Schedule I Classification**\n\nOf the five classes the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) uses\nto classify controlled substances, Schedule I is the most restricted.\nSubstances in the [Schedule I\ngroup](http://www.drugs.com/article/csa-schedule-1.html) are thought to\nbe the most dangerous and hold the highest potential for abuse and\naddiction. These drugs are also classified as having no medicinal value.\nSchedule I substances include heroin, LSD and ecstasy. Drugs like\ncocaine and methamphetamine are ranked lower than marijuana as [Schedule\nII substances](http://www.drugs.com/schedule-2-drugs.html).\n\n**The Impact of Schedule I Classification**\n\nEver since marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance by the\nReagan Administration in 1970, people have been fighting to have it\nremoved from the list. Research has proven time and time again that\nmarijuana has a [low potential for\naddiction](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/10/09/no-marijuana-is-not-actually-as-addictive-as-heroin/)\nand abuse (except for a [mild\nrisk](http://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/08/regular-marijuana.aspx)\nfor adolescents), and multiple studies have shown beyond a shadow of a\ndoubt that marijuana has dozens of medicinal properties that can be used\nto manage and treat symptoms like [chronic\npain](https://hellomd.com/articles/top-14-marijuana-strains-for-different-kinds-of-pain),\n[eating\ndisorders](https://www.hellomd.com/articles/medical-matchmaking-cannabis-and-anorexia),\n[anxiety](https://www.hellomd.com/articles/cannabis-for-anxiety-and-stress-disorders),\nand\n[depression](https://www.hellomd.com/articles/depression-sufferers-find-relief-in-medical-marijuana)\nin a wide variety of patients. There is even a [drug derived from\ncannabis compounds](http://www.marinol.com/) that is currently on the\nmarket and being used to treat chemotherapy-induced nausea.\n\nIn light of its low potential for abuse and high potential for medicinal\nvalue, the fact that marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance\nis problematic. Because cannabis is scheduled at the highest possible\ntier by the feds, people who are caught with it in states without\nmedicinal or recreational marijuana laws face harsh penalties.\nAdditionally, researchers who want to study marijuana are forced to leap\nthrough a nearly impossible series of bureaucratic hoops to secure\npermission or funding, which almost always results in no research being conducted.\n\nAdditionally, doctors who want to treat patients with marijuana in\nstates without medical marijuana licenses risk litigation or the loss of\ntheir medical licenses. Even doctors in states where medical marijuana\nis legal (such as New York) still [don't recommend medical\nmarijuana](https://www.hellomd.com/articles/why-doctors-in-new-york-arent-recommending-marijuana)\nto their patients due to fears of legal blow back or a loss of their\nmalpractice insurance. These things make it virtually impossible for\npatients to have safe, secure access to medical marijuana and further\nimpede the research and development of effective, medicinal,\nmarijuana-derived treatments for dangerous health conditions.\n\n**Proposals to Reschedule Marijuana**\n\nThroughout the last 46 years, there have been dozens, if not hundreds,\nof [proposals to reschedule\nmarijuana](http://www.ibtimes.com/why-marijuana-schedule-i-drug-1821426).\nAlmost immediately after marijuana was classified as a Schedule I\nsubstance, a group called the National Organization for the Reform of\nMarijuana Laws ([NORML](http://norml.org/)) petitioned the DEA to\nreclassify marijuana as a less-dangerous substance. After a tough,\n22-year-long battle in the court system, the feds rejected that appeal.\nIn 2002, the [Coalition to Reschedule\nCannabis](http://www.drugscience.org/about_coalition.html) developed\nanother petition that sought to reschedule cannabis, although this\nrequest was [also\ndenied](http://www.safeaccessnow.org/dea_denial_of_petition_to_reschedule_marijuana).\nThe group appealed the decision but was again rejected. The reason for\nthe rejection was that there was no evidence to support the medical use\nof cannabis. Within the last several years, the DEA and groups of U.S.\nregulators have conducted additional studies of cannabis and have\ndetermined, on [two separate\noccasions](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-20/drug-regulators-study-easing-u-s-marijuana-restrictions),\nthat cannabis needs to remain a Schedule I substance. In 2013,\n[Americans for Safe\nAccess](http://www.safeaccessnow.org/tags/rescheduling_petition) filed\nyet another appeal cannabis, which was also denied by the courts. More\nrecently, presidential candidates like [Bernie\nSanders](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/04/bernie-sanders-marijuana-bill-federal-law-senate)\nand [Hillary\nClinton](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-marijuana-reform_us_563e5fc4e4b0307f2cadb82a)\nhave petitioned to deschedule or reschedule marijuana, although changes\nhave yet to take place. Marijuana aficionados remain hopeful, however,\nas there is much talk about the fact that President Obama may seek to\n[alter marijuana's\nclassification](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/mar/29/gary-johnson-predicts-obama-will-reclassify-mariju/)\nbefore he leaves office.\n\n**Why Marijuana Has Not Been Rescheduled Yet**\n\nWhile there are many theories about why the feds have yet to reschedule\nmarijuana, most experts believe that the issue boils down to doubt about\nmarijuana's medical benefits. Despite the fact that dozens of studies\nhave proven the [medical benefits of\ncannabis](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/04/vivek-murthy-marijuana_n_6614226.html?utm_hp_ref=tw),\nbig-name organizations like the FDA remain skeptical. While marijuana\naficionados are hopeful that marijuana will be rescheduled shortly,\nthere are dozens of [congressional and administrative\nhurdles](http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/02/13-how-to-reschedule-marijuana-hudak-wallack)\nstanding between marijuana and declassification. While many high-ranking\nexperts believe that the [Schedule I classification of marijuana is\nunfair](http://www.vice.com/read/marijuana-is-still-a-schedule-i-drug-judge-rules-415),\nCongress remains in gridlock when it comes to changing the plant's\nclassification. Even if classification does change in the coming years,\nmarijuana lovers need to realize that the herb faces many future\ndifficulties, such as the intrusion of big pharma and future legal\nchallenges.\n\n**What about the Obama Administration?**\n\nWhile some remain hopeful that President Obama may decide to reclassify marijuana before the end of his term in office, he has not indicated that he will do this. In fact, he has stated that he sees this as an issue for congress to act upon. Others have pointed out that between Health and Human Services and the Justice Department, it could be reclassified without congressional approval. At this point, most people think the likelihood of action before the end of the current term is minimal. \n\n[Photo Credit](https://www.flickr.com/photos/pierre-selim/7555375146/in/photolist-cvDgNJ-9dpJ5-6iDf1Z-dW4XJM-8G2Uoi-4sSLKQ-7DxPkz-5PSw2G-5Ue7Uc-5K23eo-4sSFmb-6JTHjK-7hwRre-4kvQ5-jvHg8-5p5MQm-BVrD-NWGyo-59Djtu-4sSG3U-7CWBeh-u4nU-4sSKVj-5w6Ga9-38E89f-de3Jjh-6gwqJ2-3BQPX7-4sSGMA-4sPnG8-7Wm9Jc-4sSPrS-4e3AUY-69PhEo-5QDzDC-7Nnpkm-zTqan-ai7AtV-DC38Qp-dW4Xvv-bG83H-5Dt9xf-j6CSV-4YZmNP-8RBTuR-36abTA-yfeN9-ca8EiJ-i4ENE6-6n6QDq)\n","image":{"childImageSharp":{"fluid":{"base64":"","aspectRatio":1.639344262295082,"src":"/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/ee604/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.png","srcSet":"/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/69585/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.png 200w,\n/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/497c6/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.png 400w,\n/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/ee604/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.png 800w,\n/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/035d9/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.png 990w","srcWebp":"/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/58556/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.webp","srcSetWebp":"/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/61e93/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.webp 200w,\n/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/1f5c5/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.webp 400w,\n/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/58556/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.webp 800w,\n/static/6affcd5d64abb1eb4070c96b67a136f6/8b5b8/d17b017415afdad3a49279bd8f8d35fb.webp 990w","sizes":"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px"}}}}},{"node":{"id":"Article_2162-markdown","title":"Marijuana Is Safer Than Alcohol and Tobacco, Study Finds","slug":"marijuana-is-safer-than-alcohol-and-tobacco-study-finds","content":"Over the past 20 years, 23 states and the District of Columbia have\n[legalized marijuana for medical\nuse](https://www.hellomd.com/health-wellness/5596acc23436650006020000/does-medical-marijuana-work).\nDespite these changes to state laws, opponents continue to argue that\nmarijuana causes more harm than good. A [new\nstudy](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4311234/) refutes\ntheir claims and shows that marijuana is safer than alcohol and tobacco,\nand researchers and policymakers may have overestimated the risks\nassociated with its use.\n\n**Researchers Use Novel Approach to Compare Mortality Risks**\n\nResearch conducted by Dirk Lachenmeier and Jürgen Rehm, and published in\nScientific Reports in January 2015, investigated the mortality risk\nassociated with seven substances by comparing the lethal dose of each\nsubstance with the typical amount used. This ratio, referred to as the\nmargin of exposure (MOE), was used to determine the risk of dying from\nan overdose of each of the substances.\n\nThe MOE is a novel method for comparing the mortality risk of different\nsubstances. Introduced by the [European Food Safety Authority in\n2005](http://www.efsa.europa.eu/sites/default/files/scientific_output/files/main_documents/282.pdf)\nas an approach for assessing the risk of toxic compounds, it had only\never been used in the addiction field for evaluating substances in\nalcoholic beverages. Previous attempts to compare the dangers of\nsubstances of abuse were based largely on anecdotal, rather than\nscientific, evidence, which meant that policymakers had to rely on\neducated guesses and survey data from developed nations when making\nlegislative decisions. Only in the past decade have researchers begun to\nuse robust scientific techniques to classify the mortality risks of\nparticular substances of abuse. However, many of these approaches were\nbased on expert panel judgments on harm indicators, such as intoxication\nand physical and psychological dependence.\n\n**Evidence for Marijuana's Safety Grows**\n\nLachenmeier and Rehm's research revealed that, of all the substances\nanalyzed, alcohol posed the highest mortality risk at an individual\nlevel, followed by heroin, cocaine, tobacco, ecstasy, methamphetamine\nand marijuana. Alcohol was found to be about 114 times more deadly than\nmarijuana, which was the only substance that was classified as having a\nlow mortality risk. The researchers' classifications were based solely\non the substances themselves and did not take into account environmental\nrisk factors, such as the sharing of contaminated needles by intravenous\ndrug users. Previous studies, including a [comparison of the toxicity of\ncommonly abused\nsubstances](https://rgable.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/toxicity-addiction-offprint2.pdf)\npublished in the journal Addiction in June 2004, ranked marijuana as\nsafer than alcohol and tobacco, but it was not known that the\ndiscrepancy between their mortality risks was this large.\n\n**Researchers Call for Changes to Federal Marijuana Laws**\n\nDespite their known health risks, alcohol and tobacco are exempted from\nthe Controlled Substances Act due to cultural and economic reasons.\nAlcohol and tobacco have been acceptable substances in U.S. culture\nsince well before the repeal of Prohibition in 1933, and they are two of\nthe [most widely used\nsubstances](http://www.samhsa.gov/data/NSDUH/2012SummNatFindDetTables/NationalFindings/NSDUHresults2012.htm)\nnationally. The researchers believe that the risks of alcohol and\ntobacco may have been underestimated in the past, and are urging federal\ngovernment to focus their efforts more on mitigating the harmful effects\nof alcohol and tobacco than on other substances, such as marijuana.\n\nIn contrast, the risks of marijuana may have been overestimated. For the\nmortality endpoint alone, the findings showed marijuana's MOE to be\nabove safety thresholds at the individual and population levels. There\nhas never been a case of a cannabis overdose death. This lends weight to\nthe argument that marijuana should be removed from Schedule I of the\nControlled Substances Act, a category reserved for the most dangerous\nsubstances.\n","image":{"childImageSharp":{"fluid":{"base64":"","aspectRatio":1.4705882352941178,"src":"/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/ee604/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.png","srcSet":"/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/69585/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.png 200w,\n/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/497c6/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.png 400w,\n/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/ee604/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.png 800w,\n/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/74c9e/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.png 955w","srcWebp":"/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/58556/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.webp","srcSetWebp":"/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/61e93/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.webp 200w,\n/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/1f5c5/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.webp 400w,\n/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/58556/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.webp 800w,\n/static/1e6e891ecfc3b981e2b927b710be93ea/3d99a/e07fe2f5dbd6c2648e5d4f794c19fe35.webp 955w","sizes":"(max-width: 800px) 100vw, 800px"}}}}}]}},"pageContext":{"limit":12,"skip":0,"numPages":1,"currentPage":1,"id":5719,"name":"Schedule 1","slug":"schedule-1","country":"US"}},"staticQueryHashes":["3949754563","4179947113","4202924991"]}