Marijuana rescheduling not Amendment 64 "silver bullet," says Mason Tvert

mason tvert photograph small.JPG
Mason Tvert.
Last week, a number of mainstream media outlets suggested that rescheduling marijuana might bridge the gap between conflicting state and federal laws following the passage of Amendment 64 -- this despite the fact that the federal government took nine months to shrug off Colorado's rescheduling suggestion. Even so, A64 proponent Mason Tvert thinks such a move would be a positive step, but isn't holding his breath.

"I think there need to be a combination of things," says Tvert, who recently became a spokesman for the Marijuana Policy Project. "There is no silver bullet to end marijuana prohibition as a whole in this country."

michele leonhart portrait.jpg
Michele Leonhart.
As we've noted, eighteen states and the District of Columbia have laws allowing marijuana to be used for medical purposes. However, the Drug Enforcement Administration considers the substance to be a Schedule I narcotic -- meaning that it offers no known or acknowledged medical benefit. Other Schedule I narcotics include heroin, whereas Schedule II lists the likes of cocaine and opium. Nonetheless, DEA administrator Michele Leonhart refused to acknowledge that marijuana is less dangerous than many Schedule I or Schedule II drugs during a Congressional hearing a few months back -- and she had an underling reject a formal letter from Colorado Department of Revenue executive Barbara Brohl sent in December 2011 under mandate from state statute.

This response is perfectly in keeping with the DEA's longtime disinterest in rescheduling marijuana, as Tvert knows well. "On multiple occasions, administrative law judges at the DEA have said marijuana should not be a Schedule I drug," he says. "But those are non-binding recommendations."

Tvert makes specific reference to a 1988 ruling by DEA administrative law judge Francis L. Young, who encouraged the immediate rescheduling of marijuana. The entire document is below, but here are some excerpts:

"Based upon the facts established in this record and set out above, one must reasonably conclude that there is accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision."

"To conclude otherwise, on this record, would be unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious...."

"The cannabis plant considered as a whole has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, there is no lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision and it may lawfully be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule II. The judge recommends that the Administrator transfer cannabis."

Continue for more of our interview with Mason Tvert about marijuana rescheduling, and to see two documents.


Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
18 comments
DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Mendacious Mason Tvert = Zero Credibility

Monkey
Monkey

De-schedule, don't Re-schedule. A plant has no place on a controlled substance list, especially when it does have medicinal qualities. But a new number instead of full removal would allow the government and pharmaceutical companies to cash in while still suppressing we the people.

malcolmkyle16
malcolmkyle16

@DonkeyHotay how much credibility does a prohibitionist farm animal have?

Prohibition has diverted police resources away from other law enforcement activities, with the result that violent crimes and crimes against property have been higher than they would otherwise have been. To the extent that communities divert law enforcement resources from violent crimes to illegal drug offenses, the risk of punishment for engaging in violent crimes is reduced.

Kindly follow the link to a scientific paper that determines empirically the homicide offense rate to changes in the percentage of arrests attributed to drug offenses. The empirical results obtained are consistent with a priori expectations that homicide offense rates are higher in communities that devote a greater percentage of their policing resources to the enforcement of drug laws.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n3/cj14n3-8.pdf

The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada recently reviewed 15 studies that evaluated the association between violence and drug law enforcement. "Our findings suggest that increasing drug law enforcement is unlikely to reduce drug market violence. Instead, the existing evidence base suggests that gun violence and high homicide rates may be an inevitable consequence of drug prohibition and that disrupting drug markets can paradoxically increase violence."

http://tinyurl.com/c4uyecn

Cognitive_Dissident
Cognitive_Dissident topcommenter

@DonkeyHotay Is there some confusion about that being sarcasm? Of it makes you feel better, I believe they should all be market-regulated, rather than state-regulated.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@malcolmkyle16

A64 = a Continuation of Criminal Prohibition for 99.9% of Colorado marijuana users and growers.

malcolmkyle16
malcolmkyle16

@DonkeyHotay @Monkey you're not very clever for a Donkey, are you?

Methamphetamine is FDA approved and prescribed to children over the age of six.

Kindly check their website:

Heroin (diamorphine) is given to children for medicinal reasons.

DONKEYNOTAY
DONKEYNOTAY

@DonkeyHotay @malcolmkyle16 Donkey is a total Troll dude doesnt even know what he stands for other than the fact that he is a small person and loves to insult people without adding any substance to the conversation

D0NKEYH0TAY
D0NKEYH0TAY

@DonkeyHotay Pretty much none of what you claim is actually true.  It's just your delusional interpretation of reality.

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@beautypeakwebdesign ... you must be new to the discussion.

A64 did NOT legalize marijuana, not even close. The Authors of A64 confessed that fact during the legislative hearings on the amendment.

A64 will NOT reduce any actual arrests for Marijuana Crimes due to it's laughably tiny limits and other restrictions.

A64 only allows 1 (one) pathetic ounce for possession, and only for those over 21. Colorado statute had already "decriminalized" -- a summary offense, no arrest, no jail -- possession of up to 2 (two) ounces -- recreational -- for ANYONE without arbitrary age restrictions.

Arrest reductions for possession = zero

A64 does NOT allow any Public Display or Use

Arrest reduction for Public Display/Use = zero

A64 does NOT allow ANYONE under 21 to have any legal access -- not a single gram, not a single plant -- maintaining all criminal penalties for same. The under 21 age demographic represents nearly 50%% of all marijuana prosecutions in Colorado, and they are deliberately and specifically EXCLUDED from A64. How fucking cynical is that?

Arrest reductions for the excluded under 21 year old class = zero

A64 does NOT allow ANY private sales between consenting adults -- not a single gram -- maintaining FELONY penalties for same.

Arrest reductions for private sales = zero.

A64 does NOT remove a single Marijuana Felony -- sales, possession, distribution, cultivation -- from the Colorado law..

Arrest reductions for marijuana felonies = zero

A64 does NOT remove any Misdemeanor Possession, or Distribution crimes from Colorado Law.

Arrest reductions for Misdemeanor Possession or Distribution = zero

Did you even read, much less comprehend, the amendment?

DonkeyHotay
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

@malcolmkyle16  How many Schedule 2 or 3 drugs are available for legal recreational use?

How many Schedule 2 or 3 drugs are legally produced, distributed or sold by Amatuers -- stupid stoners -- out of some glorified head shop?

Now Trending

Denver Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...