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

Categories: Marijuana, News

Nearly a quarter-century later, Young's suggestions have yet to be taken. "Unfortunately, we haven't seen the DEA listen to its own judges," Tvert says.

dea logo.jpg
Even so, Tvert doesn't reject the notion of revving up the rescheduling conversation again.

"It's certainly a discussion to have," he says. "But in the meantime, the people in Colorado and Washington have made it clear they don't think adults should be arrested or prosecuted for possession or use of marijuana. And people in eighteen states throughout the nation have made it clear they don't think patients should be punished for using marijuana to alleviate symptoms of medical conditions, and to treat those conditions.

"People are no longer looking to the scheduling system as being objective or accurate, because of its absurd inclusion of marijuana as a Schedule I substance."

Look below to see DEA administrative law judge Francis L. Young's 1988 ruling, followed by the current controlled substances schedule.

Marijuana Rescheduling Petition Ruling 1988
DEA Controlled Substances Schedule

More from our Marijuana archive: "Marijuana: DEA takes nine months to brush off Colorado's reschedule-pot request."

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
DonkeyHotay topcommenter

Mendacious Mason Tvert = Zero Credibility


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.


@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.

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."

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 topcommenter


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


@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.


@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


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

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 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