Dea Plans To Decide Whether To Reschedule Marijuana By Mid-Year

[zachw]

 

The Drug Enforcement Administration plans to decide whether marijuana should reclassified under federal law in “the first half of 2016,” the agency said in a letter to senators.

 

Here's the DEA letter as publishing in the Huffington post in this article.

 

Here's a Libertarian in Reason who doesn't think the DEA will actually do so as summed up in the byline: "The agency always drags its feet before saying no, saying yes would require an embarrassing reversal, and the president has passed the buck to Congress." (good comments there also)

Edited April 7, 2016 by zachw

[Kingdiamond]

Wont happen Hillary is against legalization so her saying she will have it rescheduled is a campaign promise lie and the DEA will lose its cash cow taking property and bank accounts of cannabis providers  its never going to happen .

[Scarlet_Begonias]

UN made the schedule. Foolhardy to think a US president will tangle. It goes to the State. People need to speak up.

[mibrains]

Interesting...I had to Google your statement about the UN makeing the schedule..

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_history_of_cannabis_in_the_United_States

 

 

The legal history of cannabis in the United States relates to the regulation of marijuana use for medical or recreational purposes in the United States. Increased restrictions and labeling of marijuana as a poison began in many states from 1906 onward, and outright prohibitions began in the 1920s. By the mid-1930s marijuana was regulated as a drug in every state, including 35 states that adopted the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act.[1] The first national regulation was the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.

 

Multiple efforts to reschedule cannabis under the Act have failed, and the United States Supreme Court has ruled in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Gonzales v. Raich that the federal government has a right to regulate and criminalize cannabis, even for medical purposes

[mibrains]

How Cannabis was Criminalised.

 

 http://www.idmu.co.uk/historical.htm

 

Cannabis first became illegal in the UK, and most of the rest of the world, on 28th September 1928 when the 1925 Dangerous Drugs Act came into force. There were no British domestic reasons, no lobbying for or against prohibition, and no Parliamentary debates.

 

The Act controlling 'Indian Hemp and all resins and preparations based thereon' had been passed after Britain signed the 1925 Geneva International Convention on Narcotics Control, organised by the League of Nations. Asked what it was all about on a slow day in Parliament, a junior Home Office Minister explained that the Convention could not be ratified without an 'important but small' law being passed. 'What it does is include coca leaves under a former Act. They are the real basis of cocaine - we place them in the same category as raw opium.' Cannabis itself was ever mentioned aloud.

 

 

This apathy was nothing new. When the 1920 Act controlling opium and cocaine was passed, there were problems finding enough MPs to vote on the committee stages. In 1893 a huge report by the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission had concluded that 'the moderate use of hemp drugs is practically attended by no evil results at all'. It recommended, for India, 'restraining use and improving the revenue by the imposition of suitable taxation' at 'as high a rate of duty as can be levied without inducing illicit practices' on the grounds that 'the best way to restrict the consumption of drugs is to tax them.' Taxes on cannabis were already normal in India - Bengal state government made about £100,000 per year through the 1860's [£5-10 million in today's money]. This report from the Empire was never publicly discussed in the UK, and the authorities were content to have no laws at all controlling cannabis for another thirty years.

 

 

The herb had few supporters in the 1920's. European hemp for ropes and paper was usually believed to be a separate plant, though related. Modern medical uses were rare and both traditional herbal medicines and patent potions had become unfashionable at the turn of the century, after campaigns by the British Medical Association. Apart from a few adventurous poets and musicians, there were hardly any recreational cannabis users in Europe.

 

There was little or no opposition to cannabis use, either. Prohibitionist campaigns worked against alcohol and cocaine at home, opium abroad. Some people thought opiate users would take up cannabis if their supplies were cut off. 'Drugs' were seen as filthy foreign stuff which should be suppressed for the foreigners' own good. Fear and contempt of 'coloureds', and of sex, was the visible motive in a few 1920's newspaper drug scandals about foreigners with cocaine or opium, and the English girls they allegedly corrupted and destroyed, but cannabis was rarely accused.

 

 

Cannabis was added to the agenda of the 1925 Convention on Narcotics Control because Egypt and Turkey proposed it. Both countries had histories of prohibition based on interpretations of Islamic law; newly secular, they were trying to be 'modern'. The Egyptian delegate denounced 'Hashism' which he said caused from 30-60 per cent of the insanity in his country. 'In support of this contention... there are three times as many cases of mental alienation among men as among women, and it is an established fact that men are much more addicted to hashish than women'. Hashish addicts, he said, were regarded as useless derelicts. 'His eye is wild and the expression of his face is stupid. He is silent; has no muscular power; suffers from physical ailments, heart troubles, digestive troubles etc; his intellectual faculties gradually weaken and the whole organism decays. The addict very frequently becomes neurasthenic and eventually insane.'

 

 

These claims for the dangers of cannabis made in 1925 were not investigated by the League of Nations until ten years after it was banned. That study was never completed. The only serious investigation made previously was the 1893 Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report, which contradicted most of the Egyptian's speech, but was not referred to. India opposed banning cannabis in the Convention, as their delegate said it had been used there since time immemorial, grew wild, and they doubted that a prohibition could be enforced. The British delegate suggested that it should be considered further and abstained from the vote, but signed in the end, along with another 57 nations.

 

 

Drugs laws in the United States have a quite different history. The USA never joined the League of Nations, and didn't sign the 1925 Convention because they were more anti-drugs than any other nation. They proposed that opium use be completely banned world wide within ten years, and walked out of the conference when this was rejected, before cannabis was mentioned.

 

 

Alcohol was prohibited in the USA from 1920-33, and as early as 1911 hearings on a Federal anti-narcotics law heard debate on controlling cannabis. The USA unsuccessfully proposed that cannabis be discussed at the Hague Conference on opiates in 1912. Their enthusiasm for drug control was a mix of moralism and self-interest, both tending to boost America's developing international influence. Most medical drugs were imported, so controlling them made little difference to US domestic policy, but gave the US a moral and economic lever against their producers, mostly Britain and Germany. Cannabis was an exception, so it had some friends in the pharmaceutical, veterinary, and seed oil industries. It also had enemies among the press and politicians who used it as part of an attack on Mexican immigration and Black cultural independence..

 

 

William Randolph Hearst's newspapers introduced the word 'marijuana' into English from Mexican slang, confusing the public into thinking this devil weed was quite different from the familiar agricultural plant hemp. Hearst sold lots of newspapers using stories about coloured men using drugs to corrupt white women. Many of them allegedly carried big knives and would go wild at any provocation. Others were perverts. The specific drug and the race of the villains changed every few years, but the story never did. Versions are still used in some anti-drug campaigns. Marijuana had its turn from the 1920s-60's. Hearst also had massive wood pulp paper making interests which would have been damaged by wider use of hemp fibre.

 

 

After missing out on the 1914 Harrison Narcotics Act and the 1925 treaty, there was no Federal control of cannabis until 1937, though several Southern states with Mexican immigrants urged the Government to ban it. Research funded by New Orleans' District Attorney associated marijuana with the loss of civilised inhibitions, leading to rape, murder and homosexuality. The press spread these politically motivated 'scientific research' stories enthusiastically.

 

 

In 1931 former Prohibition Commissioner Harry J Anslinger was appointed head of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics. At first he was reluctant to extend his national powers over marijuana, although he thought it was an evil, because it seemed a localised problem, and impossible to enforce prohibition of a plant which had some legitimate uses and grew wild 'like dandelions.' For a Federal law to work, all uses of the plant had to be controlled together. Instead, he encouraged State laws and anti-drug propaganda.

 

 

By the 1930's Depression, mechanised hemp production was a potential threat to paper and cellulose producers. The supposed wickedness of job and woman-stealing dope-crazed foreigners was a vote winner. So the herb had new enemies. Malicious, racist press stories, pseudo-scientific reports, and political pressure multiplied. By 1935 Anslinger was promoting a federal law which his FBN could enforce. In Congressional hearings to plan it, all positive evidence was suppressed. The American Medical Association and the Oil Seed Institute opposed the law, but were ignored. Anslinger quoted press cuttings as proof that cannabis was 'the most violence-creating drug on this planet'. From October 1st 1937, the Marijuana Tax Act made it illegal to grow or transfer any form of cannabis without a tax-paid stamp - which were never made available to private citizens. Possession laws varied between States until 1970.

 

Anslinger used the new law to expand his Bureau. He began an ugly campaign against 'demon dope' using films and posters, associating it with jazz ['voodoo music'], inter-racial sex, madness and death. The FBN suppressed or abused any research showing that marijuana was not an extreme danger, notably the 1944 'LaGuardia Report' commissioned by the Mayor of New York. He led US delegations to every international drug control body until sacked by President Kennedy in 1961. Most countries didn't think they had a problem with cannabis until the 1960's. Anslinger did his best to persuade them otherwise.

 

 

In 1945 there were only 4 prosecutions for cannabis offences in the UK, and 206 for opium. In 1950 for the first time ever there were more prosecutions for cannabis than for opium and manufactured drugs put together - 86 against 41 opium and 42 others. That year a series of police raids on jazz clubs produced a fresh crop of British news stories about black men with drugs and white women. Cannabis had finally got into the local shock horror league, but it wasn't to become the world's favourite illegality for a few more years.

 

 

Three events abroad had long term effects. In 1961 a new treaty was organised, the United Nations Single Convention on Narcotics Drugs. It updated all previous drugs treaties, and set up classifications of drugs according to their supposed harmfulness. Cannabis went into the same list as the opiates and cocaine, 'having strong addictive properties' and/or 'a risk to public health.' Only medical or scientific uses were permitted, and the World Health Organisation [advised by Anslinger] considered cannabis to have no modern medical value. Traditional and non-drug uses were to be closely controlled by governments. It was resolved that 'use of cannabis is to be discontinued within 25 years'. The USA actively joined in creating and enforcing the Single Convention, guided by Harry Anslinger. His sacking and the identification of 'active ingredient' tetrahydrocannabinol [THC] in 1964 made serious research possible again, but too late for more realistic laws to be passed.

 

 

By the early 60's recreational drug use was increasing in the white, suburban classes, influenced by American beatnik writers and folk singers, jazz and blues musicians. These arts went part way across racial divisions. 'Pot' was becoming fashionable among a bohemian, arty elite because the propaganda was partly believed. It was seen as a jazzy, sexy, Black thing to do, and [in Europe], an American thing. English bourgeois hipsters were scared but proud of being able to score from Cockney hoodlums or ex-colonial Caribbean and Indian immigrants. It was also one of the fun parts of being connected with deep political movements. In the USA Civil Rights and anti-war movements and British CND, millions of sincere, liberal-minded young people met skilled organisers, famous philosophers, anarchist radicals, and pot-smoking hedonists. It was probably inevitable that ideas developed about a politics of personal growth, and the right to any pleasure that does no harm to others. Soon white middle-class youth were smuggling and dealing to their own class. Often they believed they were benefiting a new, happier and calmer society.

 

 

1964 was the first year when more white people than black were convicted of cannabis - related offences in the UK. It was also the first year in which less than half of the people convicted were sentenced to prison. The total number of convictions, 544, was a little lower than in the previous two years.

 

 

Cannabis really started its lurch into mass consciousness, mythology says, sometime in 1964 when the Beatles met Bob Dylan at an airport in America. He offered them a joint in the VIP lounge. Only Ringo tried it then, but soon they were all very enthusiastic. Other popsters and their fans learned about drugs from old jazz and blues men, and beatniks like the poet Allen Ginsberg. He was one vital link between literary circles, artists, aristos, politicians, pop stars and fellow pot-smokers all over the world. On demonstrations for free speech, he gave Buddhist chants to cops with tear gas. In the UK his then-illegal homosexuality found him introductions to a persecuted underground with friends in high places and hopes of changing an unjust law. He contributed to The Marijuana Papers [1966], the first mass market book about cannabis, suggesting advertising for public support for legal changes, and got an MP to find a copy of the Indian Hemp report in the House of Commons Library.

 

 

 

The 1965 Dangerous Drugs Act began to bring UK law in line with parts of the UN Single Convention. An Advisory Committee on Drug Dependency was set up, and a sub-committee chaired by Baroness Wootton started to look into the legal position of cannabis, still the same as for opiates,with no distinction between possession and supply. A new crime was invented, allowing premises to be used for drug taking. Convictions for cannabis offences rose by 79% in a year - in 1967 they rose another 113%. Up to 90% of those convictions were for personal possession. According to the Wootton Report, 15% of people convicted for possessing under 30 grams were sentenced to prison, including 13% who had no previous convictions.

 

 

 

Some police used their power to stop and search anyone they suspected of carrying drugs, to harass black people and longhairs. Specialist Drugs Squads were set up. Guided by the gossip columns of the News of the World, they raided Black meeting places and pop stars' mansions. The Rolling Stones and Beatles were favourites. Other newspapers and politicians spread sensationalist stories, apparently intended to influence the Wootton Committee into suggesting harsh penalties.

 

 

 

In early 1967 the National Council for Civil Liberties published a pamphlet about the discriminatory ways the law worked, the increase in unjustifiable searches, accusations of evidence planting, and the harshness of sentencing.

 

 

After a demonstration in Fleet Street against the rising tide of harassment guided by press malice, two close-linked organisations were set up. Release aimed to give advice to young people in trouble with drugs or drugs laws; within months they had hundreds of referrals. SOMA campaigned to improve the cannabis law. Their first action was a full page advertisement in the Times on July 24th 1967, headed 'The law against marijuana is immoral in principle and unworkable in practice'. Below that, a quote from the philosopher Spinoza: 'All laws which can be violated without doing anyone any injury are laughed at... He who tries to determine everything by law will foment crime rather than lessen it.' The rest of the advert was an explanation of how damaging the law was, compared with the harmlessness of cannabis. There were quotes from modern medical opinions such as 'does not lead to degeneration, does not affect the brain cells, is not habit forming, and does not lead to heroin addiction'. It was signed by 72 prominent people including some of Britain's best-known artists and writers, two Nobel Prize winners, two MP's, journalists, doctors and the Beatles [who paid for it].

 

 

SOMA were not arguing for cannabis laws to be abolished or for full legalisation. Their proposals were; to permit and encourage research and medical uses; abolish the 'allowing premises to be used' offence; remove cannabis from the dangerous drugs list; either permit possession or set a low maximum fine; abolish imprisonment for possession and release the prisoners. They'd talked with some of the Wootton committee about cautious wording which might be acceptable, and one member of the commit signed the advert. The campaign was ultimately aimed at liberal opinion-formers, especially Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, who was then liberalising the laws against male homosexuality.

 

 

In an inconclusive debate four days after the advert, the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission got its first mention in Parliament after publication, seventy-three years late. Anecdotes were exchanged about police misbehaviour and heroin addicts who'd once smoked pot. The government suggested that more information was needed before laws could be relaxed, and international treaties would make it difficult - which is still the Home Office line thirty years later.

 

The Wootton Report was ready early in 1968, but not published until January 1969. Meanwhile it was leaked to the press, who were almost all hostile, producing headlines like 'The deadly path to addiction.' New Home Secretary Jim Callaghan announced that he disagreed with the report, weeks before it was officially released. It recommended making a clear legal distinction between cannabis and other drugs, and reducing penalties for cannabis offences. The committee were, cautiously, 'in agreement... that the long-term consumption of cannabis in moderate doses has no harmful effects.' Although no encouragement should be given to the wider use of cannabis, the dangers of its use were overstated and the existing penalties unjustifiably severe. They wanted a situation where nobody would be sent to prison for cannabis possession.

 

 

 

 

The eventual parliamentary debate was extremely feeble. The committee's research and conclusions were pushed aside as if they did not exist. Callaghan suggested they'd been excessively influenced by the 'notorious' Times advert and the 'pro-cannabis lobby'. He told the 'leads-to-heroin' story and said that he was glad to help 'halt the advancing tide of so-called permissiveness'. Few speakers appeared to have read the report, preferring old anecdotes or the newspapers' selective interpretations.

 

 

Still, the drugs laws were acknowledged to be a mess. Callaghan blocked it for a while, partly influenced by more leaks to a hostile press, but what was to be the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act had passed through Labour Cabinet committees before the Conservatives won the 1970 election.

 

 

Campaigning for cannabis faded over the three years before parts of the Wootton Report were acted on. There were too many other struggles in the underground, and too much disillusion with conventional politics. SOMA closed down in 1970; the Wootton Committee had made proposals similar to those in the Times advert. The founder, Steve Abrams, felt that the new law would be much more liberal in practice than the old, and effectively end the threat of prison for personal possession. Another campaign, CARO, was established by Release and the NCCL, but it faded before the Act came into force on 4th April 1973.

 

 

The new Act partly followed the more convenient parts of Wootton's advice. Cannabis was now classified as a class B drug, like amphetamines, with less severe penalties than those for heroin or LSD. Maximum penalties were increased, not reduced - up to fourteen years jail for cultivation, allowing premises to be used for supply, and the new offences of supplying or possession with intent to supply. Up to five years prison was still possible for possession. However, most cases would be dealt with in magistrates courts where 'only' six months jail could be imposed and a fine is far more common.

 

 

 

 

The 1971 Act did not prohibit fibre from stalks, or seeds, and allowed medical and research uses, but all of them needed licences from the Home Office which for many years were issued to only a few official researchers. In 1993 an EEC directive made it possible for a few hemp farms to grow cannabis with very low THC contents under licence. No patient has yet managed to get raw cannabis for medical uses on prescription, though some doctors have licences to use synthetic cannabinoids in research. There have been several attempts to cut sentences for possession back to what Wootton recommended, but the 1971 Act is still in force, and some penalties have actually been increased.

 

 

A permanent Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs [ACMD] was established by the 1971 Act to help formulate Government policy. Several governments have since ignored the ACMD's advice about cannabis, which has generally been that it has 'no significant harmful effects on man' [but more research is needed, just in case]; and that penalties are too severe, and should be reduced.

 

 

In 1977 amendments to a Criminal Law Bill would have ended the power of Magistrates to imprison first time offenders for possession. The ACMD agreed with this in principle and said it should be done urgently, but set up a wider enquiry which took 18 months to report. This was probably the smallest change in the MDA it was possible to suggest. and would have saved no more than six people in 1976. Less modest amendments, such as actually reducing maximum penalties to roughly what the Wootton report had proposed, were side tracked.

 

 

Meanwhile the usual suspects launched the Legalise Cannabis Campaign a few months before the fiftieth birthday of cannabis prohibition. They argued that merely lowering penalties would not make the law moral or workable. The provable harm caused by prohibition is far greater than the unproved damage which might in theory be caused by legal cannabis. All penalties for possession and cultivation should be abolished. Despite a lot of public support and a high profile in the first few years, LCC has not succeeded in improving the law, and now barely struggles on with minimal resources.

 

 

 

A series of reports for Governments across the world through the 1970's found the potential dangers of cannabis to be minor or insignificant. Even the USA's enthusiasm for prohibition wavered under President Carter, when 'decriminalisation' was seriously considered federally and several states made their laws more liberal. An international campaign was started to lobby for changes in the UN Single Convention. Then right-wing populists were elected in America and the UK, willing to ignore both common sense and their own expert advisers in pursuit of 'law and order' votes.

 

 

In mid 1979 the Advisory Council proposed moving cannabis to class C under the Misuse of Drugs Act, and changing penalties for possession. In principle, they said, imprisonment should no longer be available for a person with no previous convictions, summarily convicted for possessing cannabis; but in practice up to two years jail should still be available. There are no other commonly used illegal drugs in class C, so this was effectively a rule for cannabis alone. Nothing was done about this proposal.

 

 

The ACMD established an Expert Group on the health effects of cannabis use, which reported eighteen months later, in November 1981. These official experts said there was insufficient evidence to reach conclusions, but research had 'not demonstrated significant harmful effects in man', however, 'deleterious effects may result in certain circumstances' So, they still agreed with what they'd said five years earlier about sentencing, but despite tens of thousands of existing scientific studies, felt that more research was needed.

 

 

As well as huge fines or prison, since 1986 anyone convicted for almost anything except possession can have money or property confiscated under the Drug Trafficking Offences Act. This American idea of taking away growers' and dealers' estimated illegal income which now makes banking privacy a myth in most of the world was supported by a 1988 UN Convention on illicit trafficking. Financial institutions are encouraged, sometimes required by law, to inform on customers who they suspect might be dealing. If the amount the court estimates can't be found, they give extra prison time.

 

 

The new Conservative Government said in 1981 that they had no intention of ever reducing penalties for drugs offences, still less of legalising or decriminalising cannabis. We still have the same government, and they still have the same attitude. Although many first-time possession cases are now dealt with by cautions, maximum sentences were raised in 1994. Possible fines also went up, by 250%. The same year, over seventy-two thousand people were convicted or cautioned for cannabis offences.

 

 

The cannabis prohibition laws were passed and are still in force because of official apathy, racism, and the manic waffle of a few professional anti-drug campaigners. Scientific and sociological ignorance has often been deliberately maintained in the face of all evidence. Official policy is to reduce both the supply of and demand for all illegal drugs. It has failed miserably, and done great damage to hundreds of thousands of people.

 

 The 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act came into force in April 1973. An apparent short term drop in convictions, partly caused by changes in what was being measured, was followed by enormous increases, which still continue.

 

Written by Sean Blanchard.

[mibrains]

Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances act

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_act

 

 

Since 1972, there have been numerous proposals in the United States to remove cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the most tightly restricted category reserved for drugs which have "no currently accepted medical use". Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I, and therefore the government is required by law either to permitmedical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The US government, on the other hand, maintains that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute is based on differing views on how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision.

 

The Controlled Substances Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning theDrug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, although a pill form of cannabis' psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1985 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999 it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition filed by medical cannabis advocates was in 2002, but was denied by the DEA in July 2011. Subsequently, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access filed an appeal in January 2012 with the D.C. Circuit, which was heard on 16 October 2012[1] and denied on 22 January 2013.[2] As of May 2014, 22 states and Washington D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana.[3] Currently, the FDA is conducting an analysis, at the request of the DEA, on whether marijuana should be downgraded, said Douglas Throckmorton, Deputy Director for Regulatory Programs at the FDA, at a congressional hearing in June 2014.[4]

 

Advocates of marijuana legalization argue that the budgetary impact of removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and legalizing its use in the United States could save billions by reducing government spending for prohibition enforcement in the criminal justice system. Additionally, they argue that billions in annual tax revenues could be generated through proposed taxation and regulation.[5] Patient advocates argue that by reclassifying marijuana, millions of Americans who are currently prevented from using medical marijuana would be able to benefit from its therapeutic value.

 

Schedule I is the only category of controlled substances that may not be prescribed by a physician. Under 21 U.S.C. § 812, drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:

 

1 The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.

2 The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.

3 There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

 

In 1970, Congress placed cannabis into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. His letter to Harley O. Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional:

 

Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication is concerned with the proposed classification of marihuana.

 

It is presently classed in schedule I© along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other psychotropic drugs.

 

Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue.[6]

 

In 1972, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse released a report favoring decriminalization of cannabis. The Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however.

 

Arguments for and againstEdit

 

For reschedulingEdit

 

Jon Gettman, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, has argued that cannabis does not fit each of the three statutory criteria for Schedule I. Gettman believes that "high potential for abuse" means that a drug has a potential for abuse similar to that of heroin or cocaine.[7] Gettman argues further that since laboratory animals do not self-administer cannabis, and because cannabis' toxicity is virtually non-existent compared to that of heroin or cocaine, cannabis lacks the high abuse potential required for inclusion in Schedule I or II.[citation needed]

 

Gettman also states: "The acceptance of cannabis' medical use by eight (now twenty-three and DC) states since 1996 and the experiences of patients, doctors, and state officials in these states establish marijuana's accepted medical use in the United States."[8] Specifically, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii,Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Washington DC have enacted legislation allowing the medical use of cannabis by their citizens.[9] A minimum of 35,000 patients are currently using medical cannabis legally in these states, and over 2,500 different physicians have recommended it for use by their patients.[10]

 

In his petition, Gettman also argues that cannabis is an acceptably safe medication. He notes that a 1999Institute of Medicine report found that "except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications." He points out that there are a number of delivery routes that were not considered by the Institute, such as transdermal, sublingual, and evenrectal administration, in addition to vaporizers, which release cannabis' active ingredients into the air without burning the plant matter.[11]

 

A study published in the March 1, 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that "there are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis overdose in humans" and attributed this safety to the low density of cannabinoid receptors in areas of the brain controlling breathing and the heart.[12][13] Gettman claims that the discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system in the late 1980s revolutionized scientific understanding of cannabis' effects and provided further evidence that it does not belong in Schedule I.

 

In 2003, the United States government patented cannabinoids, including those in marijuana that cause users to get "high" (such as THC) based on these chemicals' prevention of trauma- and age-related brain damage.[14]

 

In January 2008, the American College of Physicians called for a review of cannabis's Schedule I classification in its position paper titled "Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana" It stated therein: "Position 4: ACP urges an evidence-based review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance to determine whether it should be reclassified to a different schedule. This review should consider the scientific findings regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions as well as evidence on the health risks associated with marijuana consumption, particularly in its crude smoked form." [15]

 

From 2008 to 2012, the American Patients Rights Association, in cooperation with Medical Marijuana expert Kim Quiggle, lobbied the federal government over what is now known as the "Mary Lou Eimer Criteria" based on a medical study performed by Quiggle on over 10,000 chronically ill and terminally ill patients use of medical marijuana in Southern California. This study provided conclusive evidence that medical marijuana provided a safer and alternative application to many current pharmaceutical products available for patients, especially those with cancer and HIV/AIDS. The 'Mary Lou Eimer Criteria' was instrumental in the issuance of the Cole Memorandum which has set federal guidelines over states with medical marijuana laws; and has urged the federal government to reschedule marijuana to a Class IV or Class V controlled substance based on the results of the Quiggle Study.

 

Since 2012, The American Patients Rights Association (APRA), based in Central Florida, has become the strongest advocate for rescheduling medical marijuana to a Schedule V pharmaceutical. APRA's Regulatory Affairs Director, Patrick Rohde, has been highly critical of Colorado's legalization of marijuana, stating that the state government "...has violated patient's rights through its recreational marijuana regulatory scheme" labeling the program "Tax & Jail" in reference to the state's drugged driving laws and high taxes on medical marijuana.

 

“Regulations regarding ‘driving under the influence of 3 micrograms of THC or greater’ is pseudoscience and an abuse of regulatory oversight; I could have 3 micrograms of THC in my blood stream from medical marijuana that I medicated with over a month ago. I could have 3 micrograms in my blood even by simply inhaling too much second hand....APRA wishes to see such decisions on public health reserved for physicians and laboratories with professional expertise.” - Patrick Rohde [16]

 

Against reschedulingEdit

 

In 1992, DEA Administrator Robert Bonner promulgated five criteria, based somewhat on the Controlled Substances Act's legislative history, for determining whether a drug has an accepted medical use.[17] The DEA claims that cannabis has no accepted medical use because it does not meet all of these criteria:[18]

 

The drug's chemistry is known and reproducible;There are adequate safety studies;There are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;The drug is accepted by qualified experts; andThe scientific evidence is widely available.

 

These criteria are not binding; they were created by DEA and may be altered at any time. Judicial deference to agency decisions is what has kept them in effect, despite the difference between these and the statutory criteria. Cannabis is one of several plants with unproven abuse potential and toxicity that Congress placed in Schedule I. The DEA interprets the Controlled Substances Act to mean that if a drug with even a low potential for abuse — say, equivalent to a Schedule V drug — has no accepted medical use, then it must remain in Schedule I:[18]

 

When it comes to a drug that is currently listed in Schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse sufficient to warrant control under the CSA, the drug must remain in schedule I. In such circumstances, placement of the drug in schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug would not meet the criterion of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." 21 USC 812(b).

 

Therefore, even if one were to assume, theoretically, that your assertions about marijuana's potential for abuse were correct (i.e., that marijuana had some potential for abuse but less than the "high potential for abuse" commensurate with schedules I and II), marijuana would not meet the criteria for placement in schedules III through V since it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States—a determination that is reaffirmed by HHS in the attached medical and scientific evaluation.

 

This argument silently rejects the concept that if a drug does not meet the criteria for any schedule, it should not be in any schedule.

 

The U.S. Government argues that human studies are more relevant than studies showing animals do not self-administer cannabis.

 

The Department of Health and Human Services rejects the argument that laboratory animals' failure to self-administer cannabis is conclusive proof of its low potential for abuse:[18]

 

The Secretary disagrees with Mr. Gettman's assertion that "[t]he accepted contemporary legal convention for evaluating the abuse potential of a drug or substance is the relative degree of self-administration the drug induces in animal subjects." As discussed above, self-administration tests that identify whether a substance is reinforcing in animals are but one component of the scientific assessment of the abuse potential of a substance. Positive indicators of human abuse liability for a particular substance, whether from laboratory studies or epidemiological data, are given greater weight than animal studies suggesting the same compound has no abuse potential.

 

The Food and Drug Administration elaborates on this, arguing that the widespread use of cannabis, and the existence of some heavy users, is evidence of its "high potential for abuse," despite the drug's lack of physiological addictiveness:[18]

 

[P]hysical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors to consider in determining a substance's abuse potential. The large number of individuals using marijuana on a regular basis and the vast amount of marijuana that is available for illicit use are indicative of widespread use. In addition, there is evidence that marijuana use can result in psychological dependence in a certain proportion of the population.

 

The Department of Justice also considers the fact that people are willing to risk scholastic, career, and legal problems to use cannabis to be evidence of its high potential for abuse:[18]

 

Throughout his petition, Mr. Gettman argues that while many people "use" cannabis, few "abuse" it. He appears to equate abuse with the level of physical dependence and toxicity resulting from cannabis use. Thus, he appears to be arguing that a substance that causes only low levels of physical dependence and toxicity must be considered to have a low potential for abuse. The Secretary does not agree with this argument. Physical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors that are considered in determining a substance's abuse potential. The actual use and frequency of use of a substance, especially when that use may result in harmful consequences such as failure to fulfill major obligations at work or school, physical risk-taking, or even substance-related legal problems, are indicative of a substance's abuse potential. The same and much worse can also be said about the clear abuse of alcohol by many Americans.

 

ProcessEdit

 

Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis. However, it is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, the 105th Congress, in its second official session, passed Public Law 106-172, also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000,[19] adding GHB to Schedule I.[20] On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul introduced

[mibrains]

H.R. 2306,[21] legislation that would completely remove cannabis from the federal schedules, limiting the federal government's role to policing cross-border or interstate transfers into states where it remains illegal.

 

The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal.[7] The first petition took 22 years to review, the second took 7 years, the third was denied 9 years later. A 2013 petition by two state governors is still pending.

 

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton supports transferring cannabis to Schedule II,[22] while Bernie Sanders has introduced a bill to remove it from the schedules altogether.[23]

 

Rulemaking proceedingsEdit

 

The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21,[24] sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule cannabis. However, the Controlled Substances Act gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as successor agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, great power over rescheduling decisions.

 

After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary "a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA.[25] The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: "f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." 21 U.S.C. § 811(b).

 

FactorsEdit

 

Unless an international treaty requires controlling a substance, the Attorney General must, in finding whether the drug meets the three criteria for placement in a particular schedule, consider the following factors:[citation needed]

 

The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse.Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.Its history and current pattern of abuse.The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.What, if any, risk there is to the public health.Its psychological or physiological dependence liability.Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a controlled substance.International treatyEdit

 

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires governments to regulate cannabis cultivation, but does not ban medical use.

 

If an international treaty, ratified by the U.S., mandates that a drug be controlled, theAttorney General is required to "issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations" without regard to scientific or medical findings.[26] Under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, cannabis andcannabis resin are classified under Schedule IV, that treaty's most strictly controlled category of drugs.[27] However, Article 4© of the Single Convention specifically excludes medicinal drug use from prohibition, requiring only that Parties "limit exclusively to medical and scientific purposes the production, manufacture, export, import, distribution of, trade in, use and possession of drugs".[27] On the other hand,Article 2(5)(b) states that for Schedule IV drugs:

 

A Party shall, if in its opinion the prevailing conditions in its country render it the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare, prohibit the production, manufacture, export and import of, trade in, possession or use of any such drug except for amounts which may be necessary for medical and scientific research only, including clinical trials therewith to be conducted under or subject to the direct supervision and control of the Party.[28]

 

The clause "...in its opinion..." refers to a judgment that each nation makes for itself. The official Commentary on the treaty indicates that Parties are required to make the judgment in good faith. Thus, if in the opinion of the United States, limiting cannabis use solely to research purposes would be "the most appropriate means of protecting the public health and welfare," the U.S. would be required to do that. Presumably, this would greatly restrict the possibilities for medical use.

 

Jon Gettman, in Science and the End of Marijuana Prohibition, claims that "if prohibition ends in the U.S. it must also end world-wide because U.S. law requires that we amend international drug control treaties to correspond with our own findings on scientific and medical issues".[7] This is at least partially correct; 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(2)(B) of the Controlled Substances Act states that if the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs proposes rescheduling a drug, the HHS Secretary "shall evaluate the proposal and furnish a recommendation to theSecretary of State which shall be binding on the representative of the United States in discussions and negotiations relating to the proposal".[24] As the major financial contributor to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime and related agencies, the U.S. has a great deal of influence over international drug policy.[29] However, former United Nations Drug Control Programme Chief of Demand Reduction Cindy Fazey points out in The UN Drug Policies and the Prospect for Change that since cannabis restrictions are embedded in the text of the Single Convention,[28] complete legalization would require denunciation of the Single Convention,[30] amendment of the treaty,[31] or a reinterpretation of its provisions that would likely be opposed by the International Narcotics Control Board.[32]

 

HistoryEdit

 

1972 petitionEdit

 

In 1972 the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) (now the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) to transfer cannabis to Schedule II so that it could be legally prescribed by physicians. The BNDD declined to initiate proceedings on the basis of their interpretation of U.S. treaty commitments.

 

In 1974, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the government and ordered them to process the petition (NORML v. Ingersoll 497 F.2d 654). The government continued to rely on treaty commitments in their interpretation of scheduling-related issues concerning the NORML petition. In 1977, the Court issued a decision clarifying that the Controlled Substances Act requires a full scientific and medical evaluation and the fulfillment of the rescheduling process before treaty commitments can be evaluated (NORML v. DEA 559 F.2d 735). On October 16, 1980, the Court ordered the government to start the scientific and medical evaluations required by the NORML petition (NORML v. DEA Unpublished Disposition, U.S. App. LEXIS 13100).

 

Meanwhile, some members of Congress were taking action to reschedule the drug legislatively. In 1981, the late Rep. Stuart McKinney introduced a bill to transfer cannabis to Schedule II.[33] It was co-sponsored by a bipartisancoalition of 84 House members, including prominent Republicans Newt Gingrich (GA), Bill McCollum (FL), John Porter (IL), and Frank Wolf (VA).[34] After the bill died in committee, Rep. Barney Frank began annually introducing nearly identical legislation.[35] All of Frank's bills have suffered the same fate, though, without attracting more than a handful of co-sponsors.

 

On October 18, 1985, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to transfer "Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules" — a pill form of Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive component of cannabis, sold under the brand name Marinol — from Schedule I to Schedule II (DEA 50 FR 42186-87). The government issued its final rule rescheduling the drug on July 13, 1986 (DEA 51 FR 17476-78). The disparate treatment of cannabis and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency.[36][37]

 

In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6, 1988, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II".[38]

 

Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against re-scheduling cannabis based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992. This statement was quoted by theMultidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in its membership drives.[39]

 

In 1994, the D.C. Court of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131). The petition was officially dead. "Each of the doctors testifying on behalf of NORML claimed that his opinion was based on scientific studies, yet with one exception, none could identify, under oath, the scientific studies they relied on," DEA Administrator Thomas A. Constantine remarked in 1995.[40]

 

1995 petitionEdit

 

On July 10, 1995, Jon Gettman and High Times Magazine filed another rescheduling petition with the DEA. This time, instead of focusing on cannabis' medical uses, the petitioners claimed that cannabis did not have the "high potential for abuse" required for Schedule I or Schedule II status. They based their claims on studies of the brain's cannabinoid receptor system conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) between 1988 and 1994. In particular, they claim that a 1992 study by M. Herkenham et al.,[41] "using a lesion-technique, established that there are no cannabinoid receptors in the dopamine-producing areas of the brain".[13] Other studies, summarized in Gettman's 1997 report Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana, showed that cannabis has only an indirect effect on dopamine transmission.[13] This suggested that cannabis' psychoactive effects are produced by a different mechanism than addictive drugs such as amphetamine, cocaine, ethanol,nicotine, and opiates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, however, continued to publish literature denying this finding. For instance, NIDA claims the following in its youth publication The Science Behind Drug Abuse:[42]

 

A chemical in marijuana, THC, triggers brain cells to release the chemical dopamine. Dopamine creates good feelings — for a short time. Here's the thing: Once dopamine starts flowing, a user feels the urge to smoke marijuana again, and then again, and then again. Repeated use could lead to addiction, and addiction is a brain disease.

 

In January 1997, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids.[43] In 1999, the IOM recommended that medical cannabis use be allowed for certain patients in the short term, and that preparations of isolated cannabinoids be developed as a safer alternative to smoked cannabis. The IOM also found that the gateway drug theory was "beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."

 

Both sides claimed that the IOM report supported their position. The DEA publication Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana interpreted the IOM's statement, "While we see a future in the development of chemically defined cannabinoid drugs, we see little future in smoked marijuana as a medicine," as meaning that smoking cannabis is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition.[44] Cannabis advocates pointed out that the IOM did not study vaporizers, devices which, by heating cannabis to 185 °C, release therapeutic cannabinoids while reducing or eliminating ingestion of various carcinogens.[45]

 

On July 2, 1999, Marinol was again rescheduled, this time from Schedule II to the even less-restrictive Schedule III, while cannabis remained in Schedule I (64 FR 35928).[46] The petitioners argued that the distinction between the two drugs was arbitrary, and that cannabis should be rescheduled as well. The DEA, however, continued to support Marinol as a method of THC ingestion without harmful smoke inhalation.

 

The DEA published a final denial of Gettman's petition on April 18, 2001.[47] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the agency's decision on May 24, 2002, ruling that the petitioners were not sufficiently injured to have standing to challenge DEA's determinations in federal court (290 F.3d 430).[48] Since the appeal was dismissed on a technicality, it is unknown what position the Court would have taken on the merits of the case.

 

2002 petitionEdit

 

On October 9, 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed another petition.[49] The new organization consisted of medical cannabis patients and other petitioners who would be more directly affected by the DEA's decision. On April 3, 2003, the DEA accepted the filing of that petition. According to Jon Gettman, "In accepting the petition the DEA has acknowledged that the Coalition has established a legally significant argument in support of the recognition of the accepted medical use of cannabis in the United States."

 

In a footnote to the majority decision in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice John Paul Stevens said that if the scientific evidence offered by medical cannabis supporters is true, it would "cast serious doubt" on the Schedule I classification.[50]

 

On May 23, 2011, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed suit in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to compel the DEA to formally respond to its 2002 petition to have marijuana rescheduled under the provisions of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The writ of mandamus filed alleged that the lack of decision by DEA, "presents a paradigmatic example of unreasonable delay under Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC."[51] In response to the suit, the DEA issued a Final Determination on the Petition for Rescheduling on July 8, 2011.[52][53] The Petition for Writ of Mandamus was subsequently dismissed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals as moot on October 14, 2011.[54]

 

In response to the petition's denial, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access appealed to the D.C. Circuit on January 23, 2012.[55] Oral arguments in the case Americans for Safe Access v. DEA were heard on October 16, 2012.[56] On the same day the case was heard, the court ordered the plaintiffs (ASA) to clarify their arguments on standing.[57] In response, ASA filed a supplemental brief on October 22, 2012, detailing how plaintiff Michael Krawitz was harmed by the federal government's policy on medical marijuana due to being denied treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs.[58] A ruling in the case is expected sometime in 2013.[citation needed]

 

2009 petition

 

On December 17, 2009, Rev. Bryan A. Krumm, CNP, filed a rescheduling petition for Cannabis with the DEA arguing that "because marijuana does not have the abuse potential for placement in Schedule I of the CSA, and because marijuana now has accepted medical use in 13 states, and because the DEA’s own Administrative Law Judge has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision, the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(A)-©, no longer applies to marijuana and federal law must be amended to reflect these changes." Krumm demanded an expedited ruling in order to protect his health and welfare, as well as that of all citizens of United States who may benefit from this safe and effective medication.

 

On December 23, 2015, Tom Angell reported that the FDA had finally issued a recommendation to the DEA regarding both the 2009 and 2011 petitions. http://www.marijuana.com/blog/news/2015/12/fda-issues-marijuana-rescheduling-recommendation-to-dea/

 

Requests have been made to both the DEA and FDA under the Freedom of Information Act to determine the details of that recommendation. Unlike the 2011 petition, Krumm did not request that Cannabis be moved to any specific schedule of control under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and has reserved his right to challenge any incorrect findings by the FDA and/or DEA whether Cannabis should even be regulated under the CSA.

 

2011 petitionEdit

 

On November 30, 2011, Washington State 

[Willy]

 

 

ahhhh nope!!

Edited April 8, 2016 by Willy

[cristinew]

Ya think this should of been posted on  4;1;16

[t-pain]

dea aint gonna do bunny muffin.

 

 

theres a question i have for any smart people out there.

 

 

how many different govt depts out there dealing with drugs?

 

yes DEA, FDA, ONDCP

 

but i'm curious about these other, quiet/secret departments.

i cant remember the acronymn right now or what dept it was. i remember it was last year , some office i never heard of make some kind of statement right around when obama got the nih to cut out the extra fda/dea step when researching marijuana. any help?

[cristinew]

CIA  importers   FBI overseers   DEA distributors   And all the rest   Homeland security  border patrol  state police  local police  jail/ prison guards  they are are in this for the Money,

[Scarlet_Begonias]

Interesting...I had to Google your statement about the UN makeing the schedule..

 

 

Next conference at NYC Headquarters is on 4/19, FOUR TWENTY, and 4/21.

http://www.unodc.org/ungass2016/