Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

spectrumnews.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 179 posts

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#21

Post by hoorayimhelping »

r_singh wrote: post #5

Pardon me if this sounds naive, but I'm slightly confused as to how recreational marijuana is legal in 9 states but the DEA still heavily controls cannabidiol as if it were still illegal?

Not naive at all. The issue is typically framed as States Rights and it's wrapped around the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This has been an issue since the 1780s, so it will take more than a couple of sentences to give the whole rundown but it's like this. A few states are saying "we have explicitly made marijuana legal for adult consumption, and since the Federal Constitution doesn't forbid this, it's legal," and the federal government is saying, "um, I don't think so. Cannabis is a schedule 1 drug that is regulated by the DEA, and it can't be made legal. And we intend to enforce this with the DEA."

So every once in a while, the DEA come in and shake up a cannabis operation (they raid the grow house or the dispensary or sometimes [rarely now] raid patients' homes) that is legal at the state level but federally illegal and there's a whole jurisdictional issue. The local police used to cooperate with the DEA in decades past, but have since told them to get bent. Now there aren't enough federal agents to deal with this, and a lot of local police forces have realized that cannabis is really not a big deal, so sometimes these things get enforced and sometimes they don't.

So we're in a gray area right now, where you can purchase cannabis legally or medically in quite a few states, but it's still illegal at the federal level. Apart from selective enforcement of this being scary, this opens up weird issues for seemingly law-abiding citizens: Since cannabis is a schedule 1 drug, using it precludes you from purchasing a gun legally at the federal level. So a law abiding citizen can easily unknowingly put themselves into a situation where they're breaking federal law even though they're abiding state laws.

If you want to see how ridiculous DEA drug scheduling is, check out this page: https://www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#23

Post by stephengillie »

Thriptic wrote: post #16
stephengillie wrote: post #2

> Federal law vs. state law: While the DEA was insisting on thoroughly vetting everyone who came into contact with the tiny amount of marijuana product used in our study, the reality was that less than a mile from the hospital, anyone could walk into a boutique shop or dispensary and buy it. Why does a drug have to be legalized to be studied? If it can be purchased down the road, why are you involving the DEA at all?…

Marijuana is defined as a schedule one drug by the DEA, meaning they believe it has no accepted medical value and should not be studied. Being in possession of or trying to purchase this drug for a medical study would therefore be illegal. Publishing the results would be admitting you performed a federal crime and you would be arrested. Additionally, human studies require approval by an on site or third party institu…

But the study would be okay if they merely interviewed individuals who purchased cannabis for their own recreation? What if these individuals were using it recreationally according to a schedule suggested by the interviewers?

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#24

Post by stephengillie »

maze-le wrote: post #20
stephengillie wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just as with video piracy, the civil disobedience to support the market is a necessary risk that supporters must be willing to make.

It is one thing to share a movie and possibly be fined with XXX$ because of "piracy". Its quite another thing to risk your respectability, career and future research funding -- all hanging in the balance when a federal felony charge is thrust upon you.

Isn't piracy also a federal crime, thus the FBI warning on all non-pirated DVDs?

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#25

Post by acomjean »

vorpalhex wrote: post #11
beojan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "legal in 9 states", it's not prohibited by 9 states, but still prohibited federally.

That's incorrect. Those states explicitly legalized the possession and consumption of marijuana. That legalization is in conflict with the federal prohibition - so consuming marijuana in those instances is not a state crime (any more then walking down the street or eating cake is) but might still be a federal crime in those cases where the federal government has the ability to charge you (interstate commerce).

Thats my understanding of it. I'm in Massachusetts and one of the problem this new industry faces is banking. Banks are federally regulated many won't touch it (there are some "know you customer" anti money landing type laws). Thus it becomes a cash business, leading to all sorts of problems.

Being Massachusetts though, although technically it should be legal since july, they haven't issued any permits to allow it to be sold. Those issues should be resolved with luck in another 2-3 years...

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#26

Post by bluGill »

stephengillie wrote: post #2

> Federal law vs. state law: While the DEA was insisting on thoroughly vetting everyone who came into contact with the tiny amount of marijuana product used in our study, the reality was that less than a mile from the hospital, anyone could walk into a boutique shop or dispensary and buy it. Why does a drug have to be legalized to be studied? If it can be purchased down the road, why are you involving the DEA at all?…

When studying a drug for medical purposes you want to know it is pure. Down the street how knows how much active ingredient you actually get (this is the problem with herbs in general - they do not all contain the same amount of active ingredient, and it is possible something unknown in half the samples is the real active ingredient)

Marijuana has been studied overseas.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#27

Post by nopacience »

> In March, Insys launched a multinational study of 190 children to evaluate cannabidiol as a first-line therapy for infantile spasms. We are eager to see how well the compound performs when given in the first days and weeks of the condition. If it turns out to be effective, cannabidiol would represent a substantial improvement over current drugs, all of which have serious side effects: One, for example, causes irreversible vision loss in as many as one-third of the children who take it.

Its ok to sell: "a drug that causes irreversible vision loss in as many as one-third of the children who take it"

Its against the law: canabidiol from a plant, or even grow the plant yourself

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#28

Post by sp332 »

vorpalhex wrote: post #11
beojan wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "legal in 9 states", it's not prohibited by 9 states, but still prohibited federally.

That's incorrect. Those states explicitly legalized the possession and consumption of marijuana. That legalization is in conflict with the federal prohibition - so consuming marijuana in those instances is not a state crime (any more then walking down the street or eating cake is) but might still be a federal crime in those cases where the federal government has the ability to charge you (interstate commerce).

What's the difference between being legalized and being not prohibited?

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#29

Post by wavefunction »

acomjean wrote: post #25
vorpalhex wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's incorrect. Those states explicitly legalized the possession and consumption of marijuana. That legalization is in conflict with the federal prohibition - so consuming marijuana in those instances is not a state crime (any more then walking down the street or eating cake is) but might still be a federal crime in those cases where the federal government has the ability to charge you (interstate commerce).

Thats my understanding of it. I'm in Massachusetts and one of the problem this new industry faces is banking. Banks are federally regulated many won't touch it (there are some "know you customer" anti money landing type laws). Thus it becomes a cash business, leading to all sorts of problems. Being Massachusetts though, although technically it should be legal since july, they haven't issued any permits to allow it to…

There are stores in some of the legalized states that are processing debit card transactions through some company in NYC. I expect it will be possible in MA stores.

Re: Federal chokehold on marijuana stymies studies on epilepsy, autism

#30

Post by astura »

r_singh wrote: post #5

Pardon me if this sounds naive, but I'm slightly confused as to how recreational marijuana is legal in 9 states but the DEA still heavily controls cannabidiol as if it were still illegal?

It's complicated and far from a settled issue.

As far as I understand it you can be arrested by federal law enforcement and charged with a federal crime but you cannot be arrested by local or state law enforcement and charged with a local or state crime.

This is why the marijuana industry is "cash only" - banks won't give them a bank account because it violates federal law for them to do so. This is very undesirable for the marijuana companies because having large stacks of cash laying around is a liability and also an accounting mess. Though last I heard some companies might be trying to band together to create a "maybe semi legal bank like entity" to fix this problem.

So far the DEA has largely chosen not to go after marijuana dispensaries and growers that are operating within the parameters of state law, but that can change, and it might lead to some interesting court cases.

This also can lead to problems for ordinary citizens, if they can go into a store and buy a product it is reasonable to think the product is totally and completely legal. However, they do risk being charged with a federal crime, but that's not totally obvious.

Post reply on HN