Decriminalization v.s. Legalization

This is really quite an important distinction, thanks for bringing it up! I believe that beginning with decriminalization at the community or state level, as has been done in states such as New Hampshire most recently, and then transitioning to legalization might allow individuals to measure the effects of these policies. Ending the drug war entirely might also require changing the culture surrounding drug use, requiring health and social interventions on a community basis.

I like your idea about testing both policies at the state level, but we must remember how national supremacy works. Even though several states have decriminalized drugs, most notably cannabis, many drugs are still classed as illegal at the federal level due to the DEA's scheduling system. I think drugs need to be reclassified or decriminalized at the federal level so that the work of the states cannot be undone.

That's a good point that you bring up. It seems futile for decriminalization to take place if the state level decriminalizes it, but the federal level supersedes this policy. What do you mean by reclassified?

When I say "reclassified", I mean the DEA should change the schedules of drugs. For example, marijuana is a schedule 1 drug - meaning it is completely illegal and has no medicinal purposes - even though marijuana has proven health benefits for people with anxiety, loss of appetite, or chronic pain. The scheduling system should become more objective.

The scheduling system really does seem to need to be modified, in that light.

Thoughts in this: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/dea-chief-marijuana-is-not-medicine/article/2624211?

I completely disagree with the DEA chief. Evidence by both The Washington Post and the Cato Institute show that legalization of marijuana has had little risk on public health or traffic violations. On top of that, arrests rates for possession have gone down tremendously, which weakens the burden on the criminal justice system. I especially find it suspect given how the DEA has approved of synthetic marijuana, which is more toxic, but not its natural counterpart. Even if the data is insufficient in the eyes of the DEA and FDA, it warrants the federal government to loosen restrictions on cannabis so that more conclusive studies can be done.

Sources:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/10/13/heres-how-legal-pot-changed-colorado-and-washington/?utm_term=.82251fc19037

https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/dose-reality-effect-state-marijuana-legalizations

http://fortune.com/2017/01/13/marijuana-health-effects-study/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2016/02/synthetic_marijuana_is_a_weird_and_confusing_drug_here_s_what_you_need_to.html

That's really interesting to consider. Why do you believe that marijuana hasn't been legalized then?

I think marijuana has not been legalized is due to money in politics. Many lobbying interests like the big pharma and private prison industry benefit from having marijuana criminalized. Check out the list for those who have lobbied the DEA, which contain various pharmaceutical companies. The lobbying power of these companies also explains why some politicians have not pushed for reforming the Controlled Substances Act, which created the current scheduling system.

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/agencysum.php?id=155