Study Casts Doubt on DEA Marijuana Classification

Study Casts Doubt on DEA Marijuana Classification
Published: 07 Jul, 2012
2 min read

For decades the US government and the DEA have classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Their definition is as follows:

"Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. Some examples of substances listed in schedule I are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), peyote, methaqualone, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine ('ecstasy')."

The Open Neurology Journal recently conducted a study of smoked and vaporized marijuana and its medical usefulness in pain management. The purpose of the study was to show that the drug is misclassified as it does have medical use and should be classified as such. This study takes to task the federal government's failure to make drug classification decisions on a scientific basis instead of fear and bias as in the case of marijuana.

The study focused on the short term effectiveness of marijuana on neuropathic pain. It was carried out by the University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR). The study showed overwhelming evidence that the use of smoked cannabis reduced pain by 30 - 40%.  The study also looked at the nausea-reducing and appetite-stimulating properties for cancer and AIDS patients and again, it showed that it was a significant improvement when compared to the placebo (38%vs 8%). So in both cases, the study suggests a valid medical use.

In the conclusion of the study the Schedule I classification by the DEA is refuted by all evidence presented through this study. Here is the following set of statements at the conclusion of the paper.

5960 61

This evidence should at the very least compel the federal government, Department of Justice, and Drug Enforcement Agency to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III, which would allow it to be used for medical purposes instead of treated as a drug that has no redeemable qualities. I think we can all agree that marijuana has some benefits, while a drug like crack cocaine has none-- this should be apparent to all who look at this issue objectively.

Many people feel strongly one way or the other about the War on Drugs in America, but we should strive to look at the issue of drug use in a rational and scientific way. Would this harm a person? What are the benefits of this substance, medical or otherwise to the population? Would we be better off if this substance was treated like a medicine instead of strictly an illicit substance? These and many other questions must be asked by a society if we truly want to make the best decisions. This is why studies like this and others are extremely important and should be taken seriously by policy makers in Washington as well as state capitols.

You Might Also Like

New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
New IVP 2026 California Governor Poll: What the Toplines Don’t Tell You
Using verified California voter file data, IVP surveyed high-propensity voters from February 13 through 20. The poll tested first-choice ballot preferences alongside issue intensity on affordability and the cost of living, immigration enforcement, more choice reform, and more....
23 Feb, 2026
-
10 min read
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
81% of Americans Say Money Controls Politics – Can a Constitutional Amendment Fix It?
Polls consistently show that nearly all Americans across the political spectrum agree that there is too much money in politics – whether from foreign sources, corporations, or so-called “dark money” groups. ...
23 Feb, 2026
-
13 min read
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
10 Reasons Why the Congressional Stock Trading Ban Will Never Pass
The overlap between committee assignments and stock ownership is not automatically illegal. Because the current legal framework permits this proximity as long as disclosure rules are followed, lawmakers are not operating under a system that forces change....
20 Feb, 2026
-
4 min read