Removal of Cannabis From Schedule I of The Controlled Substances Act - Process

Process

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, adding GHB to Schedule I. On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 2306, 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. The first petition took 22 years to review, and the second took 7 years. In 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed a third petition.

Read more about this topic:  Removal Of Cannabis From Schedule I Of The Controlled Substances Act

Famous quotes containing the word process:

    Language is a process of free creation; its laws and principles are fixed, but the manner in which the principles of generation are used is free and infinitely varied. Even the interpretation and use of words involves a process of free creation.
    Noam Chomsky (b. 1928)

    Healthy parenting is nothing if not a process of empowerment. As we help to raise our children’s self-esteem, we also increase their personal power. When we encourage them to be confident, self-reliant, self-directed, and responsible individuals, we are giving them power.
    Louise Hart (20th century)

    The American, if he has a spark of national feeling, will be humiliated by the very prospect of a foreigner’s visit to Congress—these, for the most part, illiterate hacks whose fancy vests are spotted with gravy, and whose speeches, hypocritical, unctuous, and slovenly, are spotted also with the gravy of political patronage, these persons are a reflection on the democratic process rather than of it; they expose it in its process rather than of it; they expose it in its underwear.
    Mary McCarthy (1912–1989)