Talk:Controlled Substances Act/Archive 1

Misinformation concerning Fentanyl
There is a statement that non-transdermal Fentanyl can only be administered by a physician. This is untrue. CRNAs RNs and PAs can administer IV fentanyl in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmosler2100 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Minor Edit to Schedule II
Added Nabilone (Cesamet) which is an analogue to dronabinol which is the active ingredient in Marinol (THC). This medication was out before Marinol but was pulled off the market and was just re-released in last 2006. It is a Schedule II drug unlike Marinol which is schedule III and cannabis which is schedule I, even though they all have the same MAIN active ingredient, THC. Chq 06:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Also added dexmethylphenidate (Focalin) after Ritalin. Chq 06:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

LSD shouldn't be Schedule I
The article says: Schedule I drugs Findings required: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

a. LSD is abuseproof, you can't abuse it because you gain tolerance for about a week before it full effect will return b. If it was posible to reserch it they would find a medical use for it, like shrinking american's egoes c. You don't need doctor watching you take LSD, you need a person you trust, who has used it before.

Does anybody know who to send this complaint to

Edit: well LSD was used in the mid 60's as a psychiatric drug - It was known as the "truth serum" because its symptoms cause a relaxed, at ease feeling causing one to reveal more information than they would have normally. Secondly I believe LSD is still used by the secret service/intelligence agencies because its effects can prove very worthy and in hand when it comes down to the possibility of spies in their midst.


 * First off, spell properly. Second off, I don't believe "american's egoes(sic)" is a recognized form of cancer or other tumor, and therefore, there is no medical reason to shrink them. I also would like to say that "a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision" means it CAN cause harm in the presence of a doctor. Dementia due to flashbacks is the main problem associated with prolonged LSD use. Third, quit being so POV. It's really quite irritating. Next time, try stating a valid case with valid arguments. --George The Man 22:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If you want to include the point "LSD shouldn't be Schedule I" in the encyclopedia, find a published source where this is argued and reference it in the article. A "Criticisms" section might be good for this type of thing and could include other sourced criticisms of drug placement and the act in general. Cannabis might be an easier place to start though because there is ample documentation of current medical use in the US. Unlike LSD it is actually currently prescribed by US doctors, so it's harder to see how it could have "no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States". Calling "truth serum" experiments in the 60's "medical use" is perhaps debatable, but it would be a stretch to call this "current" use.
 * As for the question "Does anybody know who to send this complaint to", you might try writing to one of your elected representatives. Keep in mind this page is supposed to be for discussing the article though. Also, sign your talk page posts with "~" or press the scribble button above the edit box. George, it might be a good idea to review WP:BITE.--Eloil 01:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because "The Controlled Substances Act of 1970" is a law and not a general classification; the federal government has decided to place LSD on schedule one, and therefore LSD is on schedule one of the controlled substances act, making it illegal.

76.17.101.142 (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

EXTREME POV
Generally I don't get into POV/NPOV discussions as I believe that true NPOV is too abstract a notion to actually exist in real life. A certain degree of POV is inevitable, and I accept it.

I was however shocked at the EXTREME level of POV in the constitutionality section. The quote from the CATO institute is simply unnacceptable. Regardless of one's position on the constitutionality of the CSA, pro or con, to quote the statement "at least the advocates of alcohol Prohibition had enough respect for the Constitution to seek a constitutional amendment to impose Prohibition, but Congress never asked the American people for the constitutional power to impose drug prohibition" definitely crosses the line. Not only is EXTREMELY POV, it's also phrased in an extremely arrogant and disrespectful tone. No doubt someone will reply and point out that the article is indeed balanced in the sense that it does provide some pro-constitutionality remarks, but realistically speaking, the imbalance is indisputable. All this and I'm not even sure if I believe in the constitutionality of the CSA. The issue of constitutionality should definitely be included in the article, however in a far more professional manner. Loomis51 01:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Make that MULTIPLE statements from CATO, an organization that declares a right to overthrow the government by force. Was this article written by the Koch Brothers?  63.152.95.56 (talk) 20:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV problems
A lot of this article has a very pro-legalization slant. Most of the discussion of schedule 1 drugs looks like nothing more than apologetics. I know very little about drugs, illegal or otherwise, but it'd be nice if someone who does would try to correct this... Isomorphic 15:59, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not pro-legalization. The reason there are apologetics is because many of the Schedule I drugs were placed there capriciously, against the advice of their own administrative law judges. Both Ecstasy and marijuana are in Schedule I, despite the fact that Administrative Law Judges have determined that they should be in a lesser schedule, such as 2 or 3. There are many drugs that have accepted medical uses, yet are placed in Schedule I because of politics. Heroin, for example, is nothing special in the world of opiates. True, it is twice as potent as morphine, but hydrocodone and oxycodone are even more potent, and they are in Schedule II and commonly sold as Vicodin and Percocet. Other than the increased potency, the pharmacology of heroin is identical to that of other medically accepted opiates. The reasons heroin is in Schedule I have no scientific basis. It is only because heroin has a reputation as a street drug that it is treated differently.
 * Heroin also doesn't have pharmaceutical industry backers. 205.217.105.2 23:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Heroin But isn't heroin also a more common street drug than Hydrocodone and Oxycodone? The strength of the drug isn't the only factor at play in which schedule it's placed into.

Re:Re:Heroin That is not correct. Illicit use of hydrocodone and oxycodone is much more prevalent than heroin use.
 * Also GHB is very commonly used a date-rape drug, while the page basically makes it look like a useful and helpful chemical. Many deaths have been atributed to overuse of alcohol and GHB at the same time


 * No, GHB is very commonly hyped as a date-rape drug, by sensationalist media. Actual cases of GHB being used with pre-meditation to facilitate rape are not, by any stretch, "common".
 * As for the alcohol connection -- Yes, but so what? A lot of substances interact badly with alcohol.  If I drink alcohol with my medication (which is legally prescribed for a legitimate condition), I risk coma or death.  Does that make my medication dangerous?  Or does it make alcohol dangerous?  --63.25.112.122 04:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Isomorphic I agree that there is a strong deregulatory stance being taken in two to three sections of the article. Some of the stances seem to be underwritten by the thoughts of conservative political groups, and others by the thoughts of groups like NORML: seeking legalization of illicit drugs. These kinds of discussions are not appropriate for a factual database and reference such as Wikipedia. The fact that the debate exists is not at issue, but masquerading ideology as fact is reprehensible and should be dismantled as soon as possible.

Richardmormegil 06:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Richardmormegil

I think if the section on schedules was slimply reorganized and more complete, there wouldn't be a NPOV issuse. The problem in the United States with the Drug War is too few people know enough to be able to look at this problem for what it really is. --204.95.8.114 2 July 2005 18:54 (UTC)

Quick thing here: Oxycodone is a schedule IIHowever, Hydrocodone is not, it is a schedule III. If anyone posting on this subject had ever been prescribed either of these meds, you would know this. Schedule II ALWAYS has to have a written prescription from your Primary Care, brought into your Pharmacy, in order to be filled. Hydrocodone can be called into a Pharmacy by your Primary Care as it is a schedule III. That is one of the "little differences" between Oxycodone and Hydrocodone, as well as, one of the "little differences" between Schedule II and Schedule III meds.
 * oxycodone (percocet) and hydrocodone (vicodin) are NOT the same substance, thus the diferance in scheduling. Xaosflux 05:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Another quick thing: Vicodin and Percocet ARE NOT more potent than Morphine. Morphine is one of the strongest prescription narcotics available for pain relief. Anyone who has been through any kind of long illness that somewhat debilitating, to completely debilitating, pain has been a factor, would know this. I remember a Pharmacist making the comment to me at one point, "You always know when someone has been diagnosed with Cancer that is fairly widespread--They come in with a prescription for Morphine." I asked him why that was and his response was "There really isn't anything stronger to treat the pain the Chemotherapy and the Cancer itself will cause." Personal anecdotes aside, Vicodin is the weaker of the substances and is also less addictive, therefore a Schedule III. Percocet however, is not only stonger, but much more addictive, therefore a Schedule II.

WAIT! no, just one other quick thing:  i mean we ALL know that percocet is much more addictive than vicodin while all the time being much weaker than morphine (that is only administered to end-of-life cancer patients). ESPECIALLY when you don't know the strengths of said drugs. or anything other than what a totally UNprofessional pharmacist blurts out to you.

NO NO! WAIT!! this is the absolute last quick thing: how do we keep people like above from editing this EDIFICE that will in some ways define our century, our technology????

First of all, hydrocodone IS in schedule II. It is only when combined with acetaminophen or a similar non-narcotic pain reliever that it becomes Schedule III. Hydrocodone by itself is Schedule II. Also, morphine is not one of the most potent pain relievers when talking about *oral* dose equivalencies. I know it is very effective for cancer pain, but the dosages are high. About 90% of the morphine is destroyed through first-pass metabolism when taken orally, while both hydrocodone and oxycodone retain more than half their efficacy when taken orally. This does not mean that morphine cannot be a very effective pain reliever, just that the dose is going to be higher than with hydrocodone or oxycodone. My point was that heroin is not some sort of crazy, weird drug with special properties that separate it from other opioids that are widely prescribed. It should be added to the wide pool of available Schedule II/III opioid drugs. There is no scientific reason for it being in Schedule I.


 * Heroin is NOT currently used as medication in the united states, and has no accepted medical use. Heroin is a drug with a VERY high risk of abuse (in fact that's technically the only way to use it), is found to be more addictive than both hydrocodone and oxycodone, and can cause physical harm to the liver and pancreas when taken under the supervision of a medical professional over extended periods of time. If there are any more questions about schedule I placement of heroin, read before. If anything, hydrocodone and oxycodone need to be raised, not heroin dropped. So far, the rest of the arguments against Sched. I placement hold credence except for LSD, which (though it is NOT addictive or widely abused) has no accepted medical use in the united states, and can cause dementia when taken repeatedly. --George The Man 22:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * George the Man you are incorrect in that oxycodone is more addictive than heroin, and I can personally attest to this. The reason it seems otherwise is that most users of heroin inject, whereas most users of oxycontin use the IN (snorting) route.  IN is inherently less addictive than snorting, but if you've ever met someone who injects oxy they are more rock-bottom than heroin users, and most of them die not long after starting said habit.  On the other hand, if you meet people who snort heroin, most of them are only occasional users (i.e. not addicts at all)


 * And to mr. one more quick thing, morphine indeed IS less potent than hydrocodone and hydromorphone, as it requires larger doses to achieve equal levels of analgesia. Sure, it produces a stronger "high" as some would argue (I think hydromorphone is more euphoric, actually, but not hydrocodone) but it requires about 30-45 mg to do what 5-10 mg of hydrocodone can do, and what 2-8 mg of hydromorphone can do.
 * Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 6:59 AM EST, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I was discussing this question of "the strongest opiate" with a well known anesthesiologist a few months ago. The just of the conversation was that the way we compare them (oral dose efficacy v. injected; partial agonist v. full agonist) makes this kind of comparison fruitless. There is an opiate derived drug called Carfentanil used in milligram dosage as an elephant tranquilizer. Micrograms would kill a human. In terms of drug control policy, the opiate appearing on Schedule I need have no relationship to “potency.”  Heroin is on schedule I because it can be grown and harvested in a poppy field in Afghanistan (or where have you), minimally processed in open air with no special equipment, and trafficked. With opium, lime, ammonia and acetic anhydride, you too can be a heroin trafficker. Upon information and belief, the other opiate derived drugs take serious lab skills to make, so much so that Congress might reasonable expect that their street synthesis would remain minimal. Heroin’s inclusion on the list balances the dangers of street abuse against its necessity to medicine. Other "stronger" laboratory derived opiates that cannot be easily made in a mud hut somewhere and do not enter the country by the ton illicitly that exist to fill the void left by the "stronger" drug heroin. Does anybody really think that heroin is not a fundamentally different animal from hydrocodone? Perhaps that uses of Schedule I drugs in legitimate settings should have a separate section devoted to it that is more carefully crafted, researched and referenced from legitimate, preferably medical, sources. Presenting in the way it currently appears elevates it unreasonably and prevents the uniformed reader from making informed opinions. Rdsg 13:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, it is even easier to just make morphine than it is to make heroin, so I doubt that is the reason heroin is Schedule I.
 * Psychonaut25 (13375p34k!) 6:56 AM EST, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason this section strikes me as seriously pro drug is not only the apologetic information the directly follows most of the drugs on the list, but also the complete lack of information as to why these drugs are sheduled in the first place. Great effort is made to point out that many of the most dangerous drugs on the list were once acceptable, or are a lower concentration than other drugs, but there is Zero effort to point out what makes these drugs so dangerous that they need to be regulated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.70.145 (talk) 10:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Why Schedule?
Does anyone know why the categories are called Schedules? Why not "class", for example?

The Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act was made law in 1970. Title II of this law, the Controlled Substances Act, is the legal foundation of narcotics enforcement in the United States. The Controlled Substances Act regulates the manufacture, possession, movement, and distribution of drugs in our country. It places all drugs into one of five schedules, or classifications, and is controlled by the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, including the Federal Drug Administration.


 * A schedule is "A printed or written list of items in tabular form"; they are called schedules because that's what they are. -nbach 09:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC


 * Plus calling them "classes" would be confusing, since it already refers to types of medications, such as NSAIDS's (ibuprofen/celebrex/etc) or benzodiazepines (valium/xanax/etc)--68.106.106.94 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Cocaine
Just wanted to say that cocaine DOES have a medical use as a local anaesthetic. Although it is an archaic medicine to use in such a case, it is still regarded as legitimate, and cocaine hydrochloride is listed in the Physician's Desk Reference.

Constitutionality
Is the CSA constitutional? We had to amend the Constitution to institute alcohol prohibition. Why is an amendment not required for drug prohibition? I know the Cato Institute has said it's unconstitutional. That debate might be a good thing to include in the article, although sadly, the mainstream doesn't seem to care whether any federal programs are constitutional or not. Rad Racer 13:23, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Answer: Even if the CSA is unconstitutional on its face, it is still technically constitutional because of the various international drug treaties that we are a signatory to. According to the Consitution, treaties are the supreme law of the land, constitutionality notwithstanding.
 * Can a treaty supersede the Constitution? In that case, the Senate could ratify a treaty saying all citizens are required to practice Islam, and it would be constitutional. That can't be correct. See . ...A non-self-executing treaty nevertheless would be the supreme law of the land in the sense that--as long as the treaty is consistent with the Bill of Rights--the President could not constitutionally ignore or contravene it. It seems that if it conflicts with the Bill of Rights, then it is not binding. See also Reid v. Covert. Rad Racer | Talk 04:30, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In my opinon the constitutionality paragraph is POV. Specifically the part about prohibitionists having the respect to seek an ammendment.

Different Answer: The reason that prohibition was put into the constitution was because it had already been adopted by two-thirds of the states before it became an ammendment. So when it was proposed in congress, it got somewhat automatic ratification. When it got sent to the state legislatures, two-thirds of the states already had prohibition on the books, and therefore ratified the ammendment. Once it became an ammendment though, only another ammendment could nullify it.

As to the part about treaties, they are not the law of the land. According to the Constitution, Article 2, Section 2, 2nd Clause:

''[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. ''

The President has the authority to make treaties on behalf of the United States, but to become law, they must be ratified by two-thirds senate majority. If the treaty is ratified, it becomes United States Law, and is subject to review by the Supreme Court. In the case of a hypothetical treaty with Iran involving the manditory practice of Islam, it would take approximately six seconds for the state of Louisiana to file suit against the United States, in which case the Supreme Court would have origional juridiction, and the first ammendment would then be enforced.

It should be noted that as far as I can tell, there is no mention of the place of ratified treaties in the hierarchy of laws. All of the legal information I got for this response was read from the constitution itself, and some things I learned in a constitutional law class in high school. If you refer to the constitution, you can find the same information that I have provided.DrXenocide

I bring your attention to Article VI of the Constitution, which states in part:

"...and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;..."

So all treaties ARE the supreme law in the land, and all judges are bound by them.

The full text of that particular clause reading "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

So you have been proven wrong. Treaties do not suprecede the constitution which then brings us back the original question, If we had to pass an admendment to make alcohol illegal why dont we have to pass an admendment to make marijuana or other 'illicit' drugs illegal? There is still no good answer to this question. Its not a surprise that the Supreme Court is looking the other way and allowing it to be constitutional when it is so balantly not constitutional. There will be justifications, slavery was considered constitutional once, but that does not make it lawful. The United States government does not have the authority to make a drug illegal. They have the power obviously but not the authority.

You are wrong about them being proven wrong. Article VI of the Federal Constitution states that ALL federal law supersedes ALL state laws. The sentence reads "any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding". CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE, not the federal Constitution itself. This is easy to misinterpret, I did it myself for several months before noticing my error. This leaves the question hanging, "Can we overturn items within Supreme Law of the Land (such as treaties) if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution itself????". The U.S. Constitution itself does not empower you to use Article VI against other Supreme law. You can only BIND judges to overturn State laws. Clearly the Supreme court and Congress must be populated with rational beings willing to rewrite the federal codes to adhere to basic guaranteed principles like "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" in order to change our sad situation. Our Declaration of Independence qualifies as Supreme Law of the Land. Our guarantee of being able to freely pursue our own happiness as long as it does not infringe on the rights of other citizens is CLEARLY being infringed by drug laws. There is NO way to consider the acts of smoking crack or committing suicide to be an infringement of ANYONE's rights and therefore should NOT be punishable in any way. The citizen smoking the crack or killing themselves has the right to their OWN LIFE. Their OWN HAPPINESS. Their OWN LIBERTY. Unless they have injured or infringed the rights of another citizen there is no logical way to claim that they are breaking the rules our country was founded on. The fact that many federal laws have been passed which conflict with our basic principles is a tragic shame. My suggestion is to hold the government officials responsible for their Oaths Of Office. Pull up their voting record and any measure or law they supported which violates the Constitutional rights of citizens can be shown as factual evidence that they did not uphold their Oath to support the Constitution. Embarrass them out of office or legislate them out of office. Under Supreme Law America is INDIVISIBLE. Parties are DIVISIONS. I submit that ANY official who belongs to a party is therefore ILLEGITIMATE. Their allegiance to the party itself is a conflict of interest. They should ONLY answer to those who outrank them within the government itself and ALL officials are REQUIRED BY SUPREME LAW to answer to THE PEOPLE as an INDIVISIBLE WHOLE. We MUST gang together via the internet and totally replace ALL officials in the government with non-partisan individuals who have SWORN to THE PEOPLE to uphold the principles of our founding fathers and have PROMISED the PEOPLE they will right all these wrongs and stop fooling around with our lives at the behest of corporations and aristocrats and those who influence our government to control the people. We have been turned into slaves by the economical elite. They print paper "money" for themselves and wave it like carrots to make the rest of us dance to their crappy tunes. They have given this paper to China and other foreign interests as a result of their own infinite foolishness in exchange for garbage and wasted oil having it shipped back to us. Because of this they CLAIM we are bankrupt. LIES. We have 2.2 billion acres of land (>5 acres per person). We have ALL the food and land and animals and people and intelligence and resources we need. We ARE the wealthiest country on earth. Devalue paper money. It is only good for burning. You can't even write books on it because they printed so much garbage on the bills. Recycle it, whatever. We MUST stop pretending the elite know what they are doing. Clearly our country has been bought by aristocrats and ruined by aristocrats. Franklin and Washington warned of this foolishness and warned us against allowing political parties to exist. They understood the danger of allowing external controlling interests to have influence over OUR government. It's legally OUR country. We already OWN it. NO ONE had the right to BUY it. The country is FREE. We ARE FREE legally. Those who oppress us are ILLEGAL ALIENS. They have taken more than a fair share by force and they must pay for their CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY. We MUST hold them responsible for their crimes. We MUST take back OUR country. We can fortunately do this legally by getting together via internet and screening an entirely new government and electing them with the intention of undoing every single bogus law on the books. Get back to the basics and ENFORCE OUR LAW. Period. It's simple. The arab world is showing you the power you have. Your legal powers already exceed theirs and already allow you to remake America the way the Fathers intended it to be. We CAN legally fire all these teabaggers and punish them for crimes against humanity and TAKE BACK OUR OWN RESOURCES AND LAND. It is OURS to take. We just have to agree to finally do it as a PEOPLE. Come on people, let's do it already. I'm bored of slavery. It is tiresome. I vote we vote 'em out. How about you? - IR Pist — Preceding unsigned comment added by IR Pist (talk • contribs) 01:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Although not outright stating it, this clause implies at least some hierarchy to the laws. If anything, it is misleading to state that treaties ARE the supreme law in the land. It is more accurate to state that treaties are PART of the supreme law.


 * Ratified treaties have the same force and effect of federal statutes. The constitution is the supreme authority, and no statute or treaty can conflict with it. Jrkarp 05:10, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * BTW, since the Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly said that the CSA is constitutional as a valid exercise of federal power under the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause, I think that the constitutionality issue is pretty much moot. Jrkarp 05:12, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Even if you think the issue is moot, there is debate over it. Since wikipedia is supposed to inform, but never adopt a point of view, we're adhering less to its guidelines by not including this minority voice. I think you misunderstand this movement; it isn't a few whackos in a shed. An entire national party (the Libertarians) and several major think tanks have said that it is unconstitutional. I don't want to endorse one belief or another, but I think it is very important that this voice be heard.

Comment
I just want to add my voice to those who say that the constitutionality section is extremely POV, and I say that as a person who believes, in a normative sense, that our drug laws are far too strict and that many controlled substances shouldn't even be controlled. The same misinterpretation of the commerce clause and Tenth Amendment that the radical libertarian Cato Institute supports would make such things as federal minimum wage laws unconstitutional.

The view that drug laws are unconstitutional is a small minority view; and thus, if presented at all, it must be presented as such. Even my view, for very significant liberalization of drug laws regardless of whether they are constitutional, is a minority view.

Views of drug law reformers should be presented, but as minority views only. Right now, there is not even a dissenting view listed to the Cato Institute's fringe constitutional argument. I wish to remind you I'd like to see many-- maybe most-- scheduled drugs outright legalized (or moved all the way to Schedule 5 anyway), virtually nothing on Schedule 1, etc.. I nevertheless see the current presentation as horribly unbalanced. -KP

--

I find myself questioning the assertion that the fundamental unconstitutionality of the CSA is only "a small minority view" when the illogical reasoning of 21 U.S.C. § 801 is so glaringly apparent. The clumsy sleight of hand move contained in Declaration (5) is particularly insulting to my intelligence. Essentially, they're stating that it's not feasible to make the critical interstate/intrastate distinction that would undermine their entire constitutionality argument--because they realize making it would undermine their entire argument. The same spurious chain of reasoning put forward in 21 U.S.C. § 801 could be used by the federal government to impose controls on my growing of sweet corn in my own backyard garden.

I certainly understand and agree with the impulse to minimalize POV in Wikipedia. In the case of the CATO quote, however, I suspect that what some may be reacting to is the eloquence with which David Boaz has stated his point. There's much about the CSA that many perceive as an affront to basic constitutional rights. If you're going to tone down the statement to diminish the perceived POV aspect, more argument from his side of the discussion needs to be presented. (I actually thought "claims that" was itself a bit POV. We didn't simply say that David Boaz "stated", did we?)


 * Actually the assertion of federal control over the production of food stuffs for personal consumption precedes this law by several decades. (see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942)) --Camarath 00:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

--

I don't think editors of Wikipedia should concern themselves with the subjective question of whether the opinions of people quoted in articles represent 'fringe' views. It is certainly true that federal drug laws face considerable and relevant opposition in the United States, and an article that omitted that fact would not be presenting complete information to readers. It is also true that a facial reading of the Tenth Amendment casts at least some doubt on the Constitutionality of drug prohibition, a view to which Supreme Court Justices Rhenquist, O'Connor, and Thomas have all given credence (see Gonzalez v. Raich (2005)). The Boaz quote, which illustrates a position that has support in law (albeit limited support), is a worthwhile one.

In its present form the section lacks balance. In my opinion, the proper remedy is not to eliminate the fact that drug laws can reasonably be construed as unconstitutional, but to include an equally succinct summation of the position of those who believe they are constitutional. In that way, the fact of a dispute and the dominant rationale on each side would be recorded. A reference to polling data showing where the population comes down on the issue would also be relevant.

--User:0nullbinary0 05:13, 05 September 2007 (UTC)

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0nullbinary0 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Medicinal Uses of Cocaine
Just FYI -- Cocaine is commonly used in Dentistry and Eye Surgery as well as other forms of surgery and pediatric wound repair where a mild topical anaesthesia is required, though the efficacy and risk of this medical use has recently come into question. Response: Cocaine, usually in a 4% aqueous solution, is available in most operating rooms in the USA. I have never seen it used for eye surgery nor for dentistry, but it is commonly applied in the nose before a surgical or anesthetic procedure to produce anesthesia and shrink superficial blood vessels and minimize bleeding.

Medicinal Uses of Cocaine
In the operating room, cocaine is most commonly used as a pre-emptive anesthetic (before incision) and as a measure to reduce intra-operative bleeding (vaso-constrictor). It comes in 5cc bottles as a green liquid at 4% concentration and are usually soaked on cottonoid's and placed in the nose before septoplasties, sinus surgery (F.E.S.S.), and rhinoplasties.

Also, it was previously used in dentistry in a similar solution to numb gums or cheek, but the prectice has fallen out of use.

Cleanup issues
The introduction to this article was copied from a DOJ web page. It needs a major rewrite for NPOV and tone, and needs to present the content that's appropriate to an informative encylopedia article. I've started to do that, but there's more to be done.

The arrangement of various articles about drug laws in the US seems to be a bit confused. For example, Psychotropic Substances Act (United States) is its own article, just about that legislation. But this article, which has a title of a previous piece of legislation, contains all the information about what the law is now. Maybe the "the way it is now" stuff, including the list of schedules, should be moved into its own, more general article.

I find the section which lists the various drugs on each schedule to be rather POV, because for a lot of the drugs, it lists reasons why the substance shouldn't be classified the way it is. I'm sure there are plenty of reasons both pro and con for each drug to be classified a given way, and also for and against using it, and any number of other things. Adding information from both sides here could really clutter up the lists, especially if they are expanded to be more comprehensive. I would recommend pushing out all of these details into the drugs' individual articles. Cannabis has a whole article on just its legal issues (Legal issues of cannabis), which can probably do a better job describing the current raging controversy about how it should be scheduled, not to mention all the federal/state issues, including medical marijuana issues, etc., etc., etc. -- Beland 03:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Not to mention Cannabis rescheduling in the United States, which has a sidebar with its own list of scheduled substances, and Category:U.S. controlled substances law, which has subcategories that seem to form a more comprehensive list than this one. -- Beland 03:27, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't want to tackle the whole article or try to address all the POV problems, but I do want to take issue with the way the lists of different drugs are presented. The different schedules have lists of items, but interspersed with the items are whole sentences that don't read right in an item list. I just want to explain what I'm doing here in case anyone takes issue with it later. adavidw 07:49, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me this page should just list the drugs under each schedule, with maybe some NPOV information about when they were listed there. There is plenty of room elsewhere on wikipedia for inserting information about the proposed legal uses of illegal drugs.T. Wong 04:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Mutual exclusivity in Schedule II
Drugs on this schedule include:

Amphetamines, except for injectable methamphetamine. Amphetamines were originally placed in Schedule III, but were moved to Schedule II in 1971. Injectable methamphetamine has always been in Schedule II;


 * Someone might want to revise this to meet with whatever the status of inj. meth. actually is. As it is written, the above sentence contradicts itself. --24.57.207.21 06:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

How many kinds of aerosol cans use nitrous oxide as a propellant? Whipped cream uses it because of its very high lipid solubility; it readily dissolves in the cream under pressure in the can. (N2O's utility as an anesthetic is also due to its lipid solubility.) When the cream is released from the can, the nitrous oxide comes out of solution and produces a foam.

I don't see how N2O would be a useful propellant in other applications where its lipid solubility is not relevant. In fact I believe the standard aerosol propellant (after freon was banned) is propane.

It might be worth pointing out that the nitrous oxide widely used as an oxidizer in racing and hybrid amateur rocketry is usually denatured with ~100 ppm sulfur dioxide to discourage abuse by inhalation.

I am not sure that cocaine has a medical use.

Alcohol & schedule 1
Nitpicking. The article says:
 * Schedule I drugs


 * Findings required:


 * (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
 * (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
 * (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.
 * (D) The drug is not alcohol (ethanol) due to the failure of prohibition.

Can someone provide a reference for (d)? I was looking over the actual act and I can't find wording like this. Is alcohol excluded from being a controlled substance by virtue of the 21st amendment? If yes then alcohol is excluded because of the amendment, not because of any motivation (i.e. the failure of prohibition) for the amendment. Funkyj 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tobacco, beer, wine, and spirits are specifically defined NOT to be controlled substances under the section of the law that defines certain terms used in the CSA. So while you could technically put alcohol in Schedule I, it would not be considered a controlled substance, and would have no bearing on its legal status. 68.33.185.238 02:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

State Psuedo Ephedrine Laws
I believe Missouri needs to be added to the list of states that have sales restrictions on pseudo ephedrine as well, as of July 15, 2005.

I believe that, if not exactly the same as the other states listed, similar restrictions have been enacted regarding which stores may sell the product, Photo ID, logging, etc.

I cannot speak authoritatively, so I'll leave it to those who are able to change the article if necessary.

Feel free to delete this Talk topic once the the question is resolved one way or the other.

--Thistledowne 07:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: Items cited from http://www.dhss.mo.gov/BNDD/PseudoephedrineFAQs.html

Where can I buy cough and cold medication? OTC cough and cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine and multi-ingredient ephedrine in solid, tablet dosage forms may only be found behind the pharmacy counter in a licensed pharmacy. OTC cough and cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine and multi-ingredient ephedrine in liquid and liquid-filled gel capsule form may still be purchased from retail outlets such as convenience and grocery stores.

Why do I have to buy cough and cold tablets containing pseudoephedrine and multi-ingredient ephedrine in a pharmacy? Effective July 15, 2005, solid tablet dosage forms of OTC pseudoephedrine and multi-ingredient ephedrine products are schedule V controlled substances and may only be sold from behind the pharmacy counter in a licensed pharmacy.

Why can't convenience and grocery stores carry cough and cold tablets containing pseudoephedrine and multi-ingredient ephedrine? Only businesses registered with the Missouri State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration are permitted to stock controlled substances.

Who is authorized to sell cough and cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine? OTC cough and cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine may only be sold by a pharmacist or pharmacy technician from behind the pharmacy counter in a pharmacy.

Is there a minimum age requirement for the purchaser? Yes. A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase OTC cough and cold tablets containing pseudoephedrine and multi-ingredient ephedrine.

Why do I have to show my photo identification before I can buy cough and cold medicine? The pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician will record the name and address of each person purchasing OTC cough and cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine in either a written or electronic log. If the pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician does not know you or whether you are at least 18 years old, you will have to produce suitable photo identification.

Will I have to have a prescription to purchase the schedule V products? No. Consumers may purchase OTC pseudoephedrine and multi-ingredient ephedrine products that are schedule V controlled substances without a prescription.

What information is stored in the log the pharmacy keeps for OTC cough and cold medicine purchases? The written or electronic log that the pharmacy uses to track purchases of cough and cold medicine containing pseudoephedrine or ephedrine will track the name and address of the purchaser, the amount of controlled substance purchased, the date of the purchase, and the name or initials of the pharmacist or registered pharmacy technician selling the products.

Who has access to the log the pharmacy keeps for cough and cold medicine purchases? The same agencies that may view controlled substance records may access these logs. Federal, state, local and municipal law enforcement officers may look at the logs. Representatives of the Missouri State Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs and Board of Pharmacy may also look at the logs.

How much cough and cold medicine may I purchase? You may purchase a maximum of 9 grams of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine that are contained in schedule V products in any thirty (30) period. This restriction does not apply if your doctor gives you a prescription for a larger quantity.

You may purchase a maximum of 9 grams of pseudoephedrine and ephedrine in liquid or liquid-filled gel capsule form in any one transaction.

The last section says "the U.S. Congress passed the Methamphetamine Precursor Control Act" but the link takes you to a page on an Illinois law. Is there a federal law?67.170.18.201 (talk) 22:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Schedule redirects
I notice Schedule I, Schedule II, &c. redirect to this article. The Controlled Substances Act was created enact the UN's Convention on Psychotropic Substances, to which the US is a party. Since Wikipedia is international, I suggest we redirect the schedules to the Convention page and term all drug classifications within the context of the Convention. Any objections? --Oldak Quill 18:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have any. I was unaware that the CSA was an enabling statute intended to ensure compliance with a treaty, but now that you've explained the situation, I agree with your suggestion about the redirects. --Coolcaesar 07:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've changed the Schedule pages to disambig pages, but many pages linking to them still need to be fixed. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in Canada categorizes drugs into schedules (I-VIII) and Australia uses 1-8 similarly. The canadian and US schedule sections can now be linked to directly using Schedule I (US) and Schedule I (Canada) etc. Schedule 1 etc now redirect to sections on the Australian page as they seem to be the only ones using arabic numerals. --Eloil 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ketamine and Rohypnol in wrong schedules
Ketamine is in Schedule III, not II, and has always been that way since it was first scheduled in 1999. Rohypnol is in Schedule IV, not III. The statement that it was moved to Schedule III in 1995 is incorrect; such an event never happened under Federal law. I edited the incorrect portions. 68.33.185.238 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Uniform naming of drugs
I know it's paracetamol outside of the US, but as it's acetaminophen here and this article is US law, shouldn't it be referred to that way? 71.224.32.208 20:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * well, paracetamol is the official International name, and there are some English-speaking countries that are not America ... yes this is about an American law but we want it understandable by all English-speakers Tmrussell 12:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense! Call it "acetaminophen (paracetamol)" the first time it appears in the article, and "acetaminophen" thereafter.  --63.25.112.122 04:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Substances NOT on the list
I don't understand why we are mentioning substances which are not on the list. Is it because the editor thought they should be? Or thought it was ironic that they weren't. Unless we list all substances that are not covered by the CSA (rather impossible), selecting a few for mention seems to be POV. –Shoaler (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This article may need semi-protection
I added an edit on 3 July which was deleted by a vandal at IP address 67.10.165.20 on 24 July in this edit:. I have been so busy with personal priorities and with fixing problems in other articles that I didn't catch this and fix this subtle vandalism until now. If this pattern continues, this highly controversial article may require semi-protection. --Coolcaesar 07:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Schedule I drugs research
In response to the LSD statement. Schedule I drugs are perfectly acceptable to research for medical purposes with DEA approval. An example is the research with ibogaine interupting opiate addiction. Halucinigens as you may notice are almost all sched I this is because most of them don't have many medical possibilities, with the exception of ketamine and pcp. LSD does have medical potential, but is no longer needed with the advancements in psychiactric drugs. Also alcohol will never have anything to do with scheduling since it is considered a food not a drug. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.236.130.254 (talk) 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC).


 * As far as I know, You don't need a specific license to sell food. You DO need one to sell alcohol. In fact, i can't come up with any reason that both alcohol AND nicotine aren't Schedule I drugs, other than the fact that they are taxed. Government really doesn't have to make sense, does it? --George The Man 22:38, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't come up with a reason that alcohol isn't a schedule I drug, other than that it has medicinal use, mainly as an antiseptic. Also, from the Ethanol-article: "Although ethanol is a poison, it is sometimes used as an antidote for poisoning by other, more toxic alcohols, in particular methanol[54] and ethylene glycol." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.59.14 (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Minor changes and Flags
1.) I flagged the constitutional "issues" portion of the article, changed the title to Constitutional Disputes, and flagged it for tone and neutrality to give the reader a functional understanding of what is in-fact disputed without having to read the whole Talk page.

2.) I don't know if the placement of the legend vs. controlled drug statements belong in the other provisions. They need to be placed properly in a heading paragraph, that gives them a meaningful purpose in the article.

3.) The Other Provisions section is becoming a "catch-all" and the pseudoephedrine section is growing to become its own subsection, therefore I have broken it off into its own section, with a reference to the pseudoephedrine subsection of misuse for more information in the first line.

I also tried to address some of Thistledowne's concerns in the citations and the textual references. There should be less confusion about what the law requires and whom is bound by it.

These, I think, are minor changes and changes that need to be made. Please discuss further.

Richardmormegil 05:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Richardmormegil

More info
I added information to the previously blank bit on DMT. I added two other mescaline-containing cacti that are used to the mescaline bit. I also added LSA under the schedule 3 section, and gave some background on it. (Mack July 24,2007)

Schedule II Rx limit issue
The article states: "Oral prescriptions are allowed, except that the prescription is limited to 30 days worth of doses, although exceptions are made..." The CSA does clearly state that refills are not allowed, but I cannot find any reference to limits on the number of days of medication that can be prescribed. In fact in the DEA's "Practitioner's Manual", Section V, under "Schedule II Substances", it states:

"While some states and many insurance carriers limit the quantity of controlled substance dispensed to a 30-day supply, there are no specific federal limits to quantities of drugs dispensed via a prescription. For Schedule II controlled substances, an oral order is only permitted in an emergency situation." [ref: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/pubs/manuals/pract/section5.htm ]

Shouldn't this be corrected/clarified? Mdjettatdi 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been taking Concerta (Methylphenidate) for years to treat ADD, and my doctor ALWAYS gives me a prescription for 90 days, not 30. Concerta (Methylphenidate) is a Schedule II drug (according to my doctors), and I can tell you from personal experience that there is no such 30 day limit, at least not in Virginia. I fill my 90 day prescriptions all the time, and my health insurance pays for it.

--Mhadjiosif (talk) 05:55, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine
I've flagged the references to caffeine as needing a citation and moved the second link to the caffeine article. The article in no way asserts that caffeine meets the requirements for being a schedule IV or V drug. The article only mentions dependency one time, in passing, in scare quotes, and also uncited (I've flagged it as well). The choice of linking 'can lead' is deceptive at best. To correct that, I've moved the position of the link to the more neutral 'physical dependence' and directed it to the "tolerance and withdrawal" section that is more relevant.

Note that the citations in the Caffeine article include http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Caffeine-related-disorders.html which specifically states that there is disagreement within the medical community about whether caffeine meets the requirements for substance dependence.

The entire sentence in question sounds precisely like original research. If no citation can be found, then the unsourced conclusions being drawn about caffeine's scheduling placement should be removed. "Caffeine is also not on the list, although it is a psychoactive drug and it technically meets the requirements for schedule IV or V: it is often abused and it can lead to limited physical dependence." Tofof 00:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I noted one of them, and have been dropping by the page to ensure uncited info wasn't added. Apparently, removing uncited info is cause for an accusations of trolling and harassment. The citation most recently added doesn't contain the statements in the text, and it has again been reverted. - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  16:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, your Trolling is made painfully obvious by the fact that you edited out my addition but left in the unsourced parallel sentiment "This is largely a result of the substantial political and economic investments in these drugs." It is never acceptable to follow editors around and Troll their every edit. 75.57.196.81 (talk) 17:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, could you try to focus in the edits, please, and not the editor? I have asked for a citation, and the one you provided doesn't reflect the statement its attached to. If you find another uncited statement, you should likely add a tag to it, so someone can come along and provide a reference for it (if you don't have the time to do so yourself). - Arcayne   (cast a spell)  17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference, I failed to actually flag what I'd intended to in 2007 (I assume I failed to save after a preview). The OR and unsourced material I was objecting to (and more) was removed by User:Cburnett in April 2008 shortly after the edit warring between the parties above. This topic is therefore resolved, absent new material. Tofof (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Correct Drug Classification
The correct drug schedule classification can be found on the DEA website: http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/schedules/schedules.htm

This should clear up any confusion about which drugs belong in what schedule. This seems to be a common problem with this topic. Regardless of your own opinion about how a drug should be classified based on the schedule definitions, this is the government's current published classification. Chauncyoesch 17:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dropped NPOV tag
Reading this talk page I have gathered the impression that there is no NPOV issues for this page. The issues being discussed are between those making the issue and the federal government. What schedule marijuana or cocaine should be in has absolutely nothing to do with the neutrality of this article. If you have a problem with cannabis being Schedule I then talk to the US government but don't use this article as a soap box. Cburnett 05:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not all "Substances" are "Drugs"
On this page, although not on the pages referring to the individual schedules, the word "drug" is used exclusively. The more appropriate word would be "substance", as used in the legislation and the CFR, given that some controlled substances are not drugs in the legal sense, but chemicals used in their manufacture (phenyl-2-propanone, for one example). Anyone want to go though and make the substitution? Shalom S. (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes of this sort to more correctly state the law. Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 08:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Redirect/rename
Is it possible to rename this article "Controlled_Substances_Act (USA)" or similar, and have a DAB page when and if other countries' Acts end up as articles? Although most users will be USA-sians, it might be an idea to avoid comments about centricism. Cheers, Freestyle-69 (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

References disappeared?
What happened and who deleted them? They had to have been there before as "Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970." tries to direct you to a citation, but the references section is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.137.223 (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Actually, basically everything is gone. ??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.28.137.223 (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Schedule I list in need of update?
It says

"Findings required: (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision."

Nicotine (over 30 times more toxic then cocaine) and ethanol (a leading cause of death in the world) and isopropanol (similar to ethanol, asides from being around twice as toxic. It has some accepted uses, but (C) obviously refers to human ingestion) are not listed, even though they match all of the criteria.

Tetrahydrocannabinol and lysergic acid diethylamide (both harmless) are listed, even though they don't match any of the criteria. Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid is listed even though it doesn't match (B). Mescaline and peyote and psilocybin (harmless) are listed even though they don't match (C). Pholcodine is listed even though it doesn't match (A) or (B).

Can anybody explain these discrepancies? Thanks in advance for any meaningful explanations.

If there is no explanation for this in a few days, and nobody else fixes it, I will fix it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.37.221 (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

"The term 'controlled substance' means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986." 21 U.S.C. § 802(6) [6] -- copied right from the article should address the main question relative to alcohol and nicotine. I assume tobacco was meant by nicotine. I don't know whether nicotine patches and gums are controlled substances though I'm sure some forms for industrial use aren't.

The best answer to the other questions is that scheduling is partly based on undefined terms and arbitrary decisions. Indeed, I noticed this comment while looking to see if any explanation was given for removing the link to a definition of "abitrary" as I placed that link precisely to counter possible POV objections about stating that arbitrary decisions are a factor in scheduling. It would be unacceptably POV to say this in the article but the CSA is essentially a political/religious/ideological tool whose rules were and are made, followed, bent or broken by people in power pretty much depending on what they want to do and how much power they have to use and abuse. IMO there's an excess of comment in the article about specific examples of drugs in various schedules but there's nothing to fix in the article about listing substances in the schedules they are listed in by law. Regardless of what schedule they "belong" in, they are in whatever schedule they are in and that's where the article should state they are. I was an adult when this law was passed and can assure you the status of alcohol, tobacco, marijuana and the psychedelics you list was based on who was based on the politics of that time. Not sure when or why Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid or Pholcodine were added but much CSA scheduling has little, if anything, to do with the stated reasons for placing something in a schedule. Look to history, politics and sociology for explanations of many discrepancies is my advice. Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 00:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Marijuana is Schedule I under federal and CA laws & a UCSA change wouldn't be a CSA change anyway
I removed "Although in some states, ie. California it has been place on Schedule II" which is apparently due to confusion about differences in Controlled Substances Act and the many Uniform Controlled Substances Acts. It's also incorrect concerning CA's UCSA schedule, perhaps due to misunderstanding about CA and other states medical marijuana laws exempting some acts from prosection which would otherwise be illegal under state law. I only looked up the schedule in CA to verify it hasn't changed. If some state has rescheduled marijuana under it's version of the UCSA, the correct state or states should be named with verification.

If CA or another state did reschedule marijuana to any other schedule under the state's UCSA that would certainly be appropriate to note here as it would be an unequivocal legal finding & statement by the state government of a current medical use, authorize prescription under state law, create a much greater conflict between state and federal law since federal law prohibits prescription and raise stronger legal issues about the federal law meeting the Schedule I finding that "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite of Scedule II paragraph mostly concerning prescription and entirely lacking verification
I started to just write an entry in talk describing the main problems with the paragraph because I didn't have time to look up the citations for verification that should go with the changed content. Bias which I think was unintentional, major inaccuracies, confusing and misleading structure and statements plus no verification. This lead to such dissatisfaction with leaving it on the article page that I went ahead and rewrote it even though I'll need to come back and provide citations for verification unless someone else does that before I do or someone rewrites my rewrite out of existence and properly verifying it becomes moot.

I entirely dropped the subject of serial prescriptions. I may be too familiar with this political/legal controversy to write about it concisely. I'll not sure this is the best place to address the subject.

Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Issues of religious neutrality and proper standard of scrutiny.
I just added a sentence about this but think the subject deserves a section here or elsewhere with a link from here. What are other people's opinions about creating such a section? -- Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Schedule findings vs. characteristics
I undid the changes for each Schedule from "Placement on schedules; findings required Except ... The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows:" to "Schedule X controlled substances have the following characteristics" back to the former because the previous change is very different than the language and meaning of the law. In addition to obvious controversies about shared characteristics of substances in a schedule the CSA explicitly contains exceptions to the "findings required".

Also drugs have been placed in Schedule I which undisputedly had "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States" at the time of rescheduling though the courts have held this power was not delegated and the rescheduling must be done by Congress directly. Perhaps this should be explicitly stated with citation somewhere in the article. Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Enforcement Authority. Reason for my reverting recent edit
"on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large." was changed to "on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large, most notably, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)". The CDC is a US government agency not part of "the scientific and medical community at large". If information from CDC is occasionally solicited it should be stated in a better manner that doesn't tend to mislead readers about the nature of the CDC. I don't mean to imply the previous editor made the statement with any intent to mislead and hope no offense is taken by my statement. Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

January 2010 NPOV tag discussion
I see this NPOV tag but there is either a lack of comment here for the reasons it was added or the comment is hard to locate among the existing comments over the years. I'm creating this section so editors can discuss whatever the current issues are in an easily locatable section. Perhaps the editor who tagged the article would like to lead off with stating the reasons for tagging it and suggestions for improvement here. It's a very controversial law and almost everyone probably thinks various parts are too POV for various reasons. Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been over a month since I created this section and no one has identified or discussed reason for NPOV tag so I've removed it. See WP:NPOVD WP:DRIVEBY. Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Inconsistencies" in scheduling
I think this subsection mainly consists of original research and should be deleted. An example is the argument that there is an inconsistency in scheduling because heroin is in Schedule I whereas morphine and fentanyl are in Schedule II, and that this inconsistency is related to the relative potencies of the drugs (fentanyl > heroin > morphine). First of all, nowhere in the Controlled Substances Act is "potency" a criterion for placement in any schedule. The criteria for scheduling have to do with "potential for abuse" and "safe and accepted medical use", both of which may be related to "potency" but are not identically equal to it. In fact, under the current interpretation of the CSA, a drug must be placed in Schedule I if it has no currently accepted medical use (as determined by DHHS), regardless of its relative potency (thus the controversy over medical marijuana). Yes, heroin is more potent than morphine because it is delivered to the brain more efficiently, but heroin is converted into morphine in the body, so its mechanism of action is the same as morphine. Thus it seems totally reasonable to me that physicians might decide that administering morphine is risky enough and that there is no compelling medical need to administer heroin pharmaceutically, because it has the same basic effect as morphine but is stronger and more addictive. And yes, fentanyl is much more potent than morphine, but it is also administered in much smaller doses, because tens or hundreds of milligrams of fentanyl will kill you. Also, the mechanism of action of fentanyl is not the same as the mechanism of action of morphine and heroin, so again, it seems totally reasonable to me that in certain circumstances physicians would be willing to administer such a potent drug in order to achieve a desired effect. So the whole line of argument sounds bogus to me. Ketone16 (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I fail to see how the fact that dextromethorphan is not scheduled (not yet, at least) implies an "inconsistency" in scheduling. If the level of abuse has not been determined to meet the explicit standards of the CSA, then how is that an inconsistency?  This needs to be explained better.  It also needs citations, otherwise it appears to be original research.  Ketone16 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * agreed. the facts stated in potency and listed as an inconsistency are irrelevant to the actual scheduling of drugs. the whole article seem to be biased. that section should be removed as well as any other mention of morphine more potent than heroin.. or any other similar wording or references to any drugs. from what i understand, potency has nothing to do with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fshake (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Codification
Could someone please update the codification? and maybe more of the sidebar info? It seems this would be rather crucial. Could somebody update the codification? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.71.242 (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Confusion caused by use of descriptors i.e. "strong", "stronger", "more potent, etc"
Much discussion around the idea of which drugs are "stronger" or more potent than others. This is a problem with semantics and subjective nature of the terms. A suggestion that I am not able to follow through with myself at this time...Recent research suggests that the potential for addiction and abuse is related to the capacity of a drug to bind to dopamine receptors; dopamine is the naturally occurring substance in the body that creates the feeling of euphoria that most humans classify as a "high." Hence it is often referred to as the "addiction" chemical. In terms of previous discussion, heroin, while not a better "pain reliever" than other opiates, binds more readily to the dopamine receptors, creating a feeling of extreme euphoria. This is the real reason it is kept in Schedule I regardless of why it was initially put there. Likewise, the PDR and other medical references contain tables of "equianalgesic" doses, which use morpine as the standard against which all other drugs are measured. In this way the relative pain relieving quality of each opiate can be measured. Research and citations on these topics would add greater validity and reduce POV issues. --ReallyRed (talk) 02:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You seem to be making a sweeping generalization by referring to any receptor a drug binds to as 'dopamine receptors.' I know for a fact that Heroin binds mostly (probably solely) to types of opiate receptors, and these indirectly affect dopamine levels.  However, increased levels of dopamine are not directly linked to increased pleasure.  Dopamine in responsible, directly, and indirectly, for many things, including body movement.  Cocaine also causes pleasure, primarily by inhibiting the destruction (or recycling/metabolism) of dopamine, thus keeping it active in the synapse.  Methaphetamine directly creates an increase in the release of dopamine.  You can't refer to all these seperate mechanisms of actions as "binding to dopamine receptors.' SlimNm (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the title of this discussion's section. A small example of how the use of the "potent" descriptor can lead to inconsistencies: we can read that ‘heroin is around three times as potent as morphine’, in the Inconsistencies section, and then that ‘Heroin [...] is about twice as potent, by weight, as morphine.’, in the Schedule I controlled substances section. Mlelao (talk) 11:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Other provisions - Overall scope and organization of article needs discussion IMO
I removed the existing paragraphs from "Other provisions" which weren't about the topic. Then I added headings for a few of many relevant provisions of the CSA that are important but ignored in this article. This article seems to neglect most of the CSA, its broad impact and lack a sense of scope and organization.

I strongly urge editors to discuss such issues and see if there is any general agreement on revising and re-organization of article and scope of CSA topics to address. To me, the article seems to have an excess of trivial information and lack information about many important parts of the CSA. E.g., the CSA regulates pharmacy, medical practice and use of medicine in the US to an extreme degree but there is minimal discussion of these matters. Moss&amp;Fern (talk) 06:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as is, "Other Provisions" has four subsections, three of which are empty, and the other looks to be a straight text dump of the actual law. This is not acceptable, I'm removing this section and its subsections entirely. If someone wants to work on adding this information back in an encyclopedic manner, then fine. But as it stands, it looks horrible. Onlynone (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)