This post was originally published on this site.
The Tyranny of Science: Prohibition is a crime against the Nation!
For those familiar with my work, you know I’ve long stood in opposition to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This piece of legislation, which arbitrarily categorizes drugs and makes sweeping claims about their medical value, has been a thorn in the side of rational drug policy for decades. Nowhere is this more evident than in Schedule I, a category reserved for substances deemed to have “no accepted medical use.”
Yet, a closer look at the drugs placed in this restrictive category reveals a startling contradiction. Cannabis, LSD, psilocybin, and other psychedelics – all Schedule I substances – are increasingly shown to have significant medical benefits. This begs the question: What rigorous scientific process led to their classification as medically useless? Or is the CSA merely a political tool, divorced from scientific reality?
It’s refreshing to discover that I’m not alone in labeling the CSA as tyrannical. Robert Mikos, a seasoned law expert specializing in federalism and drug law, shares this perspective. In his recent paper, “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” Mikos meticulously dissects the flaws in the current scheduling system, providing a compelling argument for its reform.
In this article, we’ll dive deep into Mikos’s cannabis analysis, examining how the CSA’s scheduling criteria create what he terms the “Tyranny of Science” and the “Tyranny of the Majority.” We’ll explore how these tyrannies have effectively trapped potentially beneficial substances in Schedule I, stifling research and medical progress.
While Mikos offers some solutions to this dilemma, I believe his proposals, though valuable, don’t go far enough. The CSA, founded on falsehoods and deception rather than scientific evidence, requires more than minor adjustments. It’s time to renegotiate the entire agreement, challenging the monopoly it grants to Big Pharma – an industry that has repeatedly proven unworthy of such trust and power.
Let’s embark on this exploration of the CSA’s tyrannical nature and envision a path towards more rational, science-based drug policies.
In his paper “Marijuana and the Tyrannies of Scheduling,” Robert Mikos presents a compelling critique of the current drug scheduling system under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). At the heart of his argument is the concept of “currently accepted medical use” (CAMU), a criterion that has become disproportionately influential in determining a substance’s scheduling.
Mikos identifies two major “tyrannies” in the current scheduling process:
-
The Tyranny of Science: Historically, the DEA insisted that CAMU could only be demonstrated through rigorous scientific research, primarily multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This approach set an almost insurmountable bar for Schedule I substances, as their very classification severely restricts the ability to conduct such research. It created a catch-22 situation: a drug couldn’t be rescheduled without extensive research, but such research was nearly impossible to conduct due to its Schedule I status.
-
The Tyranny of the Majority: In response to marijuana’s pending rescheduling, the DEA introduced a new CAMU test based on widespread clinical use. While this bypasses the need for extensive scientific studies, it introduces a new challenge. To meet this criteria, a drug must gain enough popular support to be legalized for medical use in numerous states, accumulating substantial clinical experience. This sets a high political bar that few substances are likely to clear.
Mikos argues that these tyrannies effectively trap substances in Schedule I, regardless of their potential benefits or actual harm profile. This is particularly problematic for promising psychedelics like psilocybin and MDMA, which show therapeutic potential but lack the widespread public support that marijuana has garnered over decades.
The core of the problem, according to Mikos, is the DEA’s insistence that a lack of CAMU automatically relegates a substance to Schedule I, regardless of its abuse potential or dependence liability. This approach, he contends, is not mandated by the CSA and actually runs contrary to the statute’s text and purpose.
To address these issues, Mikos proposes a more flexible approach to scheduling. He suggests that the DEA should consider all three criteria outlined in the CSA – abuse potential, dependence liability, and CAMU – in a more balanced manner when making scheduling decisions. This would allow for substances to be moved out of Schedule I even if they lack a currently accepted medical use, provided their abuse potential and dependence liability warrant such a move.
Mikos argues that this approach would lead to more rational scheduling decisions that better reflect the actual benefits and risks of controlled substances, as Congress originally intended. It would provide a path for promising substances like psilocybin or MDMA to be rescheduled, facilitating research and potential medical use, without having to overcome the enormous political hurdles currently in place.
While Mikos’s proposal doesn’t completely overhaul the CSA or challenge its fundamental premises, it offers a pragmatic solution within the existing framework. By reducing the outsized influence of CAMU determinations, it could potentially break the logjam that has kept many substances trapped in Schedule I for decades, opening up new possibilities for research and medical applications.
This nuanced approach recognizes the complexities of drug scheduling and seeks to create a more flexible, scientifically-grounded system within the existing legal structure. While it may not go as far as some drug policy reformers might wish, it represents a significant step towards a more rational and less tyrannical approach to drug scheduling.
While Robert Mikos provides a far more nuanced approach to drug scheduling, his proposal, in my view, doesn’t go far enough. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is fundamentally flawed, built on a foundation of political ideology and pharmaceutical industry lobbying rather than scientific evidence. To truly address the issues plaguing our drug policies, we need to scrap the CSA entirely and start anew.
The arbitrary nature of drug scheduling under the CSA is glaringly evident when we examine the criteria for Schedule I substances. These drugs are claimed to have “no medical value and high abuse potential.” Yet, where is the evidence supporting this assertion for substances like cannabis or psilocybin? When we dig deeper, we find that comprehensive research on these substances is sorely lacking. More disturbingly, the very classification of these drugs as Schedule I creates a catch-22, making it extremely difficult and expensive to conduct the necessary studies to challenge their status.
This system doesn’t just hinder research; it actively stifles scientific inquiry. Researchers need strict permissions and millions of dollars to conduct tests, and even then, they’re often limited to studying subpar versions of these substances that don’t reflect what’s actually used in the real world. It’s a system designed to maintain the status quo, not to uncover truth.
While Mikos’s suggestions aim to fix the situation, they’re akin to putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound. The CSA is toxic legislation that erodes personal freedoms and maintains an arbitrary system that can be leveraged to secure a drug monopoly for pharmaceutical companies. We don’t need amendments; we need a complete rethinking of our approach to drugs and addiction.
Our society already accepts and manages certain addictions – gaming, pornography, gambling, alcohol, and tobacco, to name a few. Yet we deem other substances, like cannabis, as “dangerous,” despite evidence suggesting it’s far less harmful than many legal substances. This inconsistency highlights the arbitrary and often hypocritical nature of our drug policies.
What we need are new norms for a new age. The archaic ideologies of early prohibitionists have caused enough havoc around the world. It’s time to end this madness entirely and develop a drug policy based on science, public health, and respect for personal freedom.
Instead of trying to salvage the CSA, we should be asking fundamental questions about our relationship with drugs and addiction. How can we create policies that prioritize harm reduction and public health over punishment? How can we foster an environment that allows for responsible use while providing support for those struggling with addiction? How can we ensure that promising substances with potential medical benefits aren’t trapped in a regulatory limbo for decades?
While I applaud Mikos for his efforts to bring rationality to an irrational system, his proposals simply don’t go far enough. We need to move beyond the paradigm of scheduling and prohibition altogether. It’s time for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach to drug policy that respects individual autonomy, promotes public health, and allows for scientific research without unreasonable restrictions.
The CSA, born in an era of fear and misinformation, has outlived its usefulness. It’s time to relegate it to the annals of history and craft drug policies fit for the 21st century. Only by completely rethinking our approach can we hope to address the complex realities of drug use and addiction in our society. The time for half-measures is over – it’s time to end the tyranny of the CSA once and for all.