Justice is blind and also slow. In America Justice remains slow but is no longer blind, overtly giving power to elites and corporations. Many inequities in law we experience today are the results of a two-tiered "justice" system. As the purpose of this essay is not to concentrate on judicial failings, and by extension societal failings, but to discuss a topic in which restrictions are antiquated, racist in origin, and empirically self-defeating. Furthermore, these restrictive laws are basically anti-scientific in that by virtue of drug scheduling, discussed below, provides a "catch 22".

The medicinal here is marijuana, a plant known from antiquity: DEA, link 1

The oldest known written record on cannabis use comes from the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung in 2727 B.C. Ancient Greeks and Romans were also familiar with cannabis, while in the Middle East, use spread throughout the Islamic empire to North Africa. In 1545 cannabis spread to the western hemisphere where Spaniards imported it to Chile for its use as fiber. In North America cannabis, in the form of hemp, was grown on many plantations for use in rope, clothing and paper.

While this essay concentrates on legal issues, a few medical items will briefly be mentioned. A physiological reason exists for the ability of marijuana (MJ) derivatives to function in the human body (and other species as well). The active MJ ingrediedients collectively are known as cannabinoids. Two years ago, it was thought the MJ plant produced 80 different cannabinoids. This year, there have been about 30 more different cannabinoids isolated, bringing the total to 110. Mediating the cannabinoid and the body (primarily the central nervous system [CNS]) are cell surface receptors specific for cannabinoids. The implications are that ontogenic exposure to MJ goes back millennia, long before "history".

In the U.S., at least, link 2

In the 1800s opiates and cocaine were mostly unregulated drugs. In the 1890s the Sears & Roebuck catalogue, which was distributed to millions of Americans homes, offered a syringe and a small amount of cocaine for $1.50. On the other hand, as early as 1880 some states and localities had already passed laws against smoking opium, at least in public...

At the beginning of the 20th century, cocaine began to be linked to crime. In 1900, the Journal of the American Medical Association published an editorial stating, "Negroes in the South are reported as being addicted to a new form of vice – that of 'cocaine sniffing' or the 'coke habit.'" Some newspapers later claimed cocaine use caused blacks to rape white women and was improving their pistol marksmanship. Chinese immigrants were blamed for importing the opium-smoking habit to the U.S. The 1903 blue-ribbon citizens' panel, the Committee on the Acquirement of the Drug Habit, concluded, "If the Chinaman cannot get along without his dope we can get along without him."

Although the Harrison Narcotic Tax Act (see link 2) was introduced initially concerning only opium and cocaine, its application became much more universal to a variety of other compounds which are putatively psychoactive. All drugs have the potential too be psychoactive but their abilities to affect CNS function vary with potency, exposure, genetics, etc. Again this is for discussion elsewhere.

RACISM

Inherent in the legislation has been alluded to above, but also consider the following, drawn from the same source (link 2)

Dr. Hamilton Wright, the first Opium Commissioner of the United States attended the International Opium Commission in Shanghai as the American delegate…On March 12, 1911, Dr. Wright was quoted in as follows in an article in the New York Times: "Of all the nations of the world, the United States consumes most habit-forming drugs per capita. Wright further claimed that "it has been authoritatively stated that cocaine is often the direct incentive to the crime of rape by the negroes of the South and other sections of the country," though he failed to mention specifically which authorities had stated that, and did not provide any evidence for his claim. Wright also stated that "one of the most unfortunate phases of smoking opium in this country is the large number of women who have become involved and were living as common-law wives or cohabitating with Chinese in the Chinatowns of our various cities"

The Act was never intended to provide the Treasury with more money, (Link 2):

"The purpose of this Bill can hardly be said to raise revenue, because it prohibits the importation of something upon which we have hitherto collected revenue." Later Harrison stated, "We are not attempting to collect revenue, but regulate commerce."

But the basis for this extreme radicalization was not based on empirical evidence. (Link 2)

...the contemporary research on the subject indicated that black Americans were in fact using cocaine and opium at much lower rates than white Americans.

Why is MJ a Narcotic?

Actually some strains are stimulatory, other strains are sedative (because sleep-inducing) correctly named narcotics, and even other strains are sleep-neutral.

The use of the term 'narcotics' in the title of the act to describe not just opiates but also cocaine—which is a central nervous system stimulant, not a narcotic—initiated a precedent of frequent legislative and judicial misclassification of various substances as 'narcotics'. Today, law enforcement agencies, popular media, the United Nations, other nations and even some medical practitioners can be observed applying the term very broadly and often pejoratively in reference to a wide range of illicit substances, regardless of the more precise definition existing in medical contexts. For this reason, however, 'narcotic' has come to mean any illegally used drug, but it is useful as a shorthand for referring to a controlled drug in a context where its legal status is more important than its physiological effects.

And here we come to the crux of the issue:

The act also marks the beginning of the creation of the modern, criminal drug addict and the American black market for drugs.

As was proven by Prohibition of Alcohol, repressive actions on supply and/or usage have the opposite of the desired effects:

Within five years the Rainey Committee, a Special Committee on Investigation appointed by Secretary of the Treasury William Gibbs McAdoo and led by Congressman T. Rainey, reported in June, 1919[24] that drugs were being smuggled into the country by sea, and across the Mexican and Canadian borders by nationally established organizations and that the United States consumed 470,000 pounds of opium annually, compared to 17,000 pounds in both France and Germany. The Monthly Summary of Foreign Commerce of the United States recorded that in the 7 months to January 1920, 528,635 pounds of opium was imported, compared to 74,650 pounds in the same period in 1919.

The Harrison Act was a tax act and even with modifications was unsuitable as a basis to regulate drugs. So, in 1970 we got the Controlled Substances Act This is a lengthy document. It lays out the entire basis for the current legal issues, despite state legalization for medicinal and/or recreational usage. The text here is rather dense and those who wish not to study the actual law might skip this section--but your knowledge of our current problem will therefore be incomplete.

(b) Evaluation of drugs and other substances

The Attorney General shall, before initiating proceedings under subsection (a) of this section to control a drug or other substance or to remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules, and after gathering the necessary data, request from the Secretary a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance. In making such evaluation and recommendations, the Secretary shall consider the factors listed in paragraphs (2), (3), (6), (7), and (8) of subsection (c) of this section and any scientific or medical considerations involved in paragraphs (1), (4), and (5) of such subsection. The recommendations of the Secretary shall include recommendations with respect to the appropriate schedule, if any, under which such drug or other substance should be listed. The evaluation and the recommendations of the Secretary shall be made in writing and submitted to the Attorney General within a reasonable time. The recommendations of the Secretary to the Attorney General shall be binding on the Attorney General as to such scientific and medical matters, and if the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance. If the Attorney General determines that these facts and all other relevant data constitute substantial evidence of potential for abuse such as to warrant control or substantial evidence that the drug or other substance should be removed entirely from the schedules, he shall initiate proceedings for control or removal, as the case may be, under subsection (a) of this section.

• (c) Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules
In making any finding under subsection (a) of this section or under subsection (b) of section 812 of this title, the Attorney General shall consider the following factors with respect to each drug or other substance proposed to be controlled or removed from the schedules:
• (1) Its actual or relative potential for abuse.
• (2) Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
• (3) The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
• (4) Its history and current pattern of abuse.
• (5) The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
• (6) What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
• (7) Its psychic or physiological dependence liability.
• (8) Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter.
• (d) International treaties, conventions, and protocols requiring control; procedures respecting changes in drug schedules of Convention on Psychotropic Substances

• (f) Abuse potential
If, at the time a new-drug application is submitted to the Secretary for any drug having a stimulant, depressant, or hallucinogenic effect on the central nervous system, it appears that such drug has an abuse potential, such information shall be forwarded by the Secretary to the Attorney General.

Here follows the precise definition of Drug Schedules:

• (1) Schedule I. -
◦ (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.
• (2) Schedule II. -
◦ (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
◦ (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions.
◦ (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence.
• (3) Schedule III. -
◦ (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II.
◦ (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
◦ (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
• (4) Schedule IV. -
◦ (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
◦ (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
◦ (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III.
• (5) Schedule V. -
◦ (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.
◦ (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
◦ (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV.

This is the Schedule 1 List:

• (c) Hallucinogenic Substances
Unless specifically excepted or unless listed in another schedule, any material, compound, mixture, or preparation, which contains any quantity of the following hallucinogenic substances, or which contains any of their salts, isomers, and salts of isomers whenever the existence of such salts, isomers, and salts of isomers is possible within the specific chemical designation:
• (1) 3, amphetamine.
• (2) 5-methoxy-3,4-methylenedioxy amphetamine.
• (3) 3,4,5-trimethoxy amphetamine.
• (4) Bufotenine.
• (5) Diethyltryptamine.
• (6) Dimethyltryptamine.
• (7) 4-methyl-2,5-diamethoxyamphetamine.
• (8) Ibogaine.
• (9) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
• (10) Marihuana.
• (11) Mescaline.
• (12) Peyote.
• (13) N-ethyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
• (14) N-methyl-3-piperidyl benzilate.
• (15) Psilocybin.
• (16) Psilocyn.
• (17) Tetrahydrocannabinols.

The National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse [National Commission (NC)] was formed at the request of President Nixon in 1972. It issued two reports. The first link is here for the first of the two reports. This report is quite lengthy and I do not excerpt from this. The commission was advisory, so, like most governmental commissions possessed no power except to present evidence and recommend courses of action in a non-binding way.

The Second Report of the NC is much shorter. The report is eloquent and non-biased. The following is liberally excerpted from this report:

To a substantial degree, the narcotics policy had from the beginning been identified with underprivileged minorities, criminals and social outsiders in general, although a common feature of each periodic drug scare, including cocaine at the turn of the century, heroin in the 1920's, marihuana in the 1930's and heroin again in the 1950’s….

For example, the scientifically indefensible classification of marihuana as a "narcotic" immediately provoked an erosion of the symbolic coherence which had previously characterized drug policy. Similarly, the inevitable comparison between alcohol and marihuana called into question the substantive separation between narcotics and dangerous drug policies on the one hand and alcohol policy on the other.2 After all, alcohol can legitimately be classified as a "narcotic" in a very specific sense of that term, and it is surely a "dangerous drug" as well...

American drug policy has been predicated on one fundamental or the societal objective is to eliminate "non-medical" drug use. Inquiry has rarely been addressed to whether this goal is desirable or possible. Failure to address such questions is abetted by the exclusion of certain drugs and certain types of drug taking from the realm of social distress. For example, the non-medical use of alcohol and tobacco would be inconsistent with the declared goal; thus, statutory vocabulary and social folklore have established the fiction that they are not drugs at all. Although use of these substances may arouse concern, they are not viewed in the wider context of drug use.

Another area excluded from public discussion is drug use sanctioned by medical judgment. While most medically-approved consumption of psychoactive drugs is substantially different from the situation where the individual chooses to use the drug himself, this is not always true. The absence of the intervening judgment of a third party does not mean that the individual's motivation is "non-medical," or hedonistic. Nor does the intervention of medical judgment assure that the drug will be used for medically-intended purposes.

Drug policy makers cannot truthfully assert that this society aims to eliminate non-medical drug use. No semantic fiction will alter the fundamental composition of alcohol and tobacco.

Misdirected legal efforts per NC 2:

Research has provided us with an almost endless stream of psychoactive substances. The tendency is to identify a new substance, determine its potential hazards as a chemical and then to insert it into the existing system. This procedure tends to perpetuate the public focus on the drugs rather than on the prevention of behavior about which society is concerned. When the drug appears in the streets, as it inevitably does, social institutions respond as if the behavior was unanticipated, and because they are ill-prepared to deal with the situation, an atmosphere of crisis is generated.

Co-depencies of bureaucracies and regulations:

Because of the intensity of the public concern and the emotionalism surrounding the topic of drugs, all levels of government have been pressured into action with little time for planning. The political pressures involved in this governmental effort have resulted in a concentration of public energy on the most immediate aspects of drug use and a reaction along the paths of least political resistance. The recent result has been the creation of ever larger bureaucracies, ever increasing expenditures of monies, and an outpouring of publicity so that the public will know that "something" is being done.

Perhaps the major consequence of this ad hoc policy planning has been the creation, at the federal, state and community levels, of a vested interest in the perpetuation of the problem...

The inquiry must shift from drugs to people, from pharmacological effects to the meaning and function of drug use.

Patterns of Drug Usage

Most non-experimental drug-using behavior can be classified as recreational, which occurs in social settings among friends or acquaintances who desire to share an experience which they define as both acceptable and pleasurable. Generally, recreational use is both voluntary and patterned and tends not to escalate to more frequent or intense use patterns. This type of behavior is not sustained by virtue of the dependence of the user on the drug in any meaningful sense of that term. Reinforcement for continued use is strengthened by non-drug factors.

A pattern of drug-using behavior which has grown significantly during the last decade is circumstantial drug use. This behavior is generally motivated by the user's perceived need or desire to achieve a new and anticipated effect in order to cope with a specific problem, situation or condition of a personal or vocational nature. This classification would include students who utilize stimulants during preparation for exams, long-distance truckers who rely on similar substances to provide extended endurance and alertness, military personnel who use drugs to cope with stress in combat situations, athletes who attempt to improve their performance and housewives who seek to relieve tension, anxiety, boredom or other stresses through the use of sedatives or stimulants.

A much smaller group of drug users may be regarded as having escalated from recreational or circumstantial use patterns into intensified drug-using behavior. Although this is the most amorphous of the behavioral categories, the Commission refers in general to drug use which occurs at least daily and is motivated by an individual's perceived need to achieve relief from a persistent problem or stressful situation, or his desire to maintain a certain self-prescribed level of performance. This category includes persons generally referred to as "problem drinkers" or "heavy social drinkers," housewives who regularly consume barbiturates or other sedatives and business executives who regularly consume tranquilizers. A very different group of intensified users are those youths who have turned to drugs as sources of excitement or meaning in otherwise unsatisfying existences. The salient feature of this class of behavior is that the individual still remains integrated within the larger social and economic structure; however, the regular use of one or more drugs may constitute dependence in a broad sense and may threaten to impair individual or social functioning.

The most disturbing pattern of drug-using behavior, encompassing the smallest number of drug users, is compulsive use which consists of a patterned behavior at a high frequency and high level of intensity, characterized by a high degree of psychological dependence and perhaps physical dependence as well. The distinguishing feature of this behavior is that drug use dominates the individual's existence, and preoccupation with drug taking precludes other social functioning. Under current social and legal conditions, compulsive drug use is most easily recognized as occurring among chronic alcoholics and heroin-dependent persons, although the incidence of compulsive barbiturate use is probably significantly higher than the essentially episodic nature of street use would suggest.

Prime lessons of this report were relevant then and are certainly relevant today. Although the citations are numerous, I skipped over some very valuable information in the interest of preserving some sort of brevity.

...basic psychopharmacological principles concerning drug-related risk must be kept in mind...

The greatest risk occurs when the rate of administration exceeds the capacity of the body to detoxify the drug and in consequence the brain is never drug free...

There is no correlation between the capacity of a psychoactive drug to induce behavioral disorders and its capacity to induce either brain or other somatic pathology...

...an understanding of the social impact of drug use must also include the impact on the normative social order. Although this concept is entirely qualitative, dealing with the prevailing social values, it has always determined the manner in which the drug problem has been defined and the nature of the social response.

The intense public concern regarding use of most drugs in large measure reflects anxiety for the future rather than empirical considerations rooted in the present. The result has been an overestimation of the nature of the problem attending use of some drugs, such as marihuana, and an underestimation of the problem attending use of other drugs, such as barbiturates and alcohol.

... no society has successfully eliminated drug use altogether...The alcohol prohibition experience in this country is best viewed as an attempt by one social group to impose its abstentionist doctrine on the entire culture. Social control generally stops short of elimination.

...This reliance on formal institutions, coupled with the impersonality and complexity of industrial and post-industrial societies, has made the task of social control of drug-taking behavior all the more difficult. For this reason, together with the proliferation of available substances, the problem appears far more pervasive in these societies, especially when they are heterogeneous and individualistic.

...certain proscriptions [in law] thought necessary to minimize a given drug using behavior may be more intolerable to the general social fabric than the behavior itself.

...the first step toward resolving the drug problem is to reconsider the present diagnosis of the ailment. The social response is presently a large part of the problem, one which is compounded with each unanticipated crisis. To break this cycle, it is necessary to refocus our attention on that behavior which carries the most serious social consequence.

Preoccupation with the drugs themselves must be replaced by an understanding of the behavioral impact of drug use.

...all the money and effort that the American society can muster will never be able to deal effectively with this behavior if the problem continues to be defined as it is now

The NC acknowledges its Mission:

The Commission has not attempted to devise utopian policy recommendations. Instead we have attempted primarily to formulate a policy-making process, one which includes all of the important variables and which separates various crucial issues.

Why is MJ a Schedule 1 drug?

So why is marijuana a Schedule I drug in the first place? It all dates back to 1970, when Congress passed the Controlled Substance Act, which was signed by President Richard Nixon. The act established the schedules by which drugs would be classified and temporarily listed marijuana as a Schedule I substance, subject to review. The administration then formed a commission to study marijuana and advise the administration on where it should be permanently placed. “When Nixon created the Controlled Substances Act in the '70s, he didn't really know where to place marijuana on the list of schedules,” says Kris Hermes, media specialist with an advocacy group called Americans for Safe Access.

I believe that is an overly generous opinion. In my mind, there is no question that much of this drug-regulating intent was racially promulgated.

Recently, perhaps, some members of Congress may have seen the light.

In a few short paragraphs within the 1,603-page congressional spending bill signed into law on December 16, 2014, Congress prohibited the U.S. Department of Justice from using federal funds to prosecute users, growers and distributors of medical marijuana in states that have enacted medical marijuana statutes.  The full text of the de-funding rider barring the DOJ from the use of funds to “prevent. . . implementation” of state and local laws legalizing medical marijuana states:
[list of states follows]

MJ legality by state 2016

AK……………….M, R
CA……………….M, R
CO……………….M, R
MA……………….M, R
ME……………….M, R
NV………………..M, R
OR………………..M,R
WA……………….M, R
AR……………….…M
AZ……………….…M
CT……………….…M
DE……………….…M
FL…………………..M
HI………..……….…M
IL……………….……M
LA………………...…M
MI……………...……M
MD…………………M
MN…………………M
MT……………….…M
ND……….…………M
NH…………….……M
NJ……………..……M
NM………………….M
NY……………..……M
OH……………....…M
PA………..…………M
RI……………………M

Information is current as of Nov. 11, 2016. M = medicinal; R = recreational
Legality of MJ by country

The struggle for continuation of this slowly progressive acceptance of MJ usage is in serious jeopardy.

[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpFIw_CngUE]