The DEA vs Science – How the DEA Ignores Science to Keep Cannabis Illegal

the dea vs science

The term “science denier” is considered a bad thing and rightfully so. To deny science is to deny the process of empirically gathering evidence to support a claim. Science itself is a fluid, ever-moving self-correcting system [in theory] that in assists in making sense of the material world around us.

It’s one of the driving forces of our seemingly exponential gains within numerous industries and have become the “standard” in terms of things to take seriously.

For example; if a new medication hasn’t been scrutinized by scientists and researchers – people may not have the same level of confidence in the efficacy of the drug.

If someone were to be a “denier of science” – a term that has become ever more prevalent in recent years – that would be akin to being a “blasphemous heathen” a few thousand years ago comparatively.

These days it’s a term of insult. People slap “denier” behind anyone who doesn’t support their opinion on the matter. “Climate-denier”, “Science denier”, “Insert-Here-Denier”…all of these terms are meant as a deterrent or mechanism of ridicule within a social setting.

If we don’t like “deniers of science” on a personal level. How can we accept it on an institutional level?

Don’t know what I’m talking about? Well – allow me to illuminate you.

The DEA’s long War on Science!

Did you know that cannabis activists and organizations such as NORML have been petitioning the government since the 1970s and systematically have been denied based on “a lack of scientific evidence” to make the case for legalization.

The problem is that the agency is the only one who can grant permission to study cannabis and up until this year – the only legal supplier grew weed that was akin to hemp.

However, these days – it seems that not only organizations such as NORML are suing the government, Scientist Groups have also done so in the past and it seems that the DEA is finally bending – maybe. If there’s one thing that we can count on when dealing with the DEA is that they will take over a decade to make a decision on whether or not people can research cannabis. Historically – this has been the case.

The DEA claims that there is not enough scientific evidence to warrant a rescheduling of cannabis yet fails to provide researchers with the adequate tools to create the scientific evidence.

The lack of evidence thus becomes the evidence of why you can’t legalize cannabis. “Because there’s not enough evidence – we must remain as is until we are certain.” Yet certainty never occurs, and for some substances that are arguably more dangerous than cannabis – do not have the same restrictions.

The DEA has long been standing in the way of the scientific community and a wide array of drugs deemed “too dangerous for studying”. Virtually all of our psychedelic research ended in the early to mid-1970s. Only over the past few years have we seen a rekindling of interest in the subject matter and to great avail.

Yet many of these miracle drugs are currently in a Schedule-I status making you wonder – “Why?” Could it be that the CSA and sub-sequentially the DEA is merely a government contract that handed your health over to the pharmaceutical industry?

Could it be that these other “drugs” – once science gets a hold on them – will revolutionize the medical landscape forever? Perhaps – but we’d never know if we don’t allow scientists to research these plants and substances.

The mere fact that the DEA is standing in direct opposition of scientific research should be more than enough “evidence” to suggest the inefficiency of the agency. But what do you expect with a “Drug Enforcement Agency” – hell, even the name reeks of Mussolini leveled- fascism – an organization whose entire existence is based on deterring people from consuming stuff.

It may certainly only be speculation to say that the reason the DEA is so stringent that nobody study these plants is due to their knowledge in the efficacy of them in providing relief to users. Your conspiracy-theorist senses may be tingling right now – but this is historical fact.

At least for the past 20+-years, the government has had the official evidence that contradicts the legal status of cannabis – yet, cannabis remains a Schedule-I drug.

What is more anti-scientific than blatantly ignoring evidence? What’s more insulting than owning a patent that literally states;

“Cannabinoids have been found to have antioxidant properties, unrelated to NMDA receptor antagonism. This new found property makes cannabinoids useful in the treatment and prophylaxis of wide variety of oxidation associated diseases, such as ischemic, age-related, inflammatory and autoimmune diseases. The cannabinoids are found to have particular application as neuroprotectants, for example in limiting neurological damage following ischemic insults, such as stroke and trauma, or in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases, such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease and HIV dementia. Nonpsychoactive cannabinoids, such as cannabidoil, are particularly advantageous to use because they avoid toxicity that is encountered with psychoactive cannabinoids at high doses useful in the method of the present invention.” - US6630507B1, 1998

Perhaps it’s time we seriously renegotiate the role of the Federal Government and the involvement with drugs. We want them to keep our drugs as “safe” as possible – but they should have no right to tell us what we can and cannot put into our bodies.

The current agreement – simply doesn’t work for us anymore. The DEA has literally become the “old racist science-denying relative” that nobody wants to greet over the Holidays.

Perhaps it’s time to “retire” them…