Wikipedia said:

The Drug Enforcement Administration, established in 1973, combining the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) and Customs’ drug agents,[13] is in charge of proceedings to add, delete, or change the schedule of a drug or other substance may be initiated by the DEA, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), or by petition from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. When a petition is received by the DEA, the agency begins its own investigation of the drug.

The DEA also may begin an investigation of a drug at any time based upon information received from laboratories, state and local law enforcement and regulatory agencies, or other sources of information. Once the DEA has collected the necessary data, the Deputy Administrator of DEA,[14] requests from HHS a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation as to whether the drug or other substance should be controlled or removed from control. This request is sent to the Assistant Secretary of Health of HHS. Then, HHS solicits information from the Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration and evaluations and recommendations from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and, on occasion, from the scientific and medical community at large. The Assistant Secretary, by authority of the Secretary, compiles the information and transmits back to the DEA a medical and scientific evaluation regarding the drug or other substance, a recommendation as to whether the drug should be controlled, and in what schedule it should be placed.

The medical and scientific evaluations are binding to the DEA with respect to scientific and medical matters. The recommendation on scheduling is binding only to the extent that if HHS recommends that the substance not be controlled, the DEA may not control the substance. Once the DEA has received the scientific and medical evaluation from HHS, the DEA Administrator will evaluate all available data and make a final decision whether to propose that a drug or other substance be controlled and into which schedule it should be placed. Under certain circumstances, the Government may temporarily schedule[15] a drug without following the normal procedure. An example is when international treaties require control of a substance. In addition, 21 U.S.C. § 811(h) allows the Attorney General to temporarily place a substance in Schedule I "to avoid an imminent hazard to the public safety". Thirty days' notice is required before the order can be issued, and the scheduling expires after a year; however, the period may be extended six months if rulemaking proceedings to permanently schedule the drug are in progress. In any case, once these proceedings are complete, the temporary order is automatically vacated. Unlike ordinary scheduling proceedings, such temporary orders are not subject to judicial review.

The CSA also creates a closed system of distribution[16] for those authorized to handle controlled substances. The cornerstone of this system is the registration of all those authorized by the DEA to handle controlled substances. All individuals and firms that are registered are required to maintain complete and accurate inventories and records of all transactions involving controlled substances, as well as security for the storage of controlled substances.

---

fbi365 said:

And altered state of mind, free thought, is the greatest threat to the tranny of government.

---

Shroomerited said:

Capitalism will end sometime not too far from now. Capitalism is simply too flawed. The way our governments are set up now is simply flawed. The way a lot of things are set up are just flawed. Including drug laws. With how much the world is changing, and how young we as a species truly are, you know? It HAS to change.

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

fbi365 said:

And altered state of mind, free thought, is the greatest threat to the tranny of government.

---

How is getting stoned a threat to the government?

I think sober people are more of a threat to the government than people who are high.

Shroomerited said:

Capitalism will end sometime not too far from now. Capitalism is simply too flawed. The way our governments are set up now is simply flawed. The way a lot of things are set up are just flawed. Including drug laws. With how much the world is changing, and how young we as a species truly are, you know? It HAS to change.

---

Oh really?  Have you figured out a better system than capitalism?  Please share it with us.

One alternative to capitalism is to have the government control everything.  But the government is inefficient so that's not a very good replacement.

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

Capitalism is flawed, but so are all the other systems.  In my opinion capitalism is less flawed than the alternatives.

---

Nullface said:

Capitalism isn't flawed you pinko. Capitalism is the ultimate economic system of freedom.

---

fbi365 said:

I didn't say stoned.  I said an altered state. The government's interests obviously lie in keeping people sober. How else can you explain the the current prohibition laws.

---

Alan Rockefeller said:

The government doesn't think "If this guy takes acid, he will figure out that we are a bunch of bs".  They think "If this guy takes acid, he will be dangerous to others and run around naked attacking cops for no reason."

---

sVs said:

Can you identify these intrinsic flaws in capitalism and what sort of rectification should be enacted?
Saying "there's better out there, but it probably doesn't exist" amounts to a bunch of nothing.

The issue with drug laws is not capitalism, it is the general perception of drugs in the eyes of the majority.
While our perception obviously differs from them, bear in mind that we tend to associate with other like-minded individuals who validate our perception. The average law-maker, or to a greater extent, the average voter (who empowered this law maker) do not share these perceptions.

It has nothing to do with some 'tyrannical' conspiracy to preemptively quell rebellion that supposedly progenates from some dude taking a heroic dose of mushies, and everything to do with negative stigma as far as the perception surrounding the various impacts of drug use.

---

Shroomerited said:

Alan Rockefeller said:

Capitalism is flawed, but so are all the other systems.  In my opinion capitalism is less flawed than the alternatives.

---

Never said it wasn't. I'm just saying that's it's really flawed. Even if it's "better than the alternative", it's still deeply flawed. There will be a better economic system out there. Even if we haven't created it yet.

---

fbi365 said:

Shroomerited said:

Alan Rockefeller said:

Capitalism is flawed, but so are all the other systems.  In my opinion capitalism is less flawed than the alternatives.

---

Never said it wasn't. I'm just saying that's it's really flawed. Even if it's "better than the alternative", it's still deeply flawed. There will be a better economic system out there. Even if we haven't created it yet.

---

The evolution of human thinking is not over. In terms of economic systems I would be very sad to see capitalism as the epitome of socio-economic thought. I don't know, shit, I went to college for a long time and have a good idea about social/economic/political systems and how they evolve over time. I emphasized in a frame of thought that hasn't caught  on yet. I hope somebody hires me to make it happen... 

We can debate about the barriers to that change. Or whether it is desirable or not. But not that a system that enforces a status quo frame of will achieve that.

---

You get what I'm saying, man.

Shroomerited said:

Capitalism is simply too flawed. The way our governments are set up now is simply flawed. The way a lot of things are set up are just flawed. Including drug laws.

---

Shroomerited said:

I never said drug laws had anything to do with capitalism.

---

sVs said:

Shroomerited said:

Capitalism is simply too flawed. The way our governments are set up now is simply flawed. The way a lot of things are set up are just flawed. Including drug laws.

---

Shroomerited said:

I never said drug laws had anything to do with capitalism.

---

Unless there is a tragic misunderstanding, there seems to be a conflict here.
Perhaps you mean something slightly different, in which case we'll chalk it up to poor interpretation of poorer syntax.

---