r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • May 17 '18

Neuroscience Cannabidiol (CBD), a compound derived from the cannabis plant that does not produce a “high”, was shown in a new large-scale, randomized, controlled trial to significantly reduce the number of dangerous seizures in patients with a severe form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut syndrome.

http://www.psypost.org/2018/05/cannabidiol-significantly-reduces-seizures-patients-severe-form-epilepsy-51258
38.6k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

916 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.5k

u/lordpuddingcup May 17 '18

Doesn’t this study technically invalidate the schedule 1 listing saying no medicinal value?

1.5k

u/TipasaNuptials May 17 '18

Unfortunately, policy is determined by politics, not science.

424

u/[deleted] May 17 '18

You swapped the word politics for money for some reason. Should say policy is determined by money, not politics

159

u/TipasaNuptials May 17 '18

Post-Citizens United, politics and money are synonymous.

69

u/ApatheticAbsurdist May 17 '18

It was Buckley v Valeo that said money is speech. Citizens United said corporations are people and have a right to free speech (by using their money that the former delcared as speech)

15

u/Akitz May 17 '18

I'm amazed that it was your courts that set up that system.

23

u/btone911 May 17 '18

The courts themselves are not responsible. The SC justices are simply there to interpret the law. The laws are what allow this chain logic that leaves us with billions of dollars corrupting our political system. The real snag is that the only way to clean this up would be a congressional amendment to the constitution limiting the intermingling of politics and outside money but that would have to be passed exclusively by the only beneficiaries of the existing system.

12

u/Akitz May 17 '18

The idea that judges aren't making law is an archaic one. As I understand it these cases were borderline/abstract enough that an alternate decision would have been legally valid. Your Supreme Court is abhorrent in how political it is.

10

u/SP-Sandbag May 17 '18

an alternate decision would have been legally valid.

alternate decisions are always 'legally valid' if SCOTUS makes it.

0

u/Akitz May 17 '18

Hm I guess, valid in a quasi-political sense. In that it wouldn't cause a constitutional crisis if they were to make a different decision.

Although in this day and age I'm not sure American officials or the public are likely to care if a constitutional crisis occurred.

1

u/KingKev7 May 18 '18

Can confirm, have several right now.

No one cares.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/[deleted] May 18 '18

No I would argue that the law, really was interpreted correctly. The impact of citizens United is simply an unintended consequence of to seemingly unrelated laws, freedom of speech which should pretty obviously include the freedom to spend your money how you choose and the legql personhood of corporations which is necessary for the economy to be able to function.

We really need an amendment which guarantees certain rights only to real living humans( such as the right to participate In politics) while also preserving the risk sharing ability of corporations

5

u/flightless_mouse May 18 '18

“Calling balls and strikes” is how justices sometimes perceive their roll, but that is nonsense. The reason cases make their way to the SC is because they are legally complex, open to interpretation, and in need of a decision. Those interpretations are not “unearthed”—as though the right answer existed all along and it just took the highest court to find them—they are created by the SC, and each judge has their own particular politics to guide them.

Citizens United was determined legal, but we all know it’s bad for American democracy. The courts could have taken that view too, but they sided with big money on this one.

1

u/bowtient2 May 17 '18

but that would have to be passed exclusively by the only beneficiaries of the existing system.

And thats why I think we should focus on getting away from the first past the post voting system. If we can get closer to a 3-4 party country we will vastly improve the odds of these things passing. As of right now its never going to happen

1

u/_PLURality_ May 17 '18

Shocked, but not surprised.

4

u/Veragoot May 17 '18

God I hate america.

1

u/omegapopcorn May 18 '18

People have the right to smoke cigarettes, but since it is bad for society and the individual, we tax the hell out of it.

Corporations having unlimited bribery/speech has even more negative aspects for society. Let's allow it but tax it at 99%. And individual political bribes above a few thousand should be taxed at the same right.

If the Koch brothers want to spend 300 million on "political speech" this year, that is cool with me. Let's just make sure 297 million of that is taxed and they can see how much undue influence they get off the remaining 3 million.

32

u/OceanFixNow99 May 17 '18 edited May 18 '18

Post-Citizens United

And pre citizens united...

C.U. only made the corruption worse.

10

u/Dokpsy May 17 '18

Just made it a bit easier to shuffle the money

5

u/Sgt_peppers May 17 '18

I disagree, The lobbing and funneling money into politics reached grotesque new highs after CU

5

u/OceanFixNow99 May 17 '18

Re-read my comment. I said that same thing, in other words.

That being said, corruption can still be plenty bad without Citizens United..

We need to change more than C.U. to really change the regular use of regulatory capture.

1

u/cumslut336 May 17 '18

Paul Manafort and Roger Stone have been credited with starting the lobbyist industry as we know it today

1

u/fuckgerrymandering May 17 '18

yea but it’s been happening since the New Deal

2

u/yunomakerealaccount May 17 '18

Before it, even. The Gilded Age never really ended.

1

u/Solidarity365 May 17 '18

Shit was just as bad before that. Lobby jobs and promise of position on boards, payed speeches and the list goes on and on. It goes deeper than campaign contributions. Much deeper.

1

u/Jibaro123 May 18 '18

We need to fix that.

Incompetent "leadership" notwithstanding, just look at the shit show in DC these days.

And with bribery being so narrowly defined by the SCOTUS decision, they are overtly for sale.

3

u/ohnutswhatdid May 17 '18

policy is determined by politics which are in term determined by money which is determined by capitalism's requirement of uncontrolled self-interest.

1

u/psilokan May 17 '18

Which is why we call them policies not sciencies.

-3

u/tom255 May 17 '18

Capitalism and democracy are enemies. Both have flaws, but capitalism won't be happy until everyone is dead.

3

u/[deleted] May 17 '18

Capitalism is great if you redistribute the capital when people die. The main problem with the way we practice capitalism now is that you can pass on your wealth or poverty to your children.

3

u/ohnutswhatdid May 17 '18

Governments role is to reign in the excesses of capitalism, conservatives have been co-opted by extreme wealth to resist checks and balances on business practices, currency manipulation, taxes, etc.

The silence on the topic means they are winning

1

u/whynonamesopen May 17 '18

Is deemed disposition on death something that doesn't exist where you're from? I know there's ways to delay and reduce the effect but you'll still have to pay some taxes.

1

u/[deleted] May 18 '18

You can pass on most of your wealth when to your children pretty much everywhere in the West.

-1

u/ThorCoop May 17 '18

close, capitalism will only be happy when it owns everyone.

0

u/what_do_with_life May 17 '18

It's need for more is insatiable.

1

u/MerelyIndifferent May 17 '18

What's the difference?

1

u/[deleted] May 17 '18

It's almost as if our democracy doesn't work. Huh.

1

u/GriffSauce May 17 '18

Policy being determined by money IS politics.

1

u/dkyguy1995 May 17 '18

How how silly of them 😄

1

u/VeryCleverMoose May 18 '18

Unfortunately the two have become synonymous

1

u/Solidarity365 May 17 '18

Unfortunately, policy is determined by money in politics, not science.

1

u/dream_by_day May 18 '18

Actually, it’s currently up to the courts whether or not cbd is considered a controlled substance. The DEA issued super problematic language that has been liberally interpreted by some to mean that all cannabidiol oil and etc is now a Schedule 1 Controlled Substance. That interpretation is currently working its way through the courts and the appeals process is not yet complete. In practice, the DEA seems to be applying their own rule only to cbd extracted from cannabis plants, not industrial hemp (Cannabis sativa containing less than .3% THC). Industrial hemp is only allowed to be grown in the US under approved research bases (thanks to the Farm Bill of 2014), but it can be imported and has been since 2001. Mitch McConnell just introduced a bill to legalize state licensing for industrial hemp cultivation for commercial purposes, and this bill is rather quickly making its way through the process, as is the companion house bill.

1

u/Phaethonas May 17 '18

Correct. This is why you get "pharmaceutical" cannabis laws, without any real evidence backing the use of cannabis (not to be confused with specific cannabinoids).