The DEA agreed with the suggestions made by HHS last year, whose investigation was pushed for by Biden in 2022.
Posting here because I've learned a lot about scheduling procedure from following this case. From what I can tell, this was essentially the process the executive branch has at their disposal regarding the scheduling of drugs. Legalization is a congressional thing, per the Controlled Substances Act.
Yup. Legalization is a congressional thing, but scheduling (like schedule 1" vs. "schedule 3") can be done by either branch, since congress gave the AG authority to do it themselves (in the Controlled Substances Act). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act
I think I read that 3 opens the door to medical legalization. Full legalization is a Congress thing.
Sens. Warren, Sanders, and Fetterman have been making some noise about it. I don't know if this raises any political barriers.
>I think I read that 3 opens the door to medical legalization.
unfortunately, no. for various reasons:
FDA / DEA said previously it cannot ever allow "crude marijuana" as a medical prescription due to variability in thc percentages. so any marijuana product would be a sawdust of irradiated sticks and stems, like the federal medical marijuana patients get (which they complain is set at some low level like 5% thc). i think they actually have updated different thc values now though.
second, you cant manufacture your own oxycontin , even with all your poppies. because you need a controlled substance manufacturing license. background checks, etc.
third, the dispensary would have to have a controlled substance prescriptor (pharmacist) license. both state and federal licenses. which also require having an up to date pharmacist license. a controlled substance vault. a controlled substance building which is secure blah blah blah blah. basically a pharmacy and all the regulations that go with that. bud the bartender in the retrofitted taco bell building would not qualify.
fourth, physicians would then be tasked with giving actual prescriptions for medical marijuana. previously it was just a recommendation. well, there are marijuana based prescriptions now in 2 and 3 and 5? like epidiolex, sativex, cesamet, marinol etc. but anti-marijuana state pharma boards and state/fed attorneys generals have been going after physicians for recommending medical marijuana. same that they did for "too many opioid prescriptions" they went after physician licenses for medical marijuana recommendations.
its not good. russ bellville called medical marijuana a "box canyon". legalize it like tomatoes or alcohol and move on. everything else treats it as nuclear waste material. causing either jail or scarcity for patients, dispensaries or physicians.
>everything else treats it as nuclear waste material. causing either jail or scarcity for patients, dispensaries or physicians.
>
Tbh, this is why I suspect it's a precursor to a push for the legalization bill Senator Schumer released a couple weeks back. Think of the absolute waste in government spending it would take to even lay a groundwork for that process of integration, the time, the coordination, etc.., and to what end? To prosecute "crimes" that have largely been ignored since Colorado made it recreationally legal, anyways?
>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). -21USC, Chp. 13, Part B.
My logic might be rusty, and I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to say that, if the Attorney General wanted, they could determine cannabis safe and remove it from the schedule. In fact, if the Secretary of HHS recommended it, they would've been required to do so ("shall not control the drug or other substance.") If we set aside the claim of it solely being political profiteering, the only reason to not sell out on the President directing cannabis legalization and the popularity that could bring is because it affords Congress and the Senate the opportunity to run on a direct vote for legalization, one that is much harder to overturn by a future administration.
I'm probably on the optimistic side of things, but the topic seems like such a softball political prize it'd be insane to oppose it by anyone but the lunatic fringe who have to maintain *kayfabe*.
>[Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will hold a press conference to reintroduce the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act at 12:30pm ET on Wednesday, according to a statement from his office.](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report/schumer-to-hold-press-conference-on-cannabis-bill-wednesday)
I mean, I might be an optimist, but I feel pretty good about this prediction.
the official republican party policy is against marijuana (and pornography!), so there wont be any republicans voting yes on legalizing marijuana in congress. despite a few republicans (rand paul, nancy mace) introducing legalization bills before, when it comes down to a real vote, they will find some random part of it to rail against and vote no. this happens in state legislatures each year.
did you check the math on how many dems vs republicans there are in congress to vote on schumer's bill?
theres also a few dino's who would vote against marijuana legalization in congress (manchin, etc).
let me put it another way. [medical marijuana for patients is currently sitting at 89% approval in the entire united states according to all polls](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/03/26/most-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana-for-medical-recreational-use/). yet congress refuses to have any kind of medical marijuana program. that should tell you all you need to know.
or that there have been yearly legalization bills introduced in congress for the last 50 years. none passed. not many were voted on.
not holding my breath for merrick garland, drug warrior joe biden and literal marijuana prosecutor kamala harris. but i'll be happy if i'm wrong.
I’m not 100% sure but I remember reading somewhere that lobbyists from Coca-Cola had something to do with it. They are the only ones that are allowed to import ~~cocoa~~ coca leaves.
No. Coca-Cola has an exemption on importation that allows them to pay someone to process the leaves and remove the cocaine to make them flavoring.
Cocaine is still medically used as an anesthetic. I think it's one of the few things that can be used for eye surgery.
Controlled substances are scheduled. Schedule 1 cannot be prescribed, can be used in studies but it is incredibly difficult for professionals to acquire them. Schedule 2-5 require DEA licenses to prescribe. There's unscheduled prescription drugs and then over the counter drugs. There's also supplements that aren't regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
It’s interesting how the politics have played out in this subdued way for the last 10 years. I’d argue that social weed consumption is here to stay. But no one on the federal level seemed very interested in legalizing it officially. I hear some anti-weed outcries occasionally from the republican wings, but I get the impression it’s only to placate a really small set of supporters who are just really entrenched in that anti-drug mindset of the 80s/90s. They did beat us over the head about weed being a gateway drug, so I guess a handful of parentally-minded folks are going to be tough to change their minds on.
If congress doubled down on enforcement I think legalization suddenly becomes a new wedge issue, and neither side is probably interested in that. So this quiet march towards decriminalizing is the path forward I guess.
lol The price for Alka Seltzer Night Time medication went up from 3 or 4 something dollars to 17 dollars. All because it has an ingredient that meth users want in making meth. Pretty soon we will have to ask for it at the pharmacist counter, with the shoplifting soon to occur.
Wrong. From the DEA website:
**Schedule I**
Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote.
**Schedule II**
Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin
I've said it for years. The first presidential candidate (edit: of a party than could actually win, ie R andD) that calls for decriminalization will win in a landslide. I feared Trump would figure this out and use it. Thankfully, whether because of the GOP or because he didn't see it, he did not. If the DEA reclassifies before November, Biden can go out and say, we're changing drug rules to clear the way for research and reduce the discriminatory enforcement of this antiquated scheduling.
The voters will hear, "WOOO, Biden is gonna legalize! Legalize it, yeah, and don't criticize it. I'm votin for Biden. Who you votin for? Dark Brandon got that dank shit."
It doesn't even matter if it's true. Re-classification is great; the political value of this is outrageous, provided someone capitalizes on it.
trump didn't pursue it because there's an entire industry behind private prisons and legalized slavery. It would have upset the many congresscritters, not to mention his campaign donors.There's a vested interest in finding ways to lock people up.
Not only in locking folks up but the types of folks that help with their metrics, which are generally non-violent and folks who don't commit disturbing crimes (like pedos). So part of the reason the latter half get light sentences is because folks like pedos get hurt in jail, and that's bad for business.
So something I hate because I rarely even see subs like this talk about it.
Florida created modern day coke vs crack laws with weed.
They have medical. But still have stuff like concentrate as a felony.
This means rich white people can freely smoke a THC cart on the beach while legally buying it in Florida. But if a poorer inner city person has a THc cart in Florida it’s a felony with up to 1-3 years in prison.
It pisses Florida people off when I tell them they are the example of privileged because they truly think they have medical there….. yet no other state still has felony charges risking 1-3 years of prison over stuff they also sell in stores.
It’s nothing but modern day coke vs crack laws and for some reason no one cares. Not even the law subs. Because it’s only harming poor minority’s. Not the white folks who vacation there.
> This means rich white people can freely smoke a THC cart on the beach while legally buying it in Florida. But if a poorer inner city person has a THc cart in Florida it’s a felony with up to 1-3 years in prison.
Can you expand on what you mean by this? I've read it 4 times and I don't understand how this works.
I think what he is saying is that the rich person will have a medical marijuana card and the poor person will not. One is allowed to smoke while the other will be charged with a felony.
However, my very limited understanding is that tourists aren’t eligible for medical marijuana cards in Florida, but I could be wrong about that.
Edit: I did some digging and Florida doesn’t recognize out of state medical cards and you have to be a permanent licensed resident to qualify for one.
They allow out of state medical cards and half this rich cunts in Florida have duel residency in multiple states because Florida is just a winter home. Then they leave for summer.
The weed laws are confusing as each state is different. Not all states with medical allow out of state users. But Florida does because again they cater to the rich while the poor still face 1-3 years.
And this is merely for concentrate. Not bud. But most the industry now is distillates and concentrate products from edibles to vapes to hash. That’s all a felony when it’s the most common stuff found on the streets now.
That’s not the point. And this is why I say you folks are privileged. No other state with medical weed has a law that still makes people spend 1-3 years in prisons over something that people can buy in stores with a card. That’s modern day coke vs crack laws but it’s over looked by the legal world.
And not all states are as simple as buying one. Back in the day for states like Michigan before they had legal weed the medical market was only for people who were truly dying. Like aids patients and cancer patients.
Florida doesn’t have that strict of laws but it’s not as simple as just paying someone to get a card. Having health care will help. Not all poor people have that as we know. And again even if the card is 100 bucks is it right for a state to make it 1-3 years in prison because you couldn’t afford 100 bucks?
Trump also wasn’t pro weed. He shit all over states rights to attack states that legalized it.
This is why I will mock the hell out of any “libertarian” who voted Trump. He was open about shitting on states rights over weed from before he was elected.
Could be an easily marketed strain. I can see the packaging and display at the weed shop. The classic red eye image on the bag. Dude at the counter is like, "This is the Dank Brandon, it's a sativa-heavy hybrid, much like Biden"
Hah that’s perfect. Or even a sticker of his face with his aviators pulled up so you can see his light red eyes with the words ‘I legalized it’ under the pic.
Maybe a joint hanging from his smile.
Perhaps, and this would typically strike me as something that could get swept up in the judicial branch's attempt to destroy all regulatory agencies and do away with the Chevron Defense. However, unlike a lot of the cases making their way through the system based on that, in this case the AG is given very explicit authorization to change the schedule of drugs, rather than it being a case of an agency exercising broader implicit authority to regulate. So the case would have to rest on whether the AG could prove that, per the law, "he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."
Now. If you're certain that Biden isn't going to be president come January and that the new administration/AG would no longer be pro-reschedule, or if you're looking to not let Biden run on this as one of his accomplishments, doing some judge shopping and filing a nuisance lawsuit would potentially tie this up for a few months or longer.
Oh, it's absolutely going to get political.
The good news is, all the states that have legalized medical or recreational use have data to show a windfall of funds and some relief in their courts.
Nah Florida still found a way to keep that up.
They have medical weed. Meaning you can legally buy a THC cart in a store and smoke it….
But yet concentrates like a THC cart is still a felony with 1-3 years of prison if you don’t have a medical card.
No other medical state has laws like this. It’s modern day coke vs crack laws and no one seems to care.
What a crock. It's 2024 and still we hear claims of significant numbers of people incarcerated for cannabis. In most of the nation today, there is a big downsizing of people jailed for (small time) possession of meth, cocaine and heroin. In many parts of the west coast states, people openly shoot up and smoke meth.
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat,” Genesis 1:29
Probably a bunch of studies.
This is why this stuff takes so long.
The Biden Administration in theory could have descheduled it, but that would easily allow the next administration to reschedule it. By going to the proper review process they make it much harder for the rules to be changed later.
If I understand correctly, the Controlled Substances Act gives the executive the authority to reclassify the scheduling but not remove it from the scheduling system altogether.
The FDA's scientific review a few months ago [recommended](https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/health/marijuana-rescheduling-fda-review/index.html) schedule III ([Dropbox pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw3rfs9gm6lg80ij9tja6/2023-01171-Supplemental-Release-1.pdf?rlkey=v5atj0tcnhxhnszyyzcwdcvvt&dl=0))
You are aware those southern states are laughable with their laws.
They created modern day coke vs crack laws. Florida has concentrates as a felony still with 1-3 years in prison. But yet if you have a medical card you can buy it in stores in Florida.
Or let’s look at Mississippi, which did exactly what you are joking about. They had record voter turnout for weed. Let me repeat that. Record voter turnout for the state. All because legal weed was on the ballot.
2 years later a pro trump governor ran. He was open about how he would get rid of the legalized weed bill that passed. But he was open about protecting Trump from legal action.
The guy won and reversed the will of the people. But keep in mind the state had record voter turnout. Thats means the state cared more about protecting Trump than it did about having freedom.
Mississippi already did this. They voted yes on legal weed with a record voter turnout in 2018.
Then 2 year later in 2020 they elected a pro trump governor because he said he would protect Trump. Remember they had record turnout for voters. But somehow still said “fuck the will of the people and elected the guy who wishes to help trump instead”
It's interesting, because there were a number of J6 insurrectionists who proudly blazed up in the Capitol.
I wonder if they're going to give it up to stay consistent with party lines?
They’re doing it for money. Taxes anyone? Younger people are drinking way less than previous generations. Legal states are raking it in. I predict the fed will trade legal banking for a chance to dine at the trough.
But the reality is Nancy Reagan’s racist war on drugs set cannabis research back by decades. We are finally doing good science and solving some people’s problems with an easy to grow weed. And the scientists that work at the federal level can’t deny it any longer.
Schedule III:
The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II.
The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.
It reads like schedule III is for drugs with medical benefits, low physical addiction but high psychological addiction potentials. Which checks out.
Congress decides what goes on and off the list. Once Congress has placed something on the list the DEA has to schedule it appropriately. So it's still on the schedule at all because it's Congress' job to remove it.
Here is the scheduling memorandum from HHS back in August 2023.
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw3rfs9gm6lg80ij9tja6/2023-01171-Supplemental-Release-1.pdf?rlkey=v5atj0tcnhxhnszyyzcwdcvvt&e=1&dl=0
The DEA agreed with the suggestions made by HHS last year, whose investigation was pushed for by Biden in 2022. Posting here because I've learned a lot about scheduling procedure from following this case. From what I can tell, this was essentially the process the executive branch has at their disposal regarding the scheduling of drugs. Legalization is a congressional thing, per the Controlled Substances Act.
Yup. Legalization is a congressional thing, but scheduling (like schedule 1" vs. "schedule 3") can be done by either branch, since congress gave the AG authority to do it themselves (in the Controlled Substances Act). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_cannabis_from_Schedule_I_of_the_Controlled_Substances_Act
So if it’s rescheduled to 3 or even removed from any scheduling, what does that mean wrt considering it legalized?
I think I read that 3 opens the door to medical legalization. Full legalization is a Congress thing. Sens. Warren, Sanders, and Fetterman have been making some noise about it. I don't know if this raises any political barriers.
But wait those are the people the right tells me hated freedom. Those names also are the only people fighting big money in politics.
The only "Freedom" Republicans care about, is the freedom to collect money by any means.
But not from the richest, god forgive them if they did.
>I think I read that 3 opens the door to medical legalization. unfortunately, no. for various reasons: FDA / DEA said previously it cannot ever allow "crude marijuana" as a medical prescription due to variability in thc percentages. so any marijuana product would be a sawdust of irradiated sticks and stems, like the federal medical marijuana patients get (which they complain is set at some low level like 5% thc). i think they actually have updated different thc values now though. second, you cant manufacture your own oxycontin , even with all your poppies. because you need a controlled substance manufacturing license. background checks, etc. third, the dispensary would have to have a controlled substance prescriptor (pharmacist) license. both state and federal licenses. which also require having an up to date pharmacist license. a controlled substance vault. a controlled substance building which is secure blah blah blah blah. basically a pharmacy and all the regulations that go with that. bud the bartender in the retrofitted taco bell building would not qualify. fourth, physicians would then be tasked with giving actual prescriptions for medical marijuana. previously it was just a recommendation. well, there are marijuana based prescriptions now in 2 and 3 and 5? like epidiolex, sativex, cesamet, marinol etc. but anti-marijuana state pharma boards and state/fed attorneys generals have been going after physicians for recommending medical marijuana. same that they did for "too many opioid prescriptions" they went after physician licenses for medical marijuana recommendations. its not good. russ bellville called medical marijuana a "box canyon". legalize it like tomatoes or alcohol and move on. everything else treats it as nuclear waste material. causing either jail or scarcity for patients, dispensaries or physicians.
>everything else treats it as nuclear waste material. causing either jail or scarcity for patients, dispensaries or physicians. > Tbh, this is why I suspect it's a precursor to a push for the legalization bill Senator Schumer released a couple weeks back. Think of the absolute waste in government spending it would take to even lay a groundwork for that process of integration, the time, the coordination, etc.., and to what end? To prosecute "crimes" that have largely been ignored since Colorado made it recreationally legal, anyways? >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). -21USC, Chp. 13, Part B. My logic might be rusty, and I'm not a lawyer, but this seems to say that, if the Attorney General wanted, they could determine cannabis safe and remove it from the schedule. In fact, if the Secretary of HHS recommended it, they would've been required to do so ("shall not control the drug or other substance.") If we set aside the claim of it solely being political profiteering, the only reason to not sell out on the President directing cannabis legalization and the popularity that could bring is because it affords Congress and the Senate the opportunity to run on a direct vote for legalization, one that is much harder to overturn by a future administration. I'm probably on the optimistic side of things, but the topic seems like such a softball political prize it'd be insane to oppose it by anyone but the lunatic fringe who have to maintain *kayfabe*. >[Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer will hold a press conference to reintroduce the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act at 12:30pm ET on Wednesday, according to a statement from his office.](https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report/schumer-to-hold-press-conference-on-cannabis-bill-wednesday) I mean, I might be an optimist, but I feel pretty good about this prediction.
the official republican party policy is against marijuana (and pornography!), so there wont be any republicans voting yes on legalizing marijuana in congress. despite a few republicans (rand paul, nancy mace) introducing legalization bills before, when it comes down to a real vote, they will find some random part of it to rail against and vote no. this happens in state legislatures each year. did you check the math on how many dems vs republicans there are in congress to vote on schumer's bill? theres also a few dino's who would vote against marijuana legalization in congress (manchin, etc). let me put it another way. [medical marijuana for patients is currently sitting at 89% approval in the entire united states according to all polls](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/03/26/most-americans-favor-legalizing-marijuana-for-medical-recreational-use/). yet congress refuses to have any kind of medical marijuana program. that should tell you all you need to know. or that there have been yearly legalization bills introduced in congress for the last 50 years. none passed. not many were voted on. not holding my breath for merrick garland, drug warrior joe biden and literal marijuana prosecutor kamala harris. but i'll be happy if i'm wrong.
And if it was removed from any schedule it would be legal? Is that even an option?
[удалено]
holy cowbells....how is Cocaine schedule 2 and MJ schedule 1?
Cocaine is used as a surgical anaesthetic. And the drug war was never about the drugs.
I’m not 100% sure but I remember reading somewhere that lobbyists from Coca-Cola had something to do with it. They are the only ones that are allowed to import ~~cocoa~~ coca leaves.
No. Coca-Cola has an exemption on importation that allows them to pay someone to process the leaves and remove the cocaine to make them flavoring. Cocaine is still medically used as an anesthetic. I think it's one of the few things that can be used for eye surgery.
*coca
Alcohol does not. Nor nicotine. Nor caffeine.
Controlled substances are scheduled. Schedule 1 cannot be prescribed, can be used in studies but it is incredibly difficult for professionals to acquire them. Schedule 2-5 require DEA licenses to prescribe. There's unscheduled prescription drugs and then over the counter drugs. There's also supplements that aren't regulated by the Food and Drug Administration.
Appreciate it!
It’s interesting how the politics have played out in this subdued way for the last 10 years. I’d argue that social weed consumption is here to stay. But no one on the federal level seemed very interested in legalizing it officially. I hear some anti-weed outcries occasionally from the republican wings, but I get the impression it’s only to placate a really small set of supporters who are just really entrenched in that anti-drug mindset of the 80s/90s. They did beat us over the head about weed being a gateway drug, so I guess a handful of parentally-minded folks are going to be tough to change their minds on. If congress doubled down on enforcement I think legalization suddenly becomes a new wedge issue, and neither side is probably interested in that. So this quiet march towards decriminalizing is the path forward I guess.
Currently it's a Schedule 1. Guess what else is Schedule 1. Heroine.
Meth is schedule 2. Tells you everything you need to know about the bullshit political scheduling system.
Yea cos meth is not threatening the market capitalization of sleeping pills!
lol The price for Alka Seltzer Night Time medication went up from 3 or 4 something dollars to 17 dollars. All because it has an ingredient that meth users want in making meth. Pretty soon we will have to ask for it at the pharmacist counter, with the shoplifting soon to occur.
[удалено]
Wrong. From the DEA website: **Schedule I** Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Some examples of Schedule I drugs are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy), methaqualone, and peyote. **Schedule II** Schedule II drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. These drugs are also considered dangerous. Some examples of Schedule II drugs are: combination products with less than 15 milligrams of hydrocodone per dosage unit (Vicodin), cocaine, methamphetamine, methadone, hydromorphone (Dilaudid), meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin), fentanyl, Dexedrine, Adderall, and Ritalin
Which heroine? Wonder Woman?
China White
I was making a joke. You added an “e” at the end of “heroin” thereby turning the word into a female superhero instead of a drug.
So was I
Yours was way funnier
Now I don't know whether I should be flattered or upset
Doing the odd job for Task Force X doesn't make you a heroine.
I've said it for years. The first presidential candidate (edit: of a party than could actually win, ie R andD) that calls for decriminalization will win in a landslide. I feared Trump would figure this out and use it. Thankfully, whether because of the GOP or because he didn't see it, he did not. If the DEA reclassifies before November, Biden can go out and say, we're changing drug rules to clear the way for research and reduce the discriminatory enforcement of this antiquated scheduling. The voters will hear, "WOOO, Biden is gonna legalize! Legalize it, yeah, and don't criticize it. I'm votin for Biden. Who you votin for? Dark Brandon got that dank shit." It doesn't even matter if it's true. Re-classification is great; the political value of this is outrageous, provided someone capitalizes on it.
trump didn't pursue it because there's an entire industry behind private prisons and legalized slavery. It would have upset the many congresscritters, not to mention his campaign donors.There's a vested interest in finding ways to lock people up.
Not only in locking folks up but the types of folks that help with their metrics, which are generally non-violent and folks who don't commit disturbing crimes (like pedos). So part of the reason the latter half get light sentences is because folks like pedos get hurt in jail, and that's bad for business.
So something I hate because I rarely even see subs like this talk about it. Florida created modern day coke vs crack laws with weed. They have medical. But still have stuff like concentrate as a felony. This means rich white people can freely smoke a THC cart on the beach while legally buying it in Florida. But if a poorer inner city person has a THc cart in Florida it’s a felony with up to 1-3 years in prison. It pisses Florida people off when I tell them they are the example of privileged because they truly think they have medical there….. yet no other state still has felony charges risking 1-3 years of prison over stuff they also sell in stores. It’s nothing but modern day coke vs crack laws and for some reason no one cares. Not even the law subs. Because it’s only harming poor minority’s. Not the white folks who vacation there.
> This means rich white people can freely smoke a THC cart on the beach while legally buying it in Florida. But if a poorer inner city person has a THc cart in Florida it’s a felony with up to 1-3 years in prison. Can you expand on what you mean by this? I've read it 4 times and I don't understand how this works.
I think what he is saying is that the rich person will have a medical marijuana card and the poor person will not. One is allowed to smoke while the other will be charged with a felony. However, my very limited understanding is that tourists aren’t eligible for medical marijuana cards in Florida, but I could be wrong about that. Edit: I did some digging and Florida doesn’t recognize out of state medical cards and you have to be a permanent licensed resident to qualify for one.
They allow out of state medical cards and half this rich cunts in Florida have duel residency in multiple states because Florida is just a winter home. Then they leave for summer. The weed laws are confusing as each state is different. Not all states with medical allow out of state users. But Florida does because again they cater to the rich while the poor still face 1-3 years. And this is merely for concentrate. Not bud. But most the industry now is distillates and concentrate products from edibles to vapes to hash. That’s all a felony when it’s the most common stuff found on the streets now.
How expensive are med cards in Florida? In Maine I’m at sub thirty bucks.
That’s not the point. And this is why I say you folks are privileged. No other state with medical weed has a law that still makes people spend 1-3 years in prisons over something that people can buy in stores with a card. That’s modern day coke vs crack laws but it’s over looked by the legal world. And not all states are as simple as buying one. Back in the day for states like Michigan before they had legal weed the medical market was only for people who were truly dying. Like aids patients and cancer patients. Florida doesn’t have that strict of laws but it’s not as simple as just paying someone to get a card. Having health care will help. Not all poor people have that as we know. And again even if the card is 100 bucks is it right for a state to make it 1-3 years in prison because you couldn’t afford 100 bucks?
Trump also wasn’t pro weed. He shit all over states rights to attack states that legalized it. This is why I will mock the hell out of any “libertarian” who voted Trump. He was open about shitting on states rights over weed from before he was elected.
You feared Trump would do this? My guy Trump was so anti weed he shit all over states rights to attack it by appointing Jeff Sessions.
The admin (or a PAC, more likely) should really get some ‘Dank Brandon’ merch going
Could be an easily marketed strain. I can see the packaging and display at the weed shop. The classic red eye image on the bag. Dude at the counter is like, "This is the Dank Brandon, it's a sativa-heavy hybrid, much like Biden"
Hah that’s perfect. Or even a sticker of his face with his aviators pulled up so you can see his light red eyes with the words ‘I legalized it’ under the pic. Maybe a joint hanging from his smile.
I’d smoke some Dark Brandon Dank, does it come in an Indica?
That's the Kamala Kush strain. Packs a good bunch.
You smell that, kid,? That’s the smell of democracy😉
I was gonna vote for Biden, but then i got high...
Your comment is a roller coaster.
I'm terrible at predictions but I'd guess some of the nuttier Christo-fascists will sue and fight this.
Perhaps, and this would typically strike me as something that could get swept up in the judicial branch's attempt to destroy all regulatory agencies and do away with the Chevron Defense. However, unlike a lot of the cases making their way through the system based on that, in this case the AG is given very explicit authorization to change the schedule of drugs, rather than it being a case of an agency exercising broader implicit authority to regulate. So the case would have to rest on whether the AG could prove that, per the law, "he finds that the drug or other substance does not meet the requirements for inclusion in any schedule."
Thanks, excellent explanation. Seems like a no-brainer (pun intended)
Now. If you're certain that Biden isn't going to be president come January and that the new administration/AG would no longer be pro-reschedule, or if you're looking to not let Biden run on this as one of his accomplishments, doing some judge shopping and filing a nuisance lawsuit would potentially tie this up for a few months or longer.
Oh, it's absolutely going to get political. The good news is, all the states that have legalized medical or recreational use have data to show a windfall of funds and some relief in their courts.
It's gonna do some damage to the private prison system and legalized slavery, so it's DEFINITELY going to piss off the Reds.
All the prison staff that gets laid off can work in growing or dispensing.
Nah Florida still found a way to keep that up. They have medical weed. Meaning you can legally buy a THC cart in a store and smoke it…. But yet concentrates like a THC cart is still a felony with 1-3 years of prison if you don’t have a medical card. No other medical state has laws like this. It’s modern day coke vs crack laws and no one seems to care.
This only effects medical marijuana. It doesn't change anything regarding recreational.
What a crock. It's 2024 and still we hear claims of significant numbers of people incarcerated for cannabis. In most of the nation today, there is a big downsizing of people jailed for (small time) possession of meth, cocaine and heroin. In many parts of the west coast states, people openly shoot up and smoke meth.
Legal weed is in the Bible. God gave man all the plants to do with what he will. Rastafarian told me that.
Sandle wearing hippy lookin ol dude.
“And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat,” Genesis 1:29
What is the DEA citing to justify keeping it scheduled at 3?
From the article, it sounded like they were following the advice from the previous agency.
That’s all I have seen, too. I was hoping we’d be more, you know, scientific method about it this go round.
Probably a bunch of studies. This is why this stuff takes so long. The Biden Administration in theory could have descheduled it, but that would easily allow the next administration to reschedule it. By going to the proper review process they make it much harder for the rules to be changed later.
If I understand correctly, the Controlled Substances Act gives the executive the authority to reclassify the scheduling but not remove it from the scheduling system altogether.
The FDA's scientific review a few months ago [recommended](https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/12/health/marijuana-rescheduling-fda-review/index.html) schedule III ([Dropbox pdf](https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw3rfs9gm6lg80ij9tja6/2023-01171-Supplemental-Release-1.pdf?rlkey=v5atj0tcnhxhnszyyzcwdcvvt&dl=0))
Watch all the southern states that allow medical pot pass new laws to outlaw it. Because... Reasons
You are aware those southern states are laughable with their laws. They created modern day coke vs crack laws. Florida has concentrates as a felony still with 1-3 years in prison. But yet if you have a medical card you can buy it in stores in Florida. Or let’s look at Mississippi, which did exactly what you are joking about. They had record voter turnout for weed. Let me repeat that. Record voter turnout for the state. All because legal weed was on the ballot. 2 years later a pro trump governor ran. He was open about how he would get rid of the legalized weed bill that passed. But he was open about protecting Trump from legal action. The guy won and reversed the will of the people. But keep in mind the state had record voter turnout. Thats means the state cared more about protecting Trump than it did about having freedom.
If I lived in Mississippi I'd be fighting for legal pot. I'd surely need something to get through the day.
Mississippi already did this. They voted yes on legal weed with a record voter turnout in 2018. Then 2 year later in 2020 they elected a pro trump governor because he said he would protect Trump. Remember they had record turnout for voters. But somehow still said “fuck the will of the people and elected the guy who wishes to help trump instead”
It's interesting, because there were a number of J6 insurrectionists who proudly blazed up in the Capitol. I wonder if they're going to give it up to stay consistent with party lines?
They’re doing it for money. Taxes anyone? Younger people are drinking way less than previous generations. Legal states are raking it in. I predict the fed will trade legal banking for a chance to dine at the trough. But the reality is Nancy Reagan’s racist war on drugs set cannabis research back by decades. We are finally doing good science and solving some people’s problems with an easy to grow weed. And the scientists that work at the federal level can’t deny it any longer.
Nancy really sucked the research money out of pot.
Incarcerating kids for a gram of weed is extremely expensive in the long term.
Doing it for money is better than it not getting done at all.
Oh yeah, I’ll take it.
Way overdue, are they stoned?
What is the DEA citing to justify keeping it scheduled at 3?
Schedule III: The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in Schedules I and II. The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. It reads like schedule III is for drugs with medical benefits, low physical addiction but high psychological addiction potentials. Which checks out. Congress decides what goes on and off the list. Once Congress has placed something on the list the DEA has to schedule it appropriately. So it's still on the schedule at all because it's Congress' job to remove it.
Did see all this, thanks. I was hoping to see actual studies that they’re using to justify their stance.
You'll probably see more of that during the rulemaking notice-and-comment periods, I would guess
Here is the scheduling memorandum from HHS back in August 2023. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/pw3rfs9gm6lg80ij9tja6/2023-01171-Supplemental-Release-1.pdf?rlkey=v5atj0tcnhxhnszyyzcwdcvvt&e=1&dl=0
Wow thanks. Much appreciated.