76 ms·

US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• myoffice123 2y ago
  [dead]
• Overtonwindow 2y ago
  Just in time for the election. It baffles me why this took so long given the number of states legalizing it.
• vkou 2y ago
  It's actually wild what the executive can get done in an election year... With the side effect of dangling bait for legislators to take a contrarian, nationally unpopular position.
  • segasaturn 2y ago
    Election year and not to mention that the President's numbers are in shambles with younger voters. This move feels extremely transparent to me.
    • jborden13 2y ago
      Similar to paying off random citizen's student loans?
    • flawsofar 2y ago
      Well I mean: doing things that people want them to do to get elected. Not the worst problem?
      • segasaturn 2y ago
        Of course not, that's how democracy works! My actual issue with this is: a) it should have been done sooner. Waiting until $election_year to do something popular has severely damaged the growth of cannabis industry and b) it's another executive branch rule by decree that could be reversed as soon as 6 months from now after election day.
        • 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
          > it should have been done sooner. Not everyone agrees though. I don't want it legalized or normalized more.
          • itishappy 2y ago
            What about reclassification?
          • deleted 2y ago
            [deleted]
          • kbelder 2y ago
            I wish it was completely legal and completely non-normalized.
        • flawsofar 2y ago
          Ah, I agree. It is a good move with a side of bullshit.
        • sevagh 2y ago
          >as severely damaged the growth of cannabis industry Do you own weed stocks or something? How is the growth of the cannabis industry supposed to be the mandate of a government?
          • segasaturn 2y ago
            Regulation shouldn't cause harm for causing harm's sake. We already know prohibition doesn't work, so why did they drag their feet on repealing regulation that is both harmful and ineffective, is my concern. Also to answer your question about weed stocks: I used to own cannabis stocks but dumped them about a year ago. Big mistake! They've doubled in price over the last week presumably from this news.
    • jimbob45 2y ago
      My favorite was the cancellation of a ban on menthol cigarettes because it would turn away black voters despite the NAACP ardently encouraging the ban[0]. [0]https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/health/fda-menthol-cigarettes/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/26/health/fda-menthol-cigarettes...
    • Optimal_Persona 2y ago
      Honestly the biggest uptick of weed use I've seen in my peer groups is in the >= 50 set for pain management, sleep, and...fun.
      • aidenn0 2y ago
        Yeah, now that it's "windows open" weather, we are smelling it a lot; source is definitely in the over 50 demographic.
    • laidoffamazon 2y ago
      Yeah, he's doing something that's reasonably popular among everyone. How dare he?
      • thegrim33 2y ago
        A third of the population, 111 million citizens, do not want it legalized. I wouldn't consider that "popular among everyone". https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/10/facts-about-marijuana/sr_24-04-10_marijuana_3-png/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2024/04/10/facts-abo...
        • triceratops 2y ago
          Your own link says it's 70% in favor of legalization and 29% against. 29% is as close to "a quarter of the population" as it is to "a third of the population" - 400 basis points. Putting it another way nearly 3 quarters of citizens want it legalized. That's massive. It's as close to unanimous consensus as you can get on a hot-button issue like drugs.
          • thegrim33 2y ago
            So, just to clarify, you're actually taking issue with me referring to 29% as one third, while you have no issue referring to 70% as 100%? Either way, there's still over a hundred million human beings living in your country that disagree with you. Call it whatever you want but don't dismiss it.
            • triceratops 2y ago
              > while you have no issue referring to 70% as 100%? And you have no issue putting words in my mouth. I said it was close to three-quarters, is "massive" and that you can't get closer to unanimous than that. > Call it whatever you want but don't dismiss it. 29% want to lock up the other 71% for consuming a plant. And we don't know for sure that all of that 29% are entirely clean themselves. So why not dismiss it? Why does the 29%'s opinion matter here? If 29% of the population said you should jail people for premarital sex, or smoking, or wearing shorts, or whistling in elevators, would you take them seriously? A simple majority or supermajority is more than enough to legalize or abolish anything. Pretty much no issue requires 100% of everyone to agree.
  • throwup238 2y ago
    The bureaucratic process will take about two years. It's definitely not getting done in time for election.
    • gadflyinyoureye 2y ago
      [flagged]
      • consumer451 2y ago
        I am just shocked that a politician is attempting to curry favor with the electorate. What is the world coming to?
      • lesuorac 2y ago
        > It comes after President Joe Biden called for a review of federal marijuana law in October 2022 and moved to pardon thousands of Americans convicted federally of simple possession of the drug. Eh, October 2022 to April 2024 is close enough to 2 years out.
      • realce 2y ago
        If you prefer speedy executive action, perhaps American democracy isn't for your tastes.
    • gnicholas 2y ago
      If it takes multiple years, then it gives voters a reason to support the candidate that will support the process post-election. Basically, vote for Joe if you want Mary Jane.
  • nerdjon 2y ago
    In fairness we do also see the opposite, which is kind of a problem with the 2 term system. In a presidents first term they are incentivized to do just enough to not piss of the other side enough to get some crazy numbers out but do enough to appease the current voters that they tried. But then in the second term any worry about being re-elected goes out the window. Like I am still convinced that Obama was in support of gay marriage before he publicly said it, and just waited until after he was re-elected. At that point what was he going to loose?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • Overtonwindow 2y ago
    I think it dovetails with the Administration's recent pausing of outlawing menthol cigarettes which has been reported as adversely effecting African Americans. It's blatantly political, which giving the people what they want and all, but it's disingenuous when these things only occur at election time. The President could have done this on day one.
  • romellem 2y ago
    It has been a multi-year effort to get the DEA to reclassify marijuana, starting in 2022. It starts with the President telling the HHS to provide a new recommendation to the DEA, and the finally for the DEA to decide what to do on that recommendation. - https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/10/06/statement-from-president-biden-on-marijuana-reform/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...
    • gabesullice 2y ago
      The President is the chief executive of both agencies. He didn't need to have one agency recommend it to the other for consideration over a multi-year timescale. It could have been executed within a few weeks to a few months. The office of the President knowingly chose a prolonged approach. I feel it is misleading to call it an "effort", as if the President was struggling against the very agencies that he was elected to lead, decisively. Congress is supposed to be the slow-moving deliberative rule-making body. If he really did struggle, it would say a lot about the growth of the administrative state and would highlight a constitutional health issue.
• Germanion 2y ago
  Finally! Then hopefully the f... UN can do that too. I'm totally shocked that the UN has such a hard and shitty drug policy.
  • spaduf 2y ago
    Wasn't that a project of Reagan's?
    • aaronbrethorst 2y ago
      I believe the concept of drug 'scheduling' was introduced in the Controlled Substances Act under Richard Nixon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cannabis_laws_in_the_United_States#:~:text=1970%3A%20The%20Controlled%20Substances%20Act,Solomon–Lautenberg%20amendment%20is%20enacted https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_cannabis_laws_in_t.... Reagan had his War on Drugs, which resulted in the imprisonment of an order of magnitude more nonviolent drug offenders: https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs https://www.britannica.com/topic/war-on-drugs
      • skhunted 2y ago
        There was a debate in the early 80s on whether the country should concentrate on treatment or enforcement. Reagan introduced zero tolerance policies. He usually chose the wrong approach.
        • Alupis 2y ago
          > Reagan introduced zero tolerance policies. He usually chose the wrong approach That doesn't seem to clear cut with the recent failed (and now backpedaling) experiments regarding decriminalization and legalization of most drugs.
          • asveikau 2y ago
            It's more like the stuff that doesn't work is being pushed again.
• andrewxdiamond 2y ago
  Weed being illegal on a federal level has had some interesting effects. Because of these laws, all legal weed has to be grown, processed, and retailed within a single state. So much industry and local employment has been created by the legal barriers in place. It’s probably still a net positive to release the federal restriction, but I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or other mega corps
  • sokoloff 2y ago
    It's sometimes even smaller than states. Many waterways are federal, meaning islands have to grow their own in order to avoid having to transport weed from one part of the state to another part of the same state across a federal waterway.
  • RobRivera 2y ago
    'Time for them to perform due diligence and refactor their operations to take advantage of the new legal landscape to retain competitive pricing inorder for' all these small/mid sized businesses don't get gulped up by big tobacco or other mega corps.
    • pm90 2y ago
      American corporations are great at retooling their business/supply chains for different products (see how quickly everyone moved into hard seltzers). I do expect big tobacco to move in aggressively if weed is made legal.
      • Scoundreller 2y ago
        Hasn’t really happened in Canada. I think a small-player alcohol company did move in, but only after the bubble popped. Turns out legalization of a drug doesn’t lead to massive increases in consumption. Who knew. Definitely kneecapped the black market though: most moved to the legal side and black market prices cratered.
        • 2y ago
• roschdal 2y ago
  It's a trap, you will be drug addict.
  • NegativeLatency 2y ago
    I can already walk down the block and legally buy weed in the US so, in many places this is not really a change.
  • Rovoska 2y ago
    Honest question, are you a bot?
    • deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  • timbit42 2y ago
    Nicotine and alcohol are more addictive than weed. Why aren't those illegal?
• dev1ycan 2y ago
  I'm sorry but after seeing how american gradually get into worse and worse drugs, and seeing channel 5's video on people using tranq... yeah I think complete ban on drugs for non medical reasons is the best choice.
  • dylan604 2y ago
    Yes, because Prohibition was such a ringing success. Just because someone says you can't do something does not prevent someone from doing that thing. If people want something badly enough, they will find a way. When that want has progressed to being a literal need from addiction, the ways found will become more and more bold/risky. Hell, even if you added the drug that blocks the opiate receptors into the water supply like fluoride so everyone is getting dosed, addicts will just switch to bottle water. Legislation does not prevent anything. It only increases those deemed as a criminal.
    • georgeburdell 2y ago
      I downvoted you because while it may not have been successful at getting Americans to stop drinking, it was effective at reducing violent crimes caused by drinking, as well as the negative health effects such as liver cirrhosis. The anti drug control crowd has done a great job commandeering popular opinion on this topic. I found this (non-academic) article informative to this end. https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibition-alcohol-public-health-crime-benefits https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/2019/6/5/18518005/prohibit... Edit: to the downvoters, I look forward to future academics and politicians being absolutely shocked when it turns out the absence of evidence is in fact not evidence of absence and there are a myriad of negative health and societal consequences from legalizing marijuana use
      • kstrauser 2y ago
        Well, minus the whole organized crime thing, which is a pretty gigantic elephant in the room.
        • 2y ago
• RankingMember 2y ago
  While it being moved to Schedule ~II~ (Correction: III) rather than removed altogether is a bit disappointing, I'm not gonna miss the forest for the trees on this one: this is a big deal after all this time.
  • morley 2y ago
    It's moving to schedule III, though the new company it's in really highlights how it should be descheduled instead: > It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids Hopefully the first step but not the last.
    • Liquix 2y ago
      sure, marijuana shouldn't be considered 100% harmless, but it's ludicrous to argue it does the same amount of damage to people's bodies as ketamine (abuse can lead to kidney failure, bladder cystectomy) or even some sched. IV substances such as alprazolam (seizures from withdrawal can be fatal).
      • cflewis 2y ago
        As someone who has taken ketamine for medical purposes and marijuana for not, it is utterly off-the-charts bonkers that they are classified identically. A large dose of ketamine literally disconnects yourself from reality. Weed makes you tired.
        • ulrikrasmussen 2y ago
          Why should subjective effects direct the scheduling of these drugs?
          • chucksta 2y ago
            What should they be based on?
• cynicalsecurity 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • CPLX 2y ago
    Maybe some day someone will explain what “normalizing” means, specifically what people mean by the “don’t normalize X” construction. Pretty sure between Dr. Dre and Willie Nelson weed got normalized decades ago by any definition I understand.
    • umvi 2y ago
      "Normalize" in this sense means "to make culturally acceptable". A thing can be legal but still be taboo, for example, in Japan tattoos are legal but you might get discriminated against at an onsen if the owner doesn't want tattoos on display in their establishment. Weed might be "normalized" in some communities, but a large portion of Americans will silently judge you if you are a recreational drug user regardless of it is weed or cocaine or fentanyl. Contrast to, say, beer or wine, which the majority of Americans will not silently judge you for indulging in moderation.
      • jjulius 2y ago
        >Contrast to, say, beer or wine, which the majority of Americans will not silently judge you for indulging in moderation. In point of fact, it's often flipped around. It's only been the last few years that I can tell someone I don't drink and be met with lots of, "Good for you!"s rather than silent judgement.
        • qup 2y ago
          I never had a drink until I was 27, and at the time, I found it easier to keep that a secret than to talk about it. But you're right. I'm not drinking again, and people are way less likely to question that choice now. I can't remember the last time it was questioned, actually.
      • CPLX 2y ago
• incomingpain 2y ago
  Here in Canada, it has been rather eye opening the extent of cannabis use. There are more cannabis shops then mcdonalds. You can grow your own and most people do. There's online options. A society which criminalizes something so popular and widely used; will ultimately fail at their prohibition. The next step for society would be to attempt at changing opinion, but what are the unintended consequences? The answer is, bad news.
  • guyzero 2y ago
    But there's as many shuttered pot shops in Toronto as there are open ones. I think the industry is still shaking out and there's a lot of volatility.
    • akira2501 2y ago
      There's a common notion that I've noticed, which is that if you just open up a "pot shop" that you'll make money hand over fist, meanwhile, they're fairly complex retail operations to run and you can loose your hat just as quickly as with any other business.
    • ceejayoz 2y ago
      Same thing happened with cupcake shops and craft breweries.
      • jiayo 2y ago
        Except cupcake shops and craft breweries are allowed to differentiate (gluten free, superhero themed, we only sell wild fermented German beers...) while the legal cannabis retailers in Canada are more akin to owning a Subway franchise. You must purchase your cannabis from a select set of suppliers chosen by the government (yes, the very same ones your competition must purchase from), you are not allowed to offer discounts/freebies on cannabis products (only rolling papers or similar non-psychoactive products). It is still illegal to operate any kind of venue that allows consumption, so while you can decorate your retail space like an Apple store or a Pier 1, you can't run trivia nights or do movie screenings or anything that might result in people patronizing your business over the one next door offering the same product for $0.05 cheaper. Pre-legalization, I could go to a store (not legally operated) and look at the bud in the jar, smell it, and make decisions based on something other than a sealed package with no artwork or description on it. Some stores even offered consumption of "dabs" which is a great model: those things cost a lot of money and aren't really fun to have in your home and maintain, and it was very competitive with "a pint after work". All of this went away after 2017.
• mannyv 2y ago
  One major effect of this is that weed stores will be able to use banks and payment processors legally once the regulators catch up.
  • m463 2y ago
    I wonder if this means more tracking of drug purchases. Does alcohol consumption show up on credit card bills and filter back to insurance companies?
    • red-iron-pine 2y ago
      they might not be able to see the purchases if you're in a state where you can buy booze in a 7/11 or grocery store; in that case it's just a grocery purchase. but they sure as hell can see that you have a charge from "CORNER LIQUOR STORE - $47.61 - 12 APRIL 2024" and can make guesses. This also assumes that grocery stores aren't aggressively aggregating and selling sales data, esp. those from Membership Cards. Insurance companies would love to get a hold of that data, not only for alcohol, but things like sugar and junk food purchases. I'd bet my hat they're already doing so.
  • ncr100 2y ago
    THEREFORE they will be able to move CASH money out of their stores TO BANKS, resulting in fewer "smash and grab" incidents ... aka, "Hyundai meet storefront of weed shop." Looking forward to this, silly to see so many Kia "boys" being used for gross violence crimes when regulation changes could lessen it. > https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/seattle-pot-shop-crash-grab-burglary-second-time-6-months/281-2fdc635a-1312-4fa3-b334-dd5e6c2ed70f https://www.king5.com/article/news/crime/seattle-pot-shop-cr... for example
    • pests 2y ago
      Every dispo in my area (Metro Detroit) has concrete pillars surrounding the building, usually every two feet or so. One of the first to open a few years back got hit early and everyone seems to have learned the lesson.
• ldehaan 2y ago
  [dead]
• dzonga 2y ago
  however, the weed these days is much stronger, and not the one our grandfathers smoked. if something could be done about the thc content -- that will be nice. weed isn't exactly harmful -- but long term it will be interesting to see the consequences. now already a lot of people are paranoid due to weed use.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • wisemang 2y ago
    One advantage to legalization (as implemented in Canada at least) is that THC content needs to be measured and labeled, so if you want to smoke something closer to your grandfather’s level you have the choice and aren’t at the mercy of whatever your dealer happens to have.
• paxys 2y ago
  On one hand I'm very happy with all the recent policy changes coming down from different federal agencies, but on the other there's a very high likelihood that they will all be reversed a few months from now if/when a new administration takes over. That is always the downside of executive rule. With Congress unwilling/incapable of acting though I guess this is the best we'll get.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • ehsankia 2y ago
    At least it'll be one fewer "both sides" argument to be made.
  • colpabar 2y ago
    What bothers me is that all these things are only happening because it's an election year and the incumbent doesn't have great polling numbers.
    • paxys 2y ago
      Well, politicians doing what people want in order to get reelected is kinda the point of democracy.
      • colpabar 2y ago
        There's no need to talk down to me. My point was that they could be doing what people want for the entire duration of their term, rather than in the last few months. To use an analogy, it's like a student getting bad grades all year and then doing a bunch of extra credit assignments when they're worried about failing the class.
        • infamouscow 2y ago
          Your chief complaint is not new, it's nearly as old as democracy itself. Different forms of democracy have various trade-offs, what your describing is the trade-off of representative democracy.
• ikekkdcjkfke 2y ago
  Is the weed strength so strong these days that actually it should at this class
  • itishappy 2y ago
    > Schedule I drugs, substances, or chemicals are defined as drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. Is it so strong it precludes medical usage?
  • alistairSH 2y ago
    Are most users smoking the plant directly, or using vapes or edibles (which typically have a known dose)? Regardless, stronger plant just means you smoke less to get the effect, right? It's not so strong that a single puff puts you in the ground.
  • coffeebeqn 2y ago
    Should alcohol or energy drinks be re-classified because of distilled spirits and unhealthy amounts of caffeine?
• lambdaba 2y ago
  Great, now do psilocybin, LSD and MDMA.
  • Extropy_ 2y ago
    DMT and mescaline too.
    • a_wild_dandan 2y ago
      Do all of them. To me, government exists to mediate interactions between parties. Not to get involved in personal choices. If someone wants to rip fat lines of coke, good for them. Not my business.
      • lambdaba 2y ago
        We don't live in libertarian utopia, let's first focus on substances that are *obviously* misclassified, the ones cited before have actual benefits, the most obvious one being psilocybin.
        • vips7L 2y ago
          Do they need to have benefits? Whether they are beneficial or not people are using drugs like MDMA. Making them illegal has only caused harm.
          • lambdaba 2y ago
            I'm just saying it's an easier sell, if we legalize these the demand for harmful drugs will go down too.
      • krapp 2y ago
        Do you think people who rip fat lines of coke will never interact with society in any way that affects you? Of course government gets involved in personal choices. Every crime committed by a person is a personal choice. Interactions between parties are interactions between people. The distinction you're trying to draw here doesn't exist.
• mustafa_pasi 2y ago
  Feels like they were keeping this card in their sleeves for when they needed a popularity boost.
  • apengwin 2y ago
    It is a good thing for democratically accountable governments to do good things that the people want!
    • umvi 2y ago
      Yes, it's good for the government to not be tyrannical, but I'd argue that when the majority of people increasingly and collectively want things that are net negatives for society like recreational drug use, it's a red flag that society is in decline.
      • jMyles 2y ago
        You seem to be conflating a distaste for demonstratively failed policy, like as prohibition, with an appetite for what you are calling "recreational drug use". Do you acknowledge the failure of prohibition?
      • MeImCounting 2y ago
        I think recreational drug use is demonstrably good for society and part of all succesful civilizations. Take caffeine, sugar, alcohol and tobacco as the primary examples. All potent drugs and all taken habitually and en masse by all the most successful societies in the world.
        • minitech 2y ago
          All the most successful societies have tobacco users, therefore tobacco is good for society. Logic checks out.
          • MeImCounting 2y ago
• RyanAdamas 2y ago
  Utter bullshit. Reclassifying schedule 1 Drugs requires the approval of the Commission on Narcotic Drugs of the UN. Otherwise, they are just reclassifying it under an already reclassified treaty structure as a red herring. The Psychotropic Substances Act modified the existing schedule, but left other acts in tact - those other acts are the ones being modified by this nonsense circus.
  • sanderjd 2y ago
    I'm quite ignorant about how international law and treaties interact with domestic policy. Could you educate me? What is the mechanism within US law by which this reclassification requires approval by that UN commission?
    • RyanAdamas 2y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychotropic_Substances_Act_(U... The above link is the Act that governs the USA's international obligations based on our treaty with the UN to schedule specific drugs and under those terms only allowed to reschedule Schedule 1 drugs with the approval of the UN; often after a review of the drugs medicinal purposes by the WHO. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Drug_Abuse_Prevention_and_Control_Act_of_1970 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Drug_Abuse_Preve... The above is a "DEA" schedule of drug classifications that the government can play around with and bullshit us on. Many of Cannabis schedules have already been reduced based on specific compounds of THC under other treaties enacted before the 1978 alignment from above. These domestic rescheduling may have an affect on legal charges or banking, but cannot address the overarching classifier of Schedule 1 drugs which is the UN based on the 1st link.
      • sanderjd 2y ago
        Thank you for the links! I'm hoping other knowledgeable people will also weigh in on this topic.
      • aidenn0 2y ago
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• KenArrari 2y ago
  Looks like Biden is really worried about re-election.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• xp84 2y ago
  From the article: "Then there’s the United States’ international treaty obligations, chief among them the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which requires the criminalization of cannabis." Ah, I see. Somehow I doubt that if the US announced it would withdraw from this treaty, to be replaced by an amended version, we'd be invaded immediately by all our (former) allies and be driven straight into the sea. Like, I'm sure there are governments even more obsessed with cannabis than we've been, but like, they'll have to get over it sometime.
  • jjcm 2y ago
    Canada got told "shame on you" when they legalized. That seems to be about the extent of the ramifications: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Narcotics_Control_Board#Criticism_of_the_legalization_of_cannabis_in_Uruguay_and_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Narcotics_Contro...
    • lukeinator42 2y ago
      I was curious if us Canadians were on that treaty, haha.
    • cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      Yeah the irony here is that it's been the US making the most trouble on this topic. Border agents were pretty difficult for a while, and in theory they can still ban you for life for admitting you have consumed it here, even though it's legal. I don't consume it really, but if I did I'd never pay for it online with a CC processor or anything that goes through an American data centre. The US is way too crazy about this stuff, and an overzealous border control agent armed with information he shouldn't have can ruin your whole day/week/life.
• bitxbitxbitcoin 2y ago
  Major impact will also be felt at cannabis research at land grant universities. Aka all the experiments to prove obvious stuff like different cultivars affect different people differently can finally happen at scale. See cannabisstudieslab.com as an example of the kind of non plant touching research that Cannabis Studies majors have been doing due to the Schedule I status.
• jondwillis 2y ago
  ironic use of the word "marijuana" in the title
• omgCPhuture 2y ago
  The AP article has one critical thing wrong: "The DEA’s proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use." It is in fact because they were ordered to do so by the US FDA, who by law decides what schedule drugs should be in. It started with MDMA, then LSD, Psilocybin and marijuana. In that order. They signaled the DEA to reschedule all those things because, in fact, they are legitimate medicine and I cannot help to wonder if that started with MAPS (maps.org) applying to do trials with MDMA for PTSD and being *beyond* due dilligent. The FDA will collect data from any relevant agency whenever something (at least drugs( are applied for $whatever use. I have heard through the grapewine that the FDA were downright furious to learn the DEA had lied about MDMA for years while veterans are killing themselves daily. Much of the DEA data supposedly showed a ton of deaths attributed to MDMA just because a pill with a logo was being sold as if it was MDMA, while in fact it was sooooo many other dangerous things. The US DEA lies about just about everything. These substances are not depency-forming like opioids. If the DEA of any US alphabet soup move their lips they are lying. The empathogen and psychdelics are not even habitforming: Do you know what happens if you do LSD daily for a week? I do, You can lick an entire sheet on the 7th day and hardly feel a thing, which I know because I have. Israel has been leading the way in marijuana research for decades. 90 year old holocaust surviors inhale marijuana vapor,for PTSD. I find extreme relief from PTSD myself using marijuana vapor: The nightmares stop, and suddenly I sleep 8 hrs a night, a few days of that I almost forget I have PTSD. Then I moved back the "richest nation of earth" (and it can go fuck itself) and essentially have to be a criminal to get regular sleep to function keep a job and not live in a perpetual nightmare. WE have Bedrocan / Bedrolight, but nobody can get a script for it because of all the nonsense authorities and socialized medicine/psychiatry thinks about it. Terminally ill cancer patients have begged to try it and at least on one occasion die 6 days after the news that he got denied died, in hospital from accute opioid poisoning. THey kill cancer patients with opiods all the time. And WTF are DEA doing with offices in Copenhagen, Denmark?! They set up shop there and suddenly swedish police (SSI) has endless kilos of cocaine to plant and don't want the labs analyzing it following swedish law (the law say to destroy within 3 months of seizure and lab analysis and it has been all over national tv in the Scandinavian nations they Police active tried to stop them destroy man y many kilos of it, 9kg of which they were caught planting.). Oh, and SSI police have a tendency to become cocaine addicts. -All that cocaine with no oversightmakes it an occupational hazard, I guess. IMHO, if you go to war for me, you deserve the best treatment available for your injuries. MDMA assisted therapy trials have helped veterans I know personally. I stoppped drinking liquor & wine the first time I tried marijuana, 20 years ago. The UN removed cannabis from the narcotics list in 2020, for decades it was embarassing: None of its cannabinoid components ever went on it as no narcotic effect were demonstrated they were listed as psychotropic substances, along with caffeine, psychdelics, nicotine, alcoholm etc. The original Opioum conventions had a clause specifically permitting businesses to have upto 500g for resale in small quanties to adults. That is how Dutch Coffee Shios exist. The UN listedcannabis in the 1930's under the __assumption__ of opium like effects, nobody what was in marijuana until late in the 60s, many years after the 1961 Narcotics treaty. I am still waiting for the war on tylenol, which has killed over 100k in US a year for decades. Remember when opioids killed 100k a year in the US? The entire world does, yet most people dunno about Iran's struggle: almost half the afghan heroin ends up i Iran, has for decades. Afghanistan makes about 80% of illicit heroin.
• anonuser1234 2y ago
  For federal workers in legalized states, will they be able to use?
  • lemoncade 2y ago
    not for at least like 20 years probably
  • pdabbadabba 2y ago
    Unlikely in the near term. As I understand it, rescheduling to Schedule III would mean that marijuana (and marijuana-based products) can be sold with a prescription. But, for a doctor to prescribe something, it needs FDA approval. I don't know when/if FDA will approve any marijuana-based treatments. And even if they did, this would not authorize recreational use.
    • foolfoolz 2y ago
      you can get a prescription for marijuana within 15 mins of walking into a doctors office. we are past the peak of this, but 10 years ago you used to be able to go to a doctor that did nothing but marijuana prescriptions. and the line was out the door to the office. you walk in, pay $100-$150, and walk out with a prescription for 1 year
      • pdabbadabba 2y ago
        > you can get a prescription for marijuana within 15 mins of walking into a doctors office. Not one that will work for the purposes of the Controlled Substances Act, as I understand it. I believe permissible use of a Schedule III has to be pursuant to a doctor's prescription for an FDA approved drug. See this useful report: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11105 https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11105 Moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, without other legal changes, would not bring the state-legal medical or recreational marijuana industry into compliance with federal controlled substances law. With respect to medical marijuana, a key difference between placement in Schedule I and Schedule III is that substances in Schedule III have an accepted medical use and may lawfully be dispensed by prescription, while Substances in Schedule I cannot. However, prescription drugs must be approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Although FDA has approved some drugs derived from or related to cannabis, marijuana itself is not an FDA-approved drug. Moreover, if one or more marijuana products obtained FDA approval, manufacturers and distributors would need to register with DEA and comply with regulatory requirements that apply to Schedule III substances in order to handle those products. Users of medical marijuana would need to obtain valid prescriptions for the substance from medical providers, subject to federal legal requirements that differ from existing state regulatory requirements for medical marijuana.
• donatj 2y ago
  We should legalize some of the less harmful mild uppers like khat while we're legalizing depressants.
• AndrewKemendo 2y ago
  There you have it, the administrator themselves saying they believe in myths about cannabis: It’s a gateway drug; while simultaneously ignoring that the drug killing people, fent has a perfectly causal gateway drug in vicodin/percs > Jack Riley, a former deputy administrator of the DEA, said he had concerns about the proposed change because he thinks marijuana remains a possible “gateway drug,” one that may lead to the use of other drugs. >“But in terms of us getting clear to use our resources to combat other major drugs, that’s a positive,” Riley said, noting that fentanyl alone accounts for more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. a year.
  • ip26 2y ago
    Or, he's a savvy guy talking to the people who do still believe it's a gateway drug, and deftly explaining to them why this is good without trying to tell them they are wrong.
  • joshmarinacci 2y ago
    It is a gateway drug. When marijuana is illegal you have to get it from drug dealers, who have an incentive to upsell you to harder stuff. Make it legal and that gateway goes away.
    • pixelpoet 2y ago
      Anecdote: I've had countless dealers over 20 years in many countries and continents, not once has someone tried to sell me anything else (besides hash). It's always been some cheery barefoot guy with dreads growing it in his closet. Now that it's legal in Germany I'm going to grow my own, and experience the (surprisingly common!) miracle of harvesting the exact legal limit of 25 grams from 3 plants ;)
      • tensility 2y ago
        Same has been true for me in the US over 35+ years. This has always been a stupid and false boogeyman narrative.
      • bogtog 2y ago
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ugh123 2y ago
  America should have a long hard look at why it takes so long to do something that would have been considered "reasonable" by most of the country 15 years ago.
  • underseacables 2y ago
    I think it's the same with a lot of things that the American government grapples with, they only do it when there is a politically expedient reason to do it. Whether it's reducing student loans, outlawing noncompete clause, or marijuana, elected officials don't really seem to do anything helpful unless there's a clear advantage for themselves or their party.
  • paulddraper 2y ago
    But that's factually untrue. Gallup polled support for legalization being in the minority, as recently as 2010. [1] Now factor in the demographics of voters vs adults in general, and the timeline is the opposite of surprising. [1] New High of 46% of Americans Support Legalizing Marijuana https://news.gallup.com/poll/144086/new-high-americans-support-legalizing-marijuana.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/144086/new-high-americans-suppo...
    • marcod 2y ago
      Since when is majority support the same thing as reasonable??
      • hunter2_ 2y ago
        What strategy is more reasonable?
      • paulddraper 2y ago
        > something that would have been considered "reasonable" by most of the country 15 years ago
  • BobaFloutist 2y ago
    Our government moves slowly, by design. Trust me, you don't want to see a fast-moving American government.
• ada1981 2y ago
  What an embarrassment to anyone in the DEA or public policy in general that this is still a thing. Not sure how the DEA can consider itself a serious organization.
  • sorwin 2y ago
    Hard to judge the DEAs effectiveness off something like this. You have very little insight on their actual effectiveness and workings on everything, yet your comment seems to summarize the entire organization off a completely biased political comment.
    • ada1981 2y ago
      This is what we call a “brown M&M test”. It’s a single data point that is indicative of an entire system. The war on drugs failed and has caused more deaths than any drug. And the criminalization of cannabis and psychedelics over the last several decades ought to be criminal - based in no reality of science. The DEA is a failed organization and continues to be.
• YesThatTom2 2y ago
  Elections have consequences!!
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• ddp26 2y ago
  I did some AI-assisted research on this, and have come to the following tentative conclusions: 1. The re-scheduling will happen (90%), the administrative hurdles will be cleared. Only counterexample I could find was Kratom in 2016, which was the reverse of this situation, and the DEA dropped the proposal at the public comment stage. 2. Trump will not reverse it if elected (80%). He's been pro-states-rights on cannabis (or outright legalization) going all the way back 1990, and has criticized Biden on this. 3. Unlikely many US states that outlaw it will change, but I do predict (75%) at least one major European country will follow suit within a year, given Germany beat US to the punch 4. Effects in the US will be minor, outside of weed stores using the banking system as another comment pointed out, since most enforcement is state level. 5. But if there are changes, the best evidence we have on this comes from state legalization, where the effects are estimated to be huge (+3% state income, +17% substance use disorders).
  • ceejayoz 2y ago
    And what did the AI cite as sources for these conclusions?
    • ddp26 2y ago
      These conclusions are mine, based on research the AI did. None of these probabilities were directly output, it simply found lots of news articles, made simple models, researched what people have said & done historically.
      • jjulius 2y ago
        >... it simply found lots of news articles, made simple models, researched what people have said & done historically. Those are the sources OP is asking about. In point of fact, it would help if AI could provide the sources it used to determine it's response, that way users can verify it's accuracy.
• bbarn 2y ago
  I really don't think this is a positive in any way, unless you oppose recreational marijuana usage. Making it a schedule III puts it back in "Doctor prescription" territory, and since there's now a legal route to getting it, a lot of these businesses that have operated with impunity are breaking a different set of laws if it's schedule III. No doubt that laws and decriminalization statutes would need to be updated to comply federally. Banks may be able to be used, but only if you're a registered pharmacy. It's really just a lot more questions and a lot more people to profit on the chain to selling it. Most of the world still treats it as an illegal substance. In the US we have definitely allowed popular sentiment to make it appear much less harmful than it is. I'm not sure it belongs in schedule I, but it certainly doesn't belong OTC.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • par 2y ago
    You'll be able to get a doctor rx super easily, think like all these viagra and adderall rx mills.
  • EA-3167 2y ago
    You seem to believe that a move from Schedule I (totally illegal to sell) to Schedule III (legal to sell under some circumstances) is going to hit the reset button on state laws around cannabis. That seems unlikely, the states are already ignoring the feds on this, this is just a step the feds are taking to bring the federal legal landscape closer to the state landscape. The major changes will simply be, as others have stated, to make it possible to travel with cannabis (with an Rx) and for dispensaries and others to use FDIC insured banking and transfer mechanisms. Other than that, nothing is likely to change unless states walk back the laws they've already passed. Remember, it's already illegal on the federal level for these businesses to exist, and that isn't stopping them.
    • bbarn 2y ago
      Once there is a framework for legal sale, and regulations around it, you think all these states will continue to just not comply?
• kinakomochidayo 2y ago
  Great, let psychedelics be reclassified next
  • sorwin 2y ago
    What we need is less drugs, and more fixing the issues on what causes people to turn to drugs.
    • Shocka1 2y ago
      Oregon agrees.
    • kinakomochidayo 2y ago
      actually, psychedelics help people get in touch with their core issues like childhood traumas which cause people to turn to drugs, games, overeating, etc, and help alleviate PTSD, OCD, etc. psychedelics are anti-addiction. so we definitely need psychedelics rescheduled.
    • MSFT_Edging 2y ago
      Humans have been using drugs as long as we've been human. From caffeine to advanced hallucinogens. I agree with the sentiment but it seems far more reasonable to stop criminalizing something so human as a step towards the goal, rather than put the goal before the metaphorical horse.
    • yurishimo 2y ago
      Affordable healthcare being chief among these. If people could go to the doctor without fear of bankruptcy, they might stop trying to self medicate with potentially addictive substances. I was listening to a podcast the other day and one of the hosts had lost his job. He was thrilled to "only" have to pay $1000/mo for insurance on the Marketplace for his family of 6. And he confirmed it wasn't even a "Cadillac" plan! If my back hurts, I'm probably going to reach for weed over a visit to the doctor because $10/day is a potentially more affordable than needing to shell out $8k for back surgery or physical therapy treatments for years. Maybe I get lucky and the pain goes away, or I can focus on finding a new job with better health benefits and still come out ahead financially.
• felsokning 2y ago
  [dead]
• ChrisMarshallNY 2y ago
  I'm not sure how this will affect the current "mom and pop" weed stores. I know that The Big Dogs are just raring to get in on the action, and I'll lay odds they have done things like preemptively register weed brands.
• phendrenad2 2y ago
  Reminder that Marijuana was made illegal 90 years ago due to pressure by a cartel of other drug peddlers (including opium and cocaine), and also a culture of pervasive racism that painted Marijuana as a trap that brown/black races had fallen into and must be outlawed for white people. Whatever you think about the effects of Marijuana on yourself or society, it's clear that it should have never been outlawed in the first place, and wouldn't have been outlawed if not for the factors above. It seems that the fentanyl crisis has finally defeated the archaic drug policy in the states, but not in the way you think. If alcohol and tobacco were outlawed in the US, it would immediately become impossible to buy them without risking getting a deadly dose of fentanyl. Legalization of marijuana, controlled legalization, is the only sane answer. (And this is coming from someone who doesn't partake)
• utensil4778 2y ago
  [flagged]
• anonbanker 2y ago
  Did nobody else notice that this is a story based on sources "Familiar with the matter"? Have we learned nothing from the Mueller Investigation? How are we all still falling for unsourced stories 5 years later?
• tensility 2y ago
  This is not good enough, in my opinion. It's hard to treat the justice system seriously because of bullshit restrictions on victimless "crimes" like this. I'll only be okay with this if alcohol gets reclassified as Schedule III.
  • celdon25 2y ago
    It's not really victimless when you have cases of psychosis and other health issues that negatively affect people around them, and put strain on taxpayers and the health system. This is Should be strictly prescription-only, and not with the rubber stamp model that "medical" marijuana clinics use. But that isn't politically correct so it's better to ignore the science and just drug the masses. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2424288/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2424288/ https://treatmentmagazine.com/cannabis-2020-this-isnt-your-dads-weed/ https://treatmentmagazine.com/cannabis-2020-this-isnt-your-d...
    • djur 2y ago
      The evidence that exists suggests that heavy cannabis usage _at an early age_ is associated with the development of psychotic disorders. No state that has legalized cannabis has permitted minors to purchase it. No evidence exists that cannabis usage later in life causes psychosis. There is also a lack of population evidence that increased cannabis usage among the public results in increased rates of diagnosis of psychotic disorders. And nobody is "drugging the masses" here. The government authorizing a product for sale doesn't force you to consume it.
      • celdon25 2y ago
        You're 100% incorrect. It took me 15 seconds to find this page from Yale which suggests up to age 35 as a possibility, and recommends not using before the age of 25. https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/early-intervention-services/cannabis%20use%20and%20psychosis_380524_284_53825_v2.pdf https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/early-intervention... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38909735 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38909735 > The government authorizing a product for sale doesn't force you to consume it. And you missed the point entirely. The government doesn't need to force when it can seduce, and it doesn't need to lie (except by omission) when it has liberal surrogates spreading misinformation like what you just did. It's convenient for them when majority opinion always works out that way. Where do you think those opinions come from? The same concept works in reverse when you have relatively safe drugs banned solely because of sensationalist headlines resulting from one or two edge cases.
• sethd 2y ago
  > it’ll remain controlled substance Got to make sure the doctors get a cut by requiring prescriptions.
• YeBanKo 2y ago
  This change is not gonna legalize it, but will just make it “less illegal” acknowledging its medical use. While logically it make sense to move in this direction, I am afraid that ultimate consequences might be few large companies dominating the market completely and probably growing stuff offshore. If it gets a pass for recreational use then we will see weed induced soda in vending machines at school in couple of generations.
  • fullstick 2y ago
    Weed induced soda in vending machines sounds like a win to me.
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• BurningFrog 2y ago
  FWIW I asked ChatGPT how long the process would take from DEA putting the rule out for public comment until it becomes an active rule: > The entire process can take from a few months to several years, depending on the complexity of the issue, the volume of public feedback, and the urgency of the reclassification.
• steve76 2y ago
  [dead]
• qwerty456127 2y ago
  Great news. A very sound move. Indeed, marijuana is much less dangerous of a drug yet considerably harmful in cases of chronic use in unreasonably high doses therefore should be controlled some way. What seems problematic nowadays is teenagers smoking too much. Also the idea of stoned people driving cars sounds scary. To me it seems it should be as available and legal as alcohol and cigarettes are, no less, no more. What I'm curious about is how marijuana availability links to consumption of other drugs including hard drugs, alcohol, tobacco, tranquilizers and antidepressants. I hypothesize it may decrease these.
  • babyshake 2y ago
    "Also the idea of stoned people driving cars sounds scary. " Depends how stoned, but people routinely drive while using medication that affects them far more than being a bit stoned.
    • 0xDEADFED5 2y ago
      i think driving is probably already dangerous enough without adding cannabis or any other psychoactive into the mix
      • jazzyjackson 2y ago
        well then i hope you lobby your representatives for bike lanes and public transit because america is a highly medicated place
      • anonym29 2y ago
        The culture around driving in the US is the problem. Many states will hand a license to pretty much anyone over 18 with nothing more than basic reading comprehension and eyesight required. Contrast this to say, the driving culture of Germany. There, everyone (not only minors) must undergo a rigorous training that is both broad and deep in scope. In addition to everything you'd expect, they also learn vehicle maintenance, basic first aid, performance driving skills (like the kind you'd pay to learn at a racetrack in the USA), and above all else, a deep respect and appreciation for the importance of following the rules of the road, leading to rigorous adherence to driving laws and etiquette that many Americans would find borderline anal-retentive. However, the result is that I get to tell you fun facts such as the US interstate highway system having a higher rate of accidents and a higher rate of accident fatalities per vehicle-mile traveled than the Autobahn, in spite of the fact that hundreds of vehicles are hitting 180+ mph (300+ km/h) on a daily basis over there, while American highways mostly tend to be limited to 55/60/65/70/75 mph depending on state and road type.
• 1024core 2y ago
  Democrats will dangle the possibility of marijuana legalization to entice voters to turn out for the election. But I doubt legalization will actually happen; I'd be delighted to be proven wrong. I'm just too jaded, I guess.
  • int_19h 2y ago
    Why wouldn't it, though? It's a massive new market that big corps are itching to get into if only they could do so legally. And the fact that some top politicians on both sides of the aisle are already investing in weed (on state level, where it's legal) has already made some news. The only reason why it's not legalized yet is because 1) many politicians are old enough to be brainwashed to believe in "reefer madness", and 2) many voters are old enough to do the same, so politicians who don't believe in it still have to pander to them. But this is a problem that solves itself over time, which is why supporting weed legalization becomes more socially and politically acceptable. I mean, just this year, 12 US senators wrote an open letter asking DEA to legalize weed. This would have been unthinkable 20 years ago, yet here we are. If it's not all legal 20 years from now, I would be extremely surprised.
    • cmrdporcupine 2y ago
      Experience here in Canada has shown it's not nearly the massive market that people thought it was. Tons of stores with excess stock and people losing their shirts, production curtailed. Big speculative wave when legalization was announced, and then it collapsed. Take a look at e.g. Canopy Growth's stock price over 5 years and you can see how the hype wave went.
      • int_19h 2y ago
        I mean, we kinda already know the size of the market in US in those states that legalized, and it's lucrative enough. But even if it's not massive, it's still extra profits that could be made.
  • unethical_ban 2y ago
    Yes, I think you are too jaded. It's fine to be wary, but wrong to think these two groups are the same. Don't forget that our Senate is broken, so no legislation passes without an inordinate amount of rural, conservatives states backing it. So legalization may still be a political hot button, but give it time. One party supports it, one party opposes it. Dan Patrick, Lt. Gov. of Texas, is going to push the state to ban hemp-based Delta 8 products in the next session. One party is regressive, one party is receptive and secular.
• BenFranklin100 2y ago
  There’s been no strong studies on the harmful effects of weed due to its illegal status. Now that is legal in many places, in 30 years we will know a lot more as this natural experiment unfolds. I would not be surprised if we see different but equally harmful effects. Let the experiment begin.
  • sorwin 2y ago
    The issue is the prolonged constant daily use of it. Unlike alcohol, it's much easier to get by in the day with weed, and a lot of people do use it as that. It offers them an escape from reality without the full social repercussion of something like alcohol.
    • BenFranklin100 2y ago
      That’s a good point. I’ve known people who smoke a joint every couple of hours and outwardly seem more functional than someone who has had three or four drinks. The long term effects remain to be determined.
• sorwin 2y ago
  Honestly, we should look to fix the issues that lead to people depending on weed, alcohol, and other drugs instead. These drugs are escapes for people - and a lot of them, especially younger kids get completely hooked on the escaped from reality from these drugs (including alcohol). We should instead be limit the use of these drugs and have teams dedicated to studying why people are turning to these instead. It's OK to have them on the weekends, but most people I know who smoke weed are on it the majority of the time. Alcohol isn't much better - most do limit it to after hours / weekends, but there are a few who tend to overdo it. From a biased point of view, I've had a few young family members and friends who turned to weed as their go-to for their daily lives, and it has changed their lifestyle, made them far less willing to live out their life and pursue actual goals. They definitely had both the potential and backing of their families (mid to high class) to do great, but chose to instead live a life of 'rotting away' in their words. Out of them only one has turned their life around (still smoking on weekends) citing that it made them not want to do absolutely anything in their day to day life.
  • samsin 2y ago
    >Honestly, we should look to fix the issues that lead to people depending on weed, alcohol, and other drugs instead. It doesn't have to be exclusive or. People are looking to fix these issues. In the mean time, we don't have to ruin people's lives by convicting them as felons.
  • MSFT_Edging 2y ago
    I know/knew a lot of people who smoke daily. It's honestly close to 50/50 where daily smokers excel and experience more than they would have without, and daily smokers who stagnate. A lot of them naturally moved away from smoking when its purpose was served too.
  • dyauspitr 2y ago
    It could just be as simple as it’s a lot of fun. I smoked pot for a lot of years, not because I had a hole in me or anything, it was just a very fun way to go about the day. I haven’t smoked in a decade because long term usage led to mild agoraphobia for me but went away a couple of months after I stopped.
• jdmark 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • jdmark 2y ago
    Nuts and bolts to everyone else.
  • 31337Logic 2y ago
    Thank you. :-)
    • pedolove 2y ago
      [dead]
  • pedolove 2y ago
    [dead]
  • rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
• mulmen 2y ago
  Will this open hiring options for government agencies? Will nonviolent drug dealers be released from prison?
  • djur 2y ago
    Most people convicted of nonviolent drug crimes are in state prisons and cannot be freed by the federal government, but the administration has been issuing pardons and commutations over the past several years for the small number of people that have federal cannabis convictions.
    • mulmen 2y ago
      Ah interesting. So does that mean nonviolent prisoners may have already been released in the states with “legal” weed?
• tempodox 2y ago
  > … and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. No, really, they're prepared to concede that water is wet? Shocker!
  • gigagorilla 2y ago
    [dead]
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• Der_Einzige 2y ago
  What the heck is going on? This is literally top post on HN and the comments look like a wasteland of nonsense and bots.
  • deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  • andrewstuart2 2y ago
    Sorry, which accounts are bots?
• vouaobrasil 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • infotainment 2y ago
    Ah yes, because communism had such a great environmental record. Fact is, it’s humans that like to destroy the biosphere: the economic trappings don’t really matter much.
    • vouaobrasil 2y ago
      I don't advocate communism. Even communism supported technological development, which I do not. And humans don't like to destroy the biosphere at all; it is just a byproduct of our basal instincts in large social groups, and we should learn to get past that.
      • 10u152 2y ago
        You're on an unusual website for someone who does not support any technological development. You're not in favour of caveman technology even? Clubs and fire? Going to be a cold winter.
        • vouaobrasil 2y ago
          Well, there are some interesting discussions here (sometimes). I don't believe in echo chambers but about talking with people about ideas. I don't advocate for a complete shunning of technology, but rather a cautious approach towards it, somewhat like the Amish but with Christianity replaced with a reverence for nature. We will never stop using basic tools and fire but there has got to be a better optimum somewhere that uses less than all the wasteful stuff we're doing now.
          • lukan 2y ago
            "We will never stop using basic tools and fire but there has got to be a better optimum somewhere that uses less than all the wasteful stuff we're doing now." Yeah, better technology.
• starspangled 2y ago
  The greatest thing about tight, upcoming elections is that governments actually start to do a tiny bit of what people want. Great result.
  • romeros 2y ago
    It leaves a bad taste in the mouth, doesn't it? Why haven't they taken action until now? People aren't children to be appeased by such gestures.
    • jajko 2y ago
      You just described whole maga movement and some others. It works en masse, thats why trump won first time without investing heavily into marketing, telling folks what they wanted to hear
    • Arainach 2y ago
      The request was made 2 years ago, not during election season. Building good regulations requires research, conversations with stakeholders, and other things which take time.
      • deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      • AlecSchueler 2y ago
        Another poster pointed out that it was announced a few weeks before midterm elections.
    • TaylorAlexander 2y ago
      Unfortunately according to many people in power we’re more like the “bewildered herd” of Walter Lippmann: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Opinion_(book)
      • somenameforme 2y ago
• enceladus06 2y ago
  [flagged]
  • salawat 2y ago
    This should make your blood run cold. Executive Orders were never intended to be the avenue through which novel law was established. The Executive has absorbed so much of what was the purview of the legislative branch it isn't even funny.
    • Der_Einzige 2y ago
      You don't even know how deep the rabbit-hole goes: 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_veto https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein_veto 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signing_statement
  • jakeogh 2y ago
    Re-posting from 7 years ago... [1][2] "The top 6 countries [2] with the highest Muslim populations are not (temp) banned, yet somehow it's a "Muslim Ban"." [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13515783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13515783 [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20150406003902/http://www.pewforum.org/2015/04/02/muslims/pf_15-04-02_projectionstables74/ https://web.archive.org/web/20150406003902/http://www.pewfor... [3] archive.org wayback needs a backup
  • energybored11 2y ago
    While I would like to see the decriminalization of all drugs, I do not think President should act like an emperor and just pass EOs. EO are not meant for this sort of actions. Remember, next president is going to be Trump and he can pass even worse EOs.
    • jakeogh 2y ago
      Executive Orders: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/executive-orders https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents/execu...
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• nikkwong 2y ago
  I think most people agree that weed shouldn't be a schedule 1 drug, but I believe that the movement to decriminalize will have unforeseen consequences on our society. Marijuana use leads to cognitive decline and exacerbates psychiatric conditions even in healthy individuals, full stop. The literature on this is clear. Whether the tradeoff is worth it or not (the increased pleasure, for the decrease in cognitive ability), should be up to the individual to decide. The problem I have is that no one is talking about the potential consequences when they're talking about legalization. My 70 year old mom is going to parties with her friends where they all have a new habit of smoking marijuana because "it's legal and safe". Regulators, politicians, and advocates only hail the positive effects of marijuana and no one is talking about the cognitive risks involved. The reason probably is because I think most people agree that it's stupid to send people to jail for smoking marijuana. But they're conflating the idea that decriminalization is good with the idea that marijuana then must not be bad for you. And this is wholly not true, and I wish more people were talking about this. Btw, I know I will probably get downvoted for this because marijuana users don't want to face the fact that they might be dampening their long-term cognitive potential but please go do a full review of the literature—you will begin to share the doubt that I have.
  • phendrenad2 2y ago
    Can you provide some of your top resources for this argument? I feel like if this were true it would be much more well-known. Maybe you're misreading a paper?
    • nikkwong 2y ago
      You don't have to look very far. A systemic review of 26 studies [1] in 2019 found that: "Although variability in the cannabis products used, outcomes assessed, and study quality limits the conclusions that can be made, modest reductions in cognitive performance were generally detected with higher doses and heavier lifetime use." The American Journal of Psychiatry [2]: "Long-term cannabis users showed cognitive deficits and smaller hippocampal volume in midlife. Research is needed to ascertain whether long-term cannabis users show elevated rates of dementia in later life." This study published in JAMA [3]: "...among 3385 participants with cognitive function measurements at the year 25 visit, 2852 (84.3%) reported past marijuana use, but only 392 (11.6%) continued to use marijuana into middle age. Current use of marijuana was associated with worse verbal memory and processing speed; cumulative lifetime exposure was associated with worse performance in all 3 domains of cognitive function. After excluding current users and adjusting for potential confounders, cumulative lifetime exposure to marijuana remained significantly associated with worse verbal memory..." [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7259587/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7259587/ [2] https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2021.21060664 https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.ajp.2... [3] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2484906 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar...
• aerophilic 2y ago
  Question: If this change goes into effect, will it effectively open up banking for all the cannabis related/cannabis adjacent companies? Seems like a really smart move to bring them into the financial system.
  • nickff 2y ago
    No, it won’t, as the federal government has repeatedly pressured banks to cut off banking to legal, but ‘undesirable’ industries (as well as cannabis). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Choke_Point
  • resolutebat 2y ago
    This makes medical cannabis possible, but only under the same rules as pharmaceutical drugs. It does not address recreational cannabis at all, and most medical marijuana retailers are also not pharmacies.
• decremental 2y ago
  [dead]
• ein0p 2y ago
  I’d rather the regime let Assange go, and pardoned Snowden. Allowing something most states already allow is weak sauce as far as populism is concerned.
  • almostgotcaught 2y ago
    do you know how many poor people get caught up on mj charges every year in this country? not to mention this will lead to prior charges being expunged from people's records. but sure let's prioritize those two guys.
    • graphe 2y ago
      Very short sighted thinking. If they beheaded Sam bankman fried there will be a clear message to not commit financial crime, and the aspiration and motivation would almost zero. The gesture of the freeing these two brave whistleblowers is much more important than you think. Noam Chomsky calls this censorship flak of his five filters. > If you want to challenge power, you’ll be pushed to the margins. When the media – journalists, whistleblowers, sources – stray away from the consensus, they get ‘flak’. This is the fourth filter. When the story is inconvenient for the powers that be, you’ll see the flak machine in action discrediting sources, trashing stories and diverting the conversation.
      • skrebbel 2y ago
        But why not both?
      • almostgotcaught 2y ago
        I can only remain bemused at how some people weigh things; 300,000 people were arrested in 2020 for possession of marijuana [1]. There is nothing short-sighted about wishing the free so many people of the misery of being under the same thumb (the penal system) that you bemoan for Assange and Snowden. 1. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/317793-people-were-arrested-marijuana-possession-2020-despite-growing-legalization https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/317793-people-were-a...
• galaxyLogic 2y ago
  Why is it that in Amsterdam you have coffee-shops where you can sit relax and smoke cannabis but nothing like that seems to exist in New York City? Or elsewhere in America, is there?
  • drozycki 2y ago
    There are a couple of dispensaries with on site consumption lounges in San Francisco.
  • yurishimo 2y ago
    Honestly, it's probably mostly just a tourism thing at this point. Most of the Dutch people I know tend to not care about weed but they see coffee-shops as a thing for tourists or international students. If you're a regular user in NL, then you have a hookup or grow your own plants. Also, anecdotally, I can smell a lot less weed in Amsterdam than when I've caught a wiff of it in the US. You have to be walking right by the shop before you smell it usually. I'm not sure if this is a local regulation or what, but I suspect the Dutch would be much less tolerant if their public spaces reeked 24/7 (but no worried about the dog poop on the sidewalk)!
• ornornor 2y ago
  > the U.S.'s international treaty obligations to criminalize cannabis Is that a thing?