Good. Now legalize it and stop prosecuting people for having a plant.
this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2023
352 points (97.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3561 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's Congress' job.
Actually it's not. Congress long ago passed the Controlled Substances Act which places the authority for scheduling what drugs are considered illegal in the hands of the Dept. of HHS, the DEA, and Attorney General.
Currently, marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug along with heroin and LSD. Last year, though, Biden directed the Dept. of HHS to consider whether or not that is an appropriate classification. In August of this year, HHS informed the DEA that marijuana should be reclassified as a Schedule III drug. The DEA will now consider the recommendation and if they approve the HHS recommendation, as they have nearly if not always done, then they would send the recommendation to the AG who will make a final ruling.
Law enforcement is the purview of the executive branch and frankly there is not enough money for the executive branch to enforce all the laws that Congress passes. The executive branch must therefore decide what laws have priority. With a stroke of his pen, Biden could issue an executive order instructing the DoJ to stop enforcing drug laws relating to non-violent marijuana possession.
This does not preclude congress from taking action, either. There are options.
You are absolutely correct and it would be best if they did. My point was just that Congress isn't required for there to be meaningful change.
Schedule III is a good move but also ridiculous. There's no way MJ is just as addictive as codeine. But hey, at least this opens to door for national medical MJ which is a good step forward.
Straight codeine is schedule II, schedule III only includes things like Tylenol mixed with codeine if there's less than 90mg of codeine in the dosage unit. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's the way it is.
Schedule III is for drugs with "moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence."
Frankly our research on cannabis still has a lot of catching up to do because it's been hard to properly and legally study it for so long, but the current understanding shows that around 10% (give or take a couple percentage points depending on your source) of regular cannabis users do tend to develop some kind of dependence. That's fairly significant.
In the grand scheme of addiction, marijuana addiction isn't the biggest deal, there's plenty of harder habits to kick with far worse withdrawal symptoms, but there is some addictive potential there that is still worth considering.
But I I think that "moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence" is probably not a bad way to describe the risks of marijuana dependence.
Really I'd like to burn the entire scheduling system to the ground, a lot of is doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but if we have to fit cannabis into the existing system, III isn't the worst place for it.
Frankly, we should be comparing cannabis with nicotine products.
Nicotine products are available over the counter legally in all 50 states and all US territories. Cigarettes are responsible for 480,000 deaths annually in the US alone, and the rate of tobacco addiction is 56% among smokers.
Nicotine has, by all measures, very high potential for dependence and well-documented devastating health consequences associated with long-term use. You can still buy Marlboros 24 hours a day at any gas station. You can buy them at any grocery store.
If they're not schedule III, why the fuck is cannabis still schedule I? It's utterly absurd.
We should not pre-negotiate on this. Cannabis should be as legal to purchase as tobacco. (I'll concede a higher purchasing age, given studies that suggest deleterious effects to those under 25).
I don't disagree, I think it's pretty nuts that things like alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, etc. are exempt from the drug scheduling system, and that's part of the reason I'd like to burn the whole system down and start again.
It would be a pretty monumental undertaking, and I'm certainly not holding my breath for it, but I'd like to see a more comprehensive and unified approach that would include basically every substance that a person could conceivably want to put into their body or might be exposed to in everyday life, drugs, medications, foods, additives, household chemicals, etc. with probably dozens of categories with various restrictions.
If it were up to me (and I'm no doctor/scientist so take my opinion for what it's worth,) I'd probably put cannabis in the same or a similar category as things like alcohol, tobacco/nicotine, caffeine, psychedelics, certain OTC medications, household chemicals and excessively sugary foods. Things with potential for abuse/dependency, that when used in moderation/in a manner consistent with the intended use are unlikely to cause significant short-term health effects, but could be dangerous at higher doses/exposure levels, or may cause/contribute to longer-term health issues. It would probably need to be further broken down into a few different categories with more specific regulations/guidelines/restrictions/exemptions, but that's generally my train of thought.
Thanks for the correction and education. I responded out of frustration with complaints that are often levied at Biden that have nothing to do with his job.
You didn't immediately accept the bullshit excuse! You don't know how anything works!
Normally I'd agree but I think in this case descheduling has a different route. I think the president and the DEA can just move it down the made-up list of scientifically inaccurate fear-mongering.
That’s different from legalizing.
It's only illegal because it's scheduled. Unscheduled drugs can be sold OTC.
Well, yeah, but the office of the president does not controlled directly which drug is scheduled, - it is controlled by fda. Nor does it control the existence of the schedule itself - it is controlled by congress. In short, the president is not a king, as Tramp has learned to his surprise.
The FDA has nothing to do with drug scheduling. That's the HHS, DEA, and AG. Congress could just take marijuana off the list if they wanted, but that's not likely to happen any time soon.
OK, one of those three letter agencies, regardless my point stands - the president can't do it.
He can, though. He can issue an executive order to the DoJ telling them to stop prosecuting people for non-violent weed offenses.
That does not legalize it.
If a law isn't enforced, it's not illegal.
For instance, it's illegal for cops to speed if they're not responding to an emergency, but no one enforces it.
There are, for example, random drug testing at work places. And especially if you work for government or for government contractor, you may be fired if the drug is scheduled. Has nothing to do with Justice department.
You can be fired for failing a drug test even if the drugs are legal.
Nicotine is a drug. Never ever heard anyone being fired for that.
And while it is true, there could be other rules that companies may enforce (don't operate heavy machinery while drunk, for example), government contractors have to react simply because the drug is on the list, and the test is positive. BY LAW, even if it has zero impact or positive impact on productivity.
Those are all part of the executive branch, and are subject to the executive.
…. attempted simple possession hmm
Right!?? What the fuck.
I mean, busting people for trying to purchase drugs is absolutely a thing. It's a stupid thing, but still a thing.
Yes, I was momentarily dumbfounded by the stupidity of it.
no getting around that purchasing/sale ban by giving it away for free
I seem to recall a few years back that a governor was not allowed to issue "blanket" pardons, but had to specifically name the individual and charges being pardoned. I believe he spent days or weeks doing nothing but signing pardons.
Not 100% sure what you're arguing, but Presidents can and have issued blanket pardons in the past. Notably, Carter issued a blanket pardon during his term for anyone who dodged the draft in the Vietnam era. I'm sure there are other examples.
Importantly, presidential pardons only work for federal crimes. State crimes cannot be pardoned by the president, they have to be pardoned by a governor.
That's a State thing and depends on the state, Presidential pardons can be blanket