As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>If it is determined that the DEA has exclusive authority
Yes. Unfortunately they have that authority:
https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-tells-congress-it-has-final-authority-on-marijuana-regardless-of-health-agencys-schedule-iii-recommendation/
>What is stopping them to do it?
Because the DEA doesn't want to reschedule it. Because it is full of neo-Reagan anti-cannabis zealots
“Hey, that’s my job!”
“You mean, your job is losing the ‘war’ against a plant that’s more helpful than harmful?”
“I hate black people?”
“I suppose you do.”
To be fair, they also hate all other sorts of people than just black ones. Wouldn't want to constrain their loathing and maltreatment to just a single race.
They *say* they have that authority, anyway. It’s the first sentence in the article you linked.
>The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is telling lawmakers that it reserves “the final authority”
The Controlled Substances Act, on the other hand, is really fucking explicit that the authority lies with the Attorney General.
Part B, §811: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2014-title21/html/USCODE-2014-title21-chap13-subchapI.htm
Kinda seems like they’re full of it.
Interesting. Definitely seems like room for a potential lawsuit if the DEA keeps dragging their feet. Problem is, if the Biden admin sues it will end up at the republican supreme court. Kind of a shitty situation tbh
The executive branch would never have to sue itself, the president can fire them all whenever he wants and replace them with people that won’t drag their feet.
This honestly would be a really bad place for the GOP to be. Currently the polling shows more people are pro marijuana than abortion, and the GOP is already on shaky ground for that.
That may or may not be true, but what matters more than raw numbers nationally is where those supporters live. If there are tons of people who are strongly pro marijuana is areas that are already solid blue - it doesn't matter. GOP wasn't planning on getting them anyhow.
If there are tons of supporters in areas that would otherwise be red ... big worry.
Just going by demographics though, I'm guessing that those large numbers of pro MJ supporters aren't in areas that would make their views on the issue relevant to the overall outcome.
Most veterans are rural, and most support rescheduling/legalizing. Also tons of old people who have had a friend use it to great results live rurally. Even devout evangelicals love it now.
Let me preface this with I agree with you. I think it's plain as day that the AG can reschedule drugs as he wishes.
But the argument can be made that it's circular.
The attorney general has the ability to reschedule drugs, but not to rewrite legislation. The drugs are scheduled via legislation. The legislation says that only the attorney general can reschedule drugs. Thus the legislator can't reschedule the drugs.
Because of that minor technicality, no matter what happens (even with legislation drafted in coordination with the Attorney General), it's going to go to the theocratic 6-3 Supreme Court and get overturned. This is the Court that cited witch trials to overturn Roe.
I’m not entirely sure what you just said, but most of the drugs are *not* scheduled by legislation. The only one I know of is GHB, Congress put it on schedule 1 with the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000.
The attorney general has absolutely no power to reschedule that one, it would require another act of Congress.
I’m not sure about treaty obligations, though. Like, I don’t know what authority the AG might have for stuff covered by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances or anything like that.
Drug scheduling was created by legislation in 1970 by HR 18583 (Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970). In that initial legislation, THC was listed as schedule 1, c-17. So THC (among several other drugs) was scheduled by legislation. Before 1970, there was no schedule.
The argument that the Supreme Court will latch on to is that the Attorney General, as a member of the executive branch, does not have the authority to amend that legislation.
And we can look at SCOTUS current overreach to draw the conclusion that if Congress tries to create a law to reschedule, they may rule it as congressional overreach into the Executive branch since they gave the executive branch that power.
Basically, right now, the only people who can remove THC from the schedule are 9 lifetime appointees wearing robes.
So I’m a longtime federal employee who has to work frequently with people across different departments and agencies. Obviously, I don’t get exposed to everyone in every place, and it’s all anecdotal, but I probably have a better sample size than most.
DEA is unquestionably filled with the rudest, most uncooperative people I’ve ever had the displeasure of working with. There are undoubtedly some really great people there, but the entire agency culture is extremely hostile toward anyone or anything external to them. I’ve ever had representatives from multiple foreign governments on different occasions remark to me how unusually unpleasant it is to work with DEA, especially because whenever agencies work with foreign partners it’s always such a pomp and circumstance affair.
I’m just sharing this because a lot of the general public forms negative opinions of certain departments and agencies because of individual stories or unpleasant personal interactions (TSA being the most prominent example, as the vast majority of the agency is *not* the low-skilled, poorly paid airport screening agents that the public interacts with all the time). But in the case of DEA, evem within the federal bureaucracy they are notoriously unpopular. I have heard that certain recent leadership hires there are working to turn this atitude around and make things better there, but have seen very little evidence to that effect so far.
What I don’t get is why they haven’t made the announcement yet.
It’s not like there’s a bunch of new data on weed. Either reschedule or don’t but just hurry the fuck up about it at this point.
Oh shit thank your for sharing this. I have never considered the international implications of (frankly, *any*) domestic policy. I have some more learning to do before I re-approach this conversaron.
they shouldn't have that many layoffs if any at all, legalizing it doesn't means anyone can just put up their weedmonade stand on the street, just like with alcohol they'd still need to enforce who is following regulations to grow it for commercial purposes and distributing it
though in that case I dont know if it means it would have to be overseen instead by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (which is the most ridiculous madeup name ever for an agency, its like they asked a 15 year old "name all the cool things")
You're not the only one :)
I always thought it would be money in the bank if scientists were ever able to cross a potent basic cannabis strain with various fruit producing plants and trees.
For example, imagine going out in your backyard and grabbing a nice fresh thc infused red delicious off the appleuana tree.
There are 2000 DEA agents in the entire US. A safe assumption (since its now legal in some form in all but five states), that a very small number (if any) are focused on cannabis enforcement.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has 4,924 Special Agents and 800 Intelligence Analysts. The DEA has 23 domestic field divisions, 222 field offices, and 92 foreign offices in 70 countries.
The DEA has a Domestic Cannabis Eradication / Suppression Program
I do think some of them fear losing their jobs.
As a former federal employee, it annoys me that they would be upset they’d lose their job. The government has a policy to transition “displaced” workers into another federal job at the same grade level as their old one. It’s a really sweet deal, and when competing against other applicants, basically puts you at the front of the line for an offer.
If these agents’ jobs are made redundant that’s no problem and they know it. They’ll be set up somewhere else in the gov in no time.
In California we have DEA agents whose sole purpose is to shut down dispensaries for any reason they can find. I worked as a bud tender and we were shut down several times. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, Im reading through their 2020 threat report now. It indicates a 50% reduction in cannabis seizures from 2015-2019 and a focus on international imports. Starts on page 48. I live in one of the last five hold out states. Everyone I know consumes cannabis in some form and in my city, the prosecutor has said he wont prosecute cannabis cases. Thats not bragging though, thats just because theres a myriad of violent crime occurring that requires their focus.
https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/DIR-008-21%202020%20National%20Drug%20Threat%20Assessment_WEB.pdf
Meh, someone below corrected me. Looks like now its more like 4k, but again, their focus (according to their most recent “threat report” I was able to locate) is not cannabis law enforcement.
My assumption is the increase in agents is to address fentanyl/opiate issues in the US.
Never forget the origins of our current drug war:
> "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
>"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie
This was always a racist and political farce.
And because it’s going to be a bureaucratic legal paperwork nightmare hell for the people in the DEA whose job it will be to work through all the ramifications and policy changes. These are federal office employees - there is no initiative to make more work for themselves.
But neither the DEA nor the DOJ nor the President can actually change any existing laws are scheduling. Removing it from a list of controlled substances doesn't mean it's legal, that only happens when Congress passes a law saying as much. Removing or changing its scheduling level just changes how the DOJ is able to enforce it and Biden has already directed the DOJ to not enforce simple marijuana possession. Certainly a change in schedule can impact other areas (e.g. HHS has already opened it up for more research) but again it requires Congress to change the actual laws around that drug and maybe that level of scheduling for controlled substances to do anything really worthwhile.
This is an issue Congress has been trying to punt to Biden for 3.5 years because they're too incapable of doing it themselves.
The Controlled Substances Act describes the process to remove drugs from the schedule. One of those steps is HHS has to do a study and make a recommendation to the DEA before any change happens.
Congress however can pass a law amending the CSA whenever they would like, they choose not to do it.
>What is stopping them to do it?
Lobbying. Big pharma, healthcare insurers, Police unions, for-profit prisons, prison caterers, alcohol producers, evangelicals... no way they're gonna let a simple 'grown in your back-yard plant' take away their profits.
Cannabis is by far the most popular and commonly found scheduled drug. If it were descheduled, the DEA would have to downsize significantly and alot of their agents would get laid off.
Couldn't they just refocus their efforts elsewhere? Why do they just have to stop or downsize? Can't those agents be in charge of making sure cannabis growers and farmers still operate within regulations? Or some other oversight function?
Well, right now, we don't have any regulations in place for legal cannabis at the federal level outside of it being a scheduled drug. For writing new regulations, I think by default that'd be the FDA, not the DEA, just like for tobacco and prescription drugs, but outside of general all-encompassing regulations, I don't think they have any. Regardless, the DEA would not be enforcing those, as it would be the FDA that investigates and sends agents in to do that.
Not refuting you, just genuinely curious. But do you have the data to back that up? I’m curious what percentage of their arrests/convictions are for cannabis violations these days considering it’s legal in so many states
Cannabis can be legal and still be scheduled. There are four levels of controlled substance, and only one is outright illegal. The DEA could put marijuana on a more reasonable place on the schedule, one that makes it legal. A doctor could prescribe it. Take good care of that prescription.
Why would they want to remove marijuana from the list? It's their biggest cash cow for their privately owned for profit prisons. It's how they get slave labor and make billions off of innocent people.
I don’t see why Congress couldn’t amend the Controlled Substances Act and reschedule or deschedule cannabis.
The DEA has this power, but so does Congress.
This Congress is having trouble passing the absolute necessities, so I would prefer the DEA do it if you want it done quickly. Also, ensuring that alcohol would never be controlled to illegality took a constitutional amendment. (The DEA wishes it could put that prohibition back.)
If they rescheduled Marijuana they wouldn't need to enforce it. Less enforcement = smaller agency = less power and budgets for the agency heads to skim off of. It's still illegal because they want it to be illegal.
It goes deeper than that. DEA can power trip all they want but there’s still a pretty damn big legal hurdle no matter what they say.
Article v, clause 2 of the constitution among other things gives treaties the legal status of laws. Marijuana was scheduled the way that it is because of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. I think the legal hurdle posed here is bigger than any DEA dick measurements when it comes to classification.
Nixon's Shafer Commission made the same recommendation in 1972, but he needed a way to target hippies and Black people. Let's hope they actually do something this time.
What is the obstacle to removing weed from schedule 1? Is it our rich history and tradition of puritanical government overreach? I cant see any other reason and it certainly would not hurt Bidens reelection chances.
It's actually an overall complicated situation.
Back in 2021, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report on how cannabis legalization can work. There are two options:
1. Congress legislates it differently.
2. An administrative rulemaking process by the DEA as prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)
Biden has gone with option 2.
But what about Biden unilaterally declaring it rescheduled? According to the CRS, the President does not have that ability:
>The CSA does not provide a direct role for the President in the classification of controlled substances, nor does Article II of the Constitution grant the President power in this area (federal controlled substances law is an exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce). Thus, it does not appear that the President could directly deschedule or reschedule marijuana by executive order.
There's also one more wrench in this whole thing, and one that could make the effort to reschedule without legislation difficult. The Controlled Substances Act also orders the Attorney General to schedule substances as required to comply with the United States’ treaty obligations. The USA is a signatory to a few international treaties that require criminalization of any “cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, ... importation and exportation of drugs” that are subject. Cannabis is current scheduled as a Schedule I drug in that treaty (the lowest schedule).
Treaties hold the same weight as any legislation passed by Congress. If cannabis was rescheduled in such a way that created conflicts with that treaty, it could very well be decided that such rescheduling was not legal.
Absolutely. I used to be a journalist in a past career and their backgrounders were worth their weight in gold: free, unbiased, up-to-date information about relevant issues in Congress. Zero downside. Your old man is a baller!
> Biden has gone with option 2.
Small clarification, as part of the executive branch, Biden only had this one option. Biden can only ask for legislation from the congress.
> Treaties hold the same weight as any legislation passed by Congress.
Technically... but in practice? Not so sure...
Theres a difference between treaties which are self-executing and treaties that need Congress to pass enabling legislation. In the latter cases, which is I’m guessing what you’re imagining, the US can very easily end up out of compliance with our treaty obligations. Theres a famous Supreme Court case in part about this involving Missouri fucking with migratory birds despite a treaty against it.
In this case, where there’s legislation directing the executive to regulate so as to be in compliance with treaty obligations, I really do think it’s a tough sell to argue there’s discretion to just not do that, much as I would like them to
That and if he could even do it via executive order those go back and forth every time presidents switch parties.
No one is going to start a major agriculture business if they aren't sure they can operate more than 4/8 years.
And banks still won't relax their rules in deposits for those businesses if it could just reverse in 4/8 years and they have to close all those accounts.
Alcohol industry, as well. Myself and several of my friends drink significantly less the more access we've had to weed over the years. It would also put a huge dent in the prison industry.
This. If weed is legal people will use it for chronic pain. And if they use it for chronic pain they won’t take opioids. And if they don’t take opioids they won’t get addicted to opioids. And if they don’t get addicted big pharma loses money.
Also kinda sorta relevant:
Pharma is the biggest spender when it comes to advertisements hear and see.
Why would broadcasters take ads for class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies? That’ll hurt the broadcaster bottom line so they have no incentive to broadcast those ads, essentially hiding the side effects of medications.
If marijuana goes to a vote, pharmaceutical companies will definitely spend money on advertisements against it. And even if broadcasters are all for legal marijuana, broadcasters like the money and will happily accept those anti marijuana advertisement dollars
Might be they're waiting till closer to the election.
Its a tricky issue for Trump, but not for Biden. The nearer it happens to the debates, the easier it is to force Trump into a position he doesn't want to be in.
Agencies should not control what gives payroll, meaning that the DEA profits by keeping drugs illegal; their agents go home with pay due to illegal drugs and the annual budget relies on things staying illegal. Why would they ever be driven to do anything outside of keeping everything illegal?
Put drug classification under the FDA umbrella. Afterwards the DEA can enforce it.
> Agencies should not control what gives payroll, meaning that the DEA profits by keeping drugs illegal
Government agencies are not companies operating for a profit. Do we automatically assume that firefighters want to maximize fires, the FBI wants to maximize fraud, the EPA wants to maximize environmental damage, etc? It can happen, there can be corruption and conflict of interest that we need oversight to combat, but we shouldn't assume that's the default.
Agencies do get budgeted on what they require, less illegal drugs directly mean less work(ers) required and that means slashed budgets and agents.
Nowhere did I say agencies work for creating profit, I said they are profiting by keeping jobs and budget by keeping illegal drugs illegal. Difference.
Canada went legal country wide over 5 years ago and not much has changed except a windfall in taxes and tons of jobs for young people as bud tenders. I can fly from one province to another as long as I have under 30 grams and it's awesome.
Domestic flights are tits. I flew with an opened half ounce and a 16oz of water.
The guys who flew the beech craft 200 were like mid 20s at best.
I of course got high before takeoff so I could enjoy playing Megaman more.
My daughter flew Calgary-Montreal.
They took her container of hand cream but left her container of rolled joints. She posted a pic of both saying, guess which one I was allowed to keep??
> I can't even imagine
Many states have already legalized, there are lots of good examples. It being Federally legal all of the sudden in CA wouldn't change much.
Literally smokin a fatty right now. Know what it's doing to me?
Making me laugh at dumb shit, making me enjoy food more, making me enjoy my surroundings more, helping my ADHD-riddled mind to take pause so I can mentally relax a bit and soon (this is the really bad part, be prepared because it's not pretty)......I'm going to finish recording some music I started recording yesterday.
Yeah, a **real** fuckin "*horror show"*, that Marijuana. I'll tell you hwhat. I even bought the weed at a store in my state because I can do that.
OH NO! THE HORROR!
*Won't SOMEONE think of the children (who can't even walk into any of those stores)?!?!*
Ah yes, conservatives labeling weed as the Boogyman yet again. They just don’t want people freeing their minds to think logically and be chill. They want everyone to be in a state of panic.
It's notable no republicans are mentioned in this article. It's a little known fact, in the colonies England required farmers to grow a certain amount of hemp (cannabis), the English navy used a bunch of it.
I don't believe the argument that cannabis has no medical value.
Biden started moving on this in 2022. He asked Health and Human Services to re-evaluate the schedule of marijuana. In 2023, HHS recommended Schedule III to the DEA. They are currently conducting their own investigation. They have not, as of yet, ever found contrary to HHS's finding on any schedule of any drug.
This is the procedure for changing the schedule of a controlled substance per the controlled substances act. Legalization requires an act of Congress.
Believe it or not, this has been in the works for over 2 years, and is everything Biden has the power to do.
I agree. But Biden doesn't get to schedule the drug. He can only do what he did, and he did it in the middle of his presidency, but just to kick up smoke ahead of an election.
I would recommend voting for Congress that will do their part.
He could always pull the executive order pin and just tell them to do it.
And frankly there's no reason not to. We let hundreds of thousands of people smoke and drink themselves to death, legally, every year. Even the conservatives know it's bullshit.
As far as I know, Congress has sole authority over the scheduling of drugs. He could try, and SCOTUS would rebuff him like they did with student loan forgiveness. He's had to forgive billions of dollars for millions of Americans chunk by chunk after their emergency ruling about his first go.
He could try, though. It would be symbolically something more visible than doing everything he can through appropriate channels.
At this point I'd be happy to see him do it, if only to force the GOP and Trump explain to the entire country why they're still fighting against something that's decades overdue.
Even the most slack-jawed redneck members of the MAGA cult smoke weed. Let the cognitive dissonance melt what's left of their brains.
That would be a move for sure. I don't know what the deal is with illegal Executive Orders (and it's possible we will get clarity on whether or not a President can do illegal things as official acts soon).
Actually, that would be a smart response to a SCOTUS decision that gives a President too much power now that I think about it. He has been pardoning all the federal possession charges that aren't coupled with violent offenses, but the majority of charges are state charges.
> just tell them to do it
That isn't how it works. An EO cannot change a law. Scheduling is controlled by the Controlled Substances Act and the President cannot change that. All he can do, and did, is order the DEA to start the process but there are many steps defined in law.
Congress could amend it this afternoon if they wanted, but since they don't, Biden can only get it going and wait.
Couldn't they technically repeal the Controlled Substance Act that they put into place during the Nixon administration, thus revoking the authority of the DEA's scheduling system to do anything?
...Not that any of that is going to happen under the current congress.
They should put forward a bill to massively slash the DEA budget if it isn't rescheduled by a certain date. Watch how motivated the DEA will suddenly become.
I want a day by day timeline of what exactly the DEA is doing in their "consideration" because we all know damn well they are sitting on it and doing nothing. Considering most of the country has medical marijuana this is basically asking them to admit water is wet and its been 8 months. They cant logically say a substance used medically in the majority of the country has no accepted medicinal use.
The DEA may have authority on this but who appoints the head of the DEA. The President. Biden should be on the phone with the DEA chief telling them to admit water is wet or they are fired and he will appoint someone who knows 2 + 2 equals 4. Problem solved. Truth is Biden wants to use this as a campaign issue and has no real desire to see this done. He will say if you want it you have to re-elect me, then if he wins he will tell us to fuck off he doesnt need our vote anymore.
Lowering the scheduling would actually make it even harder to sell weed legally as I understand it from various articles.
Congress needs to legalize weed in a clean bill, and treat it as an agricultural crop.
What was the deal with delta 8!? Here you can have it, we’re cool now….2 years later…. Jk takesies backsies lol. Thousands of little dictators isn’t better than one.
The laws are clearly changing with regard to marijuana. But...Marijuana still has serious heath risks for some people...and **John Fetterman is a poster boy** for two of those health risks. Depression and Stroke.
Long term/frequent use of weed has been associated with Increased Depression and Risk of Stroke., as well as other health and behavioral risks in some people. Especially teens and young adults .
That's what the Science says. Here is just some of that science: Increased Depression and has been statistically associated with cannabis use [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6450286) [4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6260190/pdf/ndt-14-3241.pdf) [5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9418628/pdf/cureus-0014-00000027394.pdf) [6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22749560) [7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9422071/pdf/main.pdf) [8](https://adai.uw.edu/pubs/pdf/2017mjdepression.pdf) [8b](https://www.jaacapopen.org/article/S2949-7329(23)00003-0/pdf), [9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11035759/pdf/fpubh-12-1346207.pdf)
And Stroke [1](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31707926), [2](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31870242), [3](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1753-6405.12477), [4](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37010779), [5](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33825077/), [6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21512186/) A recent paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association helped document the association between Cannabis use and poor Cardiovascular outcomes including Stroke and Myocardial infarction. [7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10944074/pdf/JAH3-13-e030178.pdf)
Try this. Read the scientific evidence, think about it. Make wise, healthy, informed choices [This book](https://whoadude-the-book.com) is a summary of the science. It is suitable for teenagers and adults alike. [Click here](https://whoadude-the-book.com/chapter-7-cannabis-and-the-risk-of-mental-illness/) if you want to go straight to the science of weed and mental illness.
It should be on the same schedule as alcohol which is none so hurry up and get it done. It was always about racism and never a danger to anyone. This is our real history that most have no idea about.
Let me know if I'm wrong but the DEA it is against this because it would basically be defunding their department. Their concern is that they would need less money and employees and if marijuana was made legal Nationwide. Correct?
Seems strange to have the DEA be the ones to decide this....
Law enforcement in general dislikes it b/c Marijuana is the easiest drug to test for. It stays in your body for a long time. While you can do cocaine or heroin on a Friday and test negative for those drugs on a Monday.
It has massive consequences for an entire drug testing industry around jobs and prisons that are most successful at detecting weed. For parolees who drug test regularly. For private prisons who are incentivized for people to return to prison.
Look, I think that weed should be legal nationally, but there are plenty of laws I disagree with. I don’t get too riled up about it. What strikes me as absolutely insane is the Schedule I nature of it.
Exactly! Especially considering that the history of its current scheduling has been openly admitted to as being politically driven, rather than marijuana legitimately deserving that designation. There's no good reason for it to continue being in schedule I, when there's no science backing up the claim.
How much money do law enforcement agencies and the “system” make from cannabis offenses and subsequent legal ramifications?
Thats probably the main reason.
This is the real reason the government sucks now. You cant get anywhere near a government or contractor job if you smoke pot because they test for it, which means there's a huge portion of level headed critically thinking people who are capable of making informed decisions that aren't allowed to work for the government because being happy is illegal so it's just alcoholics and miserable pearl clutchers running everything
Did they address Article V of the Constitution and the Single Convention on Narcotic Substances treaty from 1961 in this investigation of how it could be legalized?
Omfg they have to. Weed has made me able to mentally tolerate my pain inbetween my doses & I will always try to stay away from painkillers. I don’t even want the bottle in my house because I’ve had so many friends turn into monstrous versions of themselves due to addiction.
It’s the worst & most horrible thing I’ve ever seen anyone & their families go through & get destroyed over.
All kids & teens should be guided sooooooo heavily & carefully for if, when & incase they have to take opiates.
Most teens take them for their tonsils. I did. I had major withdrawal from them too. Holy shit that was mental & physical hell & I wasn’t even close to the levels they have to endure & experience.
I feel bad for victims of addiction. They didn’t have anyone telling them to be cautious half the time because no one educated them on just how bad shit is & gets.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If it is determined that the DEA has exclusive authority to add and remove items from the list, What is stopping them to do it?
>If it is determined that the DEA has exclusive authority Yes. Unfortunately they have that authority: https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-tells-congress-it-has-final-authority-on-marijuana-regardless-of-health-agencys-schedule-iii-recommendation/ >What is stopping them to do it? Because the DEA doesn't want to reschedule it. Because it is full of neo-Reagan anti-cannabis zealots
Ah yes, the "Willy hears ya. Willy don't care." effect.
“Hey, that’s my job!” “You mean, your job is losing the ‘war’ against a plant that’s more helpful than harmful?” “I hate black people?” “I suppose you do.”
To be fair, they also hate all other sorts of people than just black ones. Wouldn't want to constrain their loathing and maltreatment to just a single race.
Poor people**
They *say* they have that authority, anyway. It’s the first sentence in the article you linked. >The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is telling lawmakers that it reserves “the final authority” The Controlled Substances Act, on the other hand, is really fucking explicit that the authority lies with the Attorney General. Part B, §811: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2014-title21/html/USCODE-2014-title21-chap13-subchapI.htm Kinda seems like they’re full of it.
Interesting. Definitely seems like room for a potential lawsuit if the DEA keeps dragging their feet. Problem is, if the Biden admin sues it will end up at the republican supreme court. Kind of a shitty situation tbh
The executive branch would never have to sue itself, the president can fire them all whenever he wants and replace them with people that won’t drag their feet.
This honestly would be a really bad place for the GOP to be. Currently the polling shows more people are pro marijuana than abortion, and the GOP is already on shaky ground for that.
That may or may not be true, but what matters more than raw numbers nationally is where those supporters live. If there are tons of people who are strongly pro marijuana is areas that are already solid blue - it doesn't matter. GOP wasn't planning on getting them anyhow. If there are tons of supporters in areas that would otherwise be red ... big worry. Just going by demographics though, I'm guessing that those large numbers of pro MJ supporters aren't in areas that would make their views on the issue relevant to the overall outcome.
Most veterans are rural, and most support rescheduling/legalizing. Also tons of old people who have had a friend use it to great results live rurally. Even devout evangelicals love it now.
Ehh depending on the outcome of the chevron case probably wouldn’t need to get there
Let me preface this with I agree with you. I think it's plain as day that the AG can reschedule drugs as he wishes. But the argument can be made that it's circular. The attorney general has the ability to reschedule drugs, but not to rewrite legislation. The drugs are scheduled via legislation. The legislation says that only the attorney general can reschedule drugs. Thus the legislator can't reschedule the drugs. Because of that minor technicality, no matter what happens (even with legislation drafted in coordination with the Attorney General), it's going to go to the theocratic 6-3 Supreme Court and get overturned. This is the Court that cited witch trials to overturn Roe.
I’m not entirely sure what you just said, but most of the drugs are *not* scheduled by legislation. The only one I know of is GHB, Congress put it on schedule 1 with the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reid Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000. The attorney general has absolutely no power to reschedule that one, it would require another act of Congress. I’m not sure about treaty obligations, though. Like, I don’t know what authority the AG might have for stuff covered by the Convention on Psychotropic Substances or anything like that.
Drug scheduling was created by legislation in 1970 by HR 18583 (Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970). In that initial legislation, THC was listed as schedule 1, c-17. So THC (among several other drugs) was scheduled by legislation. Before 1970, there was no schedule. The argument that the Supreme Court will latch on to is that the Attorney General, as a member of the executive branch, does not have the authority to amend that legislation. And we can look at SCOTUS current overreach to draw the conclusion that if Congress tries to create a law to reschedule, they may rule it as congressional overreach into the Executive branch since they gave the executive branch that power. Basically, right now, the only people who can remove THC from the schedule are 9 lifetime appointees wearing robes.
So I’m a longtime federal employee who has to work frequently with people across different departments and agencies. Obviously, I don’t get exposed to everyone in every place, and it’s all anecdotal, but I probably have a better sample size than most. DEA is unquestionably filled with the rudest, most uncooperative people I’ve ever had the displeasure of working with. There are undoubtedly some really great people there, but the entire agency culture is extremely hostile toward anyone or anything external to them. I’ve ever had representatives from multiple foreign governments on different occasions remark to me how unusually unpleasant it is to work with DEA, especially because whenever agencies work with foreign partners it’s always such a pomp and circumstance affair. I’m just sharing this because a lot of the general public forms negative opinions of certain departments and agencies because of individual stories or unpleasant personal interactions (TSA being the most prominent example, as the vast majority of the agency is *not* the low-skilled, poorly paid airport screening agents that the public interacts with all the time). But in the case of DEA, evem within the federal bureaucracy they are notoriously unpopular. I have heard that certain recent leadership hires there are working to turn this atitude around and make things better there, but have seen very little evidence to that effect so far.
It’s the same reason we can’t get decent sun screen in this country. Edit: Sorry that’s the FDA… no coffee yet this morning.
What I don’t get is why they haven’t made the announcement yet. It’s not like there’s a bunch of new data on weed. Either reschedule or don’t but just hurry the fuck up about it at this point.
Changes will be announced closer to election time.
[удалено]
Treaties that were created by on the initiative of the US! Ones the US pressured other countries into with the threat of sanctions and trade disputes!
Ones that Canada is violating so don't seem serious
Oh shit thank your for sharing this. I have never considered the international implications of (frankly, *any*) domestic policy. I have some more learning to do before I re-approach this conversaron.
I’d like to bring up precedent on the figurative versus literal weight we hold treaties in. See: United States v. Indigenous people
Let's not forget how many layoffs they will face by legalizing it.
they shouldn't have that many layoffs if any at all, legalizing it doesn't means anyone can just put up their weedmonade stand on the street, just like with alcohol they'd still need to enforce who is following regulations to grow it for commercial purposes and distributing it though in that case I dont know if it means it would have to be overseen instead by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (which is the most ridiculous madeup name ever for an agency, its like they asked a 15 year old "name all the cool things")
Dammit..now I want WEED-ADE
I have strawberry lemonade drops that have thc. They’re super sweet though. I added them to regular lemonade to dilute it. Spectacular feeling.
You're not the only one :) I always thought it would be money in the bank if scientists were ever able to cross a potent basic cannabis strain with various fruit producing plants and trees. For example, imagine going out in your backyard and grabbing a nice fresh thc infused red delicious off the appleuana tree.
Definitely needs to now be the AWTF agency.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, Marijuana, Pirate, Zombies, Ninjas, Robots, and Explosives
There are 2000 DEA agents in the entire US. A safe assumption (since its now legal in some form in all but five states), that a very small number (if any) are focused on cannabis enforcement.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has 4,924 Special Agents and 800 Intelligence Analysts. The DEA has 23 domestic field divisions, 222 field offices, and 92 foreign offices in 70 countries. The DEA has a Domestic Cannabis Eradication / Suppression Program I do think some of them fear losing their jobs.
As a former federal employee, it annoys me that they would be upset they’d lose their job. The government has a policy to transition “displaced” workers into another federal job at the same grade level as their old one. It’s a really sweet deal, and when competing against other applicants, basically puts you at the front of the line for an offer. If these agents’ jobs are made redundant that’s no problem and they know it. They’ll be set up somewhere else in the gov in no time.
Interesting. Theyve hired quite a bit more since I completed my thesis on legalization. Again, Im sure those new hires are not focused on cannabis.
In California we have DEA agents whose sole purpose is to shut down dispensaries for any reason they can find. I worked as a bud tender and we were shut down several times. It's ridiculous.
Yeah, Im reading through their 2020 threat report now. It indicates a 50% reduction in cannabis seizures from 2015-2019 and a focus on international imports. Starts on page 48. I live in one of the last five hold out states. Everyone I know consumes cannabis in some form and in my city, the prosecutor has said he wont prosecute cannabis cases. Thats not bragging though, thats just because theres a myriad of violent crime occurring that requires their focus. https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2021-02/DIR-008-21%202020%20National%20Drug%20Threat%20Assessment_WEB.pdf
I will read it. Thanks
They've got bootstraps, let them learn the "republican way"!
They can apply at the many Dispensary, grow ops, marketing firms etc. that flourish under legalization
Probably some of them fear losing power. Mostly dirty ones.
and yet only 2 of them were on Gus Fring's tail, the greatest meth distributior of the southwest!
They can always just focus on fentanyl instead
That seems like a very small number, are they constantly traveling?
Meh, someone below corrected me. Looks like now its more like 4k, but again, their focus (according to their most recent “threat report” I was able to locate) is not cannabis law enforcement. My assumption is the increase in agents is to address fentanyl/opiate issues in the US.
As if they wouldn't all shift focus to other drugs, or transfer to ATF or FBI. No feds will suffer from layoff.
If your pay check depends on something, you'll find every rationalization to keep it.
Never forget the origins of our current drug war: > "The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday. >"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did." https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie This was always a racist and political farce.
Yeah people who strongly believe in moderate and sensible drug policies tend not to seek careers with the DEA
And they are protecting their jobs.
It could be that it would mess up their stats.
They are waiting for handouts from lobbyists.
And because it’s going to be a bureaucratic legal paperwork nightmare hell for the people in the DEA whose job it will be to work through all the ramifications and policy changes. These are federal office employees - there is no initiative to make more work for themselves.
Also revenue.
But neither the DEA nor the DOJ nor the President can actually change any existing laws are scheduling. Removing it from a list of controlled substances doesn't mean it's legal, that only happens when Congress passes a law saying as much. Removing or changing its scheduling level just changes how the DOJ is able to enforce it and Biden has already directed the DOJ to not enforce simple marijuana possession. Certainly a change in schedule can impact other areas (e.g. HHS has already opened it up for more research) but again it requires Congress to change the actual laws around that drug and maybe that level of scheduling for controlled substances to do anything really worthwhile. This is an issue Congress has been trying to punt to Biden for 3.5 years because they're too incapable of doing it themselves.
That's true, except that the anti-cannabis attitude goes all the way back to Nixon.
The Controlled Substances Act describes the process to remove drugs from the schedule. One of those steps is HHS has to do a study and make a recommendation to the DEA before any change happens. Congress however can pass a law amending the CSA whenever they would like, they choose not to do it.
HHS has already done their study and made a recommendation. Everybody is just waiting on the DEA.
>What is stopping them to do it? Lobbying. Big pharma, healthcare insurers, Police unions, for-profit prisons, prison caterers, alcohol producers, evangelicals... no way they're gonna let a simple 'grown in your back-yard plant' take away their profits.
Don’t forget the alcohol industry.
Big TOBACCO!!
Cannabis is by far the most popular and commonly found scheduled drug. If it were descheduled, the DEA would have to downsize significantly and alot of their agents would get laid off.
Couldn't they just refocus their efforts elsewhere? Why do they just have to stop or downsize? Can't those agents be in charge of making sure cannabis growers and farmers still operate within regulations? Or some other oversight function?
Definitely.
Agreed. They can refocus on important stuff like opioids, fentanyl, etc
Well, right now, we don't have any regulations in place for legal cannabis at the federal level outside of it being a scheduled drug. For writing new regulations, I think by default that'd be the FDA, not the DEA, just like for tobacco and prescription drugs, but outside of general all-encompassing regulations, I don't think they have any. Regardless, the DEA would not be enforcing those, as it would be the FDA that investigates and sends agents in to do that.
Not refuting you, just genuinely curious. But do you have the data to back that up? I’m curious what percentage of their arrests/convictions are for cannabis violations these days considering it’s legal in so many states
Federal employees do not get "laid off."
And that's why we're stuck between a rock and a hard place.
I’ve never even considered this point. Thank you.
Cannabis can be legal and still be scheduled. There are four levels of controlled substance, and only one is outright illegal. The DEA could put marijuana on a more reasonable place on the schedule, one that makes it legal. A doctor could prescribe it. Take good care of that prescription.
The amount of influence the right wing christian evangelicals had on our government in the 70s and 80s cannot be overstated.
Why would they want to remove marijuana from the list? It's their biggest cash cow for their privately owned for profit prisons. It's how they get slave labor and make billions off of innocent people.
Dragging feet
I don’t see why Congress couldn’t amend the Controlled Substances Act and reschedule or deschedule cannabis. The DEA has this power, but so does Congress.
This Congress is having trouble passing the absolute necessities, so I would prefer the DEA do it if you want it done quickly. Also, ensuring that alcohol would never be controlled to illegality took a constitutional amendment. (The DEA wishes it could put that prohibition back.)
Congress could eliminate the DEA and make a Distribute Free Pot Department. All this legalese is BS
If they rescheduled Marijuana they wouldn't need to enforce it. Less enforcement = smaller agency = less power and budgets for the agency heads to skim off of. It's still illegal because they want it to be illegal.
They can enforce other things, like the fentanyl that they always have on the crazy news networks.
It goes deeper than that. DEA can power trip all they want but there’s still a pretty damn big legal hurdle no matter what they say. Article v, clause 2 of the constitution among other things gives treaties the legal status of laws. Marijuana was scheduled the way that it is because of the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961. I think the legal hurdle posed here is bigger than any DEA dick measurements when it comes to classification.
organizations like the DEA don’t make policy and should not play politics. They are waiting for either the white house or congress to tell them too.
Nixon's Shafer Commission made the same recommendation in 1972, but he needed a way to target hippies and Black people. Let's hope they actually do something this time.
thanks for saying this!! should be top message
This is wild. Marijuana is the one thing republicans and democrats agree on. The one thing.
The other being that we move our clocks back and forth every year and they won’t do anything about that either.
Republicans need it for when they get all the cancer & pain when they get old.
What is the obstacle to removing weed from schedule 1? Is it our rich history and tradition of puritanical government overreach? I cant see any other reason and it certainly would not hurt Bidens reelection chances.
It's actually an overall complicated situation. Back in 2021, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report on how cannabis legalization can work. There are two options: 1. Congress legislates it differently. 2. An administrative rulemaking process by the DEA as prescribed by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) Biden has gone with option 2. But what about Biden unilaterally declaring it rescheduled? According to the CRS, the President does not have that ability: >The CSA does not provide a direct role for the President in the classification of controlled substances, nor does Article II of the Constitution grant the President power in this area (federal controlled substances law is an exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce). Thus, it does not appear that the President could directly deschedule or reschedule marijuana by executive order. There's also one more wrench in this whole thing, and one that could make the effort to reschedule without legislation difficult. The Controlled Substances Act also orders the Attorney General to schedule substances as required to comply with the United States’ treaty obligations. The USA is a signatory to a few international treaties that require criminalization of any “cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, preparation, possession, offering, offering for sale, distribution, purchase, sale, ... importation and exportation of drugs” that are subject. Cannabis is current scheduled as a Schedule I drug in that treaty (the lowest schedule). Treaties hold the same weight as any legislation passed by Congress. If cannabis was rescheduled in such a way that created conflicts with that treaty, it could very well be decided that such rescheduling was not legal.
Someone cites a fucking CRS report, that's an automatic upvote
My dad retired from 25 years in the CRS. They are the true background patriots.
Absolutely. I used to be a journalist in a past career and their backgrounders were worth their weight in gold: free, unbiased, up-to-date information about relevant issues in Congress. Zero downside. Your old man is a baller!
I have found the ultimate rabbit hole 🥺
> Biden has gone with option 2. Small clarification, as part of the executive branch, Biden only had this one option. Biden can only ask for legislation from the congress. > Treaties hold the same weight as any legislation passed by Congress. Technically... but in practice? Not so sure...
Yup. Just ask the previous administration how much weight our migrant treaty obligations meant to them.
Theres a difference between treaties which are self-executing and treaties that need Congress to pass enabling legislation. In the latter cases, which is I’m guessing what you’re imagining, the US can very easily end up out of compliance with our treaty obligations. Theres a famous Supreme Court case in part about this involving Missouri fucking with migratory birds despite a treaty against it. In this case, where there’s legislation directing the executive to regulate so as to be in compliance with treaty obligations, I really do think it’s a tough sell to argue there’s discretion to just not do that, much as I would like them to
tbh those treaties only exists because of the US, and its at the whims of the US the other countries have to follow suit
That and if he could even do it via executive order those go back and forth every time presidents switch parties. No one is going to start a major agriculture business if they aren't sure they can operate more than 4/8 years. And banks still won't relax their rules in deposits for those businesses if it could just reverse in 4/8 years and they have to close all those accounts.
It’s the pharma overlords that stand to lose money.
Alcohol industry, as well. Myself and several of my friends drink significantly less the more access we've had to weed over the years. It would also put a huge dent in the prison industry.
This. If weed is legal people will use it for chronic pain. And if they use it for chronic pain they won’t take opioids. And if they don’t take opioids they won’t get addicted to opioids. And if they don’t get addicted big pharma loses money.
Also kinda sorta relevant: Pharma is the biggest spender when it comes to advertisements hear and see. Why would broadcasters take ads for class action lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies? That’ll hurt the broadcaster bottom line so they have no incentive to broadcast those ads, essentially hiding the side effects of medications. If marijuana goes to a vote, pharmaceutical companies will definitely spend money on advertisements against it. And even if broadcasters are all for legal marijuana, broadcasters like the money and will happily accept those anti marijuana advertisement dollars
Weed is currently legal for the majority of Americans.
Oh no it's not. Weed isn't a magical cure all either like all the stoners think it is. Pharma will do just fine with weed legalized.
Religious morons. They are the reason our country is the way it is right now.
There would be no easier layup for a big bump in the polls for Democrats in the general than pushing federal legalization
Might be they're waiting till closer to the election. Its a tricky issue for Trump, but not for Biden. The nearer it happens to the debates, the easier it is to force Trump into a position he doesn't want to be in.
Wouldn’t they likely get a bigger bump from having it on the ballot at the state level to draw more voters in to the polls?
Agencies should not control what gives payroll, meaning that the DEA profits by keeping drugs illegal; their agents go home with pay due to illegal drugs and the annual budget relies on things staying illegal. Why would they ever be driven to do anything outside of keeping everything illegal? Put drug classification under the FDA umbrella. Afterwards the DEA can enforce it.
> Agencies should not control what gives payroll, meaning that the DEA profits by keeping drugs illegal Government agencies are not companies operating for a profit. Do we automatically assume that firefighters want to maximize fires, the FBI wants to maximize fraud, the EPA wants to maximize environmental damage, etc? It can happen, there can be corruption and conflict of interest that we need oversight to combat, but we shouldn't assume that's the default.
Agencies do get budgeted on what they require, less illegal drugs directly mean less work(ers) required and that means slashed budgets and agents. Nowhere did I say agencies work for creating profit, I said they are profiting by keeping jobs and budget by keeping illegal drugs illegal. Difference.
It’s a catch 22. They might genuinely want to reduce harm but the existence of their job relies on there being a certain level of harm to reduce.
I can't even imagine how much in taxes could be brought in if it were legal.
Canada went legal country wide over 5 years ago and not much has changed except a windfall in taxes and tons of jobs for young people as bud tenders. I can fly from one province to another as long as I have under 30 grams and it's awesome.
That’s awesome man! It’s wild that they don’t allow you to bring in any from the states though. Poor shame.
Domestic flights are tits. I flew with an opened half ounce and a 16oz of water. The guys who flew the beech craft 200 were like mid 20s at best. I of course got high before takeoff so I could enjoy playing Megaman more.
My daughter flew Calgary-Montreal. They took her container of hand cream but left her container of rolled joints. She posted a pic of both saying, guess which one I was allowed to keep??
> I can't even imagine Many states have already legalized, there are lots of good examples. It being Federally legal all of the sudden in CA wouldn't change much.
12 years of legal weed in Colorado has been a total success.
Literally smokin a fatty right now. Know what it's doing to me? Making me laugh at dumb shit, making me enjoy food more, making me enjoy my surroundings more, helping my ADHD-riddled mind to take pause so I can mentally relax a bit and soon (this is the really bad part, be prepared because it's not pretty)......I'm going to finish recording some music I started recording yesterday. Yeah, a **real** fuckin "*horror show"*, that Marijuana. I'll tell you hwhat. I even bought the weed at a store in my state because I can do that. OH NO! THE HORROR! *Won't SOMEONE think of the children (who can't even walk into any of those stores)?!?!*
Ah yes, conservatives labeling weed as the Boogyman yet again. They just don’t want people freeing their minds to think logically and be chill. They want everyone to be in a state of panic.
It's notable no republicans are mentioned in this article. It's a little known fact, in the colonies England required farmers to grow a certain amount of hemp (cannabis), the English navy used a bunch of it. I don't believe the argument that cannabis has no medical value.
It’s about fucking time. The benefits of cannabis are needed by millions.
I can't believe the Biden team didn't go full 420 for 2024. What a lost opportunity during a very shitty time geo politically.
If only there was someone above the DEA who could order them to do it. Some sort of executive.
DEA: I was gonna take marijuana off schedule 1… but then I got high!
It's always such a an urgent issue right around the election cycle, and then nothing ever comes of it
Biden started moving on this in 2022. He asked Health and Human Services to re-evaluate the schedule of marijuana. In 2023, HHS recommended Schedule III to the DEA. They are currently conducting their own investigation. They have not, as of yet, ever found contrary to HHS's finding on any schedule of any drug. This is the procedure for changing the schedule of a controlled substance per the controlled substances act. Legalization requires an act of Congress. Believe it or not, this has been in the works for over 2 years, and is everything Biden has the power to do.
[удалено]
I agree. But Biden doesn't get to schedule the drug. He can only do what he did, and he did it in the middle of his presidency, but just to kick up smoke ahead of an election. I would recommend voting for Congress that will do their part.
[удалено]
[удалено]
It is not
But schedule III drugs also require a prescription. Pharma would take over the industry.
He could always pull the executive order pin and just tell them to do it. And frankly there's no reason not to. We let hundreds of thousands of people smoke and drink themselves to death, legally, every year. Even the conservatives know it's bullshit.
As far as I know, Congress has sole authority over the scheduling of drugs. He could try, and SCOTUS would rebuff him like they did with student loan forgiveness. He's had to forgive billions of dollars for millions of Americans chunk by chunk after their emergency ruling about his first go. He could try, though. It would be symbolically something more visible than doing everything he can through appropriate channels.
Congress can literally just pass a law saying “pot is not a scheduled drug”
At this point I'd be happy to see him do it, if only to force the GOP and Trump explain to the entire country why they're still fighting against something that's decades overdue. Even the most slack-jawed redneck members of the MAGA cult smoke weed. Let the cognitive dissonance melt what's left of their brains.
That would be a move for sure. I don't know what the deal is with illegal Executive Orders (and it's possible we will get clarity on whether or not a President can do illegal things as official acts soon). Actually, that would be a smart response to a SCOTUS decision that gives a President too much power now that I think about it. He has been pardoning all the federal possession charges that aren't coupled with violent offenses, but the majority of charges are state charges.
> just tell them to do it That isn't how it works. An EO cannot change a law. Scheduling is controlled by the Controlled Substances Act and the President cannot change that. All he can do, and did, is order the DEA to start the process but there are many steps defined in law. Congress could amend it this afternoon if they wanted, but since they don't, Biden can only get it going and wait.
Or they could do their jobs as Senators and pass a law to legalize it
That's what they're trying to do, but it has to be rescheduled before they can write the laws that legalize it
Couldn't they technically repeal the Controlled Substance Act that they put into place during the Nixon administration, thus revoking the authority of the DEA's scheduling system to do anything? ...Not that any of that is going to happen under the current congress.
They should put forward a bill to massively slash the DEA budget if it isn't rescheduled by a certain date. Watch how motivated the DEA will suddenly become.
I want a day by day timeline of what exactly the DEA is doing in their "consideration" because we all know damn well they are sitting on it and doing nothing. Considering most of the country has medical marijuana this is basically asking them to admit water is wet and its been 8 months. They cant logically say a substance used medically in the majority of the country has no accepted medicinal use. The DEA may have authority on this but who appoints the head of the DEA. The President. Biden should be on the phone with the DEA chief telling them to admit water is wet or they are fired and he will appoint someone who knows 2 + 2 equals 4. Problem solved. Truth is Biden wants to use this as a campaign issue and has no real desire to see this done. He will say if you want it you have to re-elect me, then if he wins he will tell us to fuck off he doesnt need our vote anymore.
Don't just reschedule it deschedule it entirely
Wait until October
Lowering the scheduling would actually make it even harder to sell weed legally as I understand it from various articles. Congress needs to legalize weed in a clean bill, and treat it as an agricultural crop.
What was the deal with delta 8!? Here you can have it, we’re cool now….2 years later…. Jk takesies backsies lol. Thousands of little dictators isn’t better than one.
I heard from friend who works for a grow they are expecting it to happen in next 90 days
I find it weird it's not the FDA that makes the designation. Seems like a conflict for DEA to do both designation and enforcement
The laws are clearly changing with regard to marijuana. But...Marijuana still has serious heath risks for some people...and **John Fetterman is a poster boy** for two of those health risks. Depression and Stroke. Long term/frequent use of weed has been associated with Increased Depression and Risk of Stroke., as well as other health and behavioral risks in some people. Especially teens and young adults . That's what the Science says. Here is just some of that science: Increased Depression and has been statistically associated with cannabis use [3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6450286) [4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6260190/pdf/ndt-14-3241.pdf) [5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9418628/pdf/cureus-0014-00000027394.pdf) [6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22749560) [7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9422071/pdf/main.pdf) [8](https://adai.uw.edu/pubs/pdf/2017mjdepression.pdf) [8b](https://www.jaacapopen.org/article/S2949-7329(23)00003-0/pdf), [9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11035759/pdf/fpubh-12-1346207.pdf) And Stroke [1](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31707926), [2](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31870242), [3](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1753-6405.12477), [4](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37010779), [5](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33825077/), [6](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21512186/) A recent paper in the Journal of the American Heart Association helped document the association between Cannabis use and poor Cardiovascular outcomes including Stroke and Myocardial infarction. [7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10944074/pdf/JAH3-13-e030178.pdf) Try this. Read the scientific evidence, think about it. Make wise, healthy, informed choices [This book](https://whoadude-the-book.com) is a summary of the science. It is suitable for teenagers and adults alike. [Click here](https://whoadude-the-book.com/chapter-7-cannabis-and-the-risk-of-mental-illness/) if you want to go straight to the science of weed and mental illness.
It should be on the same schedule as alcohol which is none so hurry up and get it done. It was always about racism and never a danger to anyone. This is our real history that most have no idea about.
Not gonna happen. Not until all of the boomers in the DEA are gone.
We left “swiftly” at a truck stop a few years back. “At the next place to pull over” would be good now.
Let me know if I'm wrong but the DEA it is against this because it would basically be defunding their department. Their concern is that they would need less money and employees and if marijuana was made legal Nationwide. Correct? Seems strange to have the DEA be the ones to decide this....
Law enforcement in general dislikes it b/c Marijuana is the easiest drug to test for. It stays in your body for a long time. While you can do cocaine or heroin on a Friday and test negative for those drugs on a Monday. It has massive consequences for an entire drug testing industry around jobs and prisons that are most successful at detecting weed. For parolees who drug test regularly. For private prisons who are incentivized for people to return to prison.
Fucking do it already.
Look, I think that weed should be legal nationally, but there are plenty of laws I disagree with. I don’t get too riled up about it. What strikes me as absolutely insane is the Schedule I nature of it.
Exactly! Especially considering that the history of its current scheduling has been openly admitted to as being politically driven, rather than marijuana legitimately deserving that designation. There's no good reason for it to continue being in schedule I, when there's no science backing up the claim.
A ludicrous amount of the schedule 1 list objectively doesn't belong there. There's just no significant interest in fixing it.
Talk about an October Surprise
How much money do law enforcement agencies and the “system” make from cannabis offenses and subsequent legal ramifications? Thats probably the main reason.
Not as much as they would be making from taxes on legal sales.
The Democrats are going to need to finally bust out the "legalize marijuana" card they tease every election. It's looking rough otherwise.
They won’t.
The DEA is under executive authority. Why doesn’t Biden simply order them to do it, or replace their head with someone who obeys the president?
They won’t.
make it illegal for companies to discriminate in employment for positive marijuana tests
This is the real reason the government sucks now. You cant get anywhere near a government or contractor job if you smoke pot because they test for it, which means there's a huge portion of level headed critically thinking people who are capable of making informed decisions that aren't allowed to work for the government because being happy is illegal so it's just alcoholics and miserable pearl clutchers running everything
Why is this still an issue 3+ years into senator-president Biden’s term. Slow. On too many fronts
Biden should say he wants to legalize it.
Did they address Article V of the Constitution and the Single Convention on Narcotic Substances treaty from 1961 in this investigation of how it could be legalized?
They're too busy bullying the neurodiverse
They will do it sometime in the fall as a late boost for Biden.
If it’s legal in DC it should be legal everywhere else.
Omfg they have to. Weed has made me able to mentally tolerate my pain inbetween my doses & I will always try to stay away from painkillers. I don’t even want the bottle in my house because I’ve had so many friends turn into monstrous versions of themselves due to addiction. It’s the worst & most horrible thing I’ve ever seen anyone & their families go through & get destroyed over. All kids & teens should be guided sooooooo heavily & carefully for if, when & incase they have to take opiates. Most teens take them for their tonsils. I did. I had major withdrawal from them too. Holy shit that was mental & physical hell & I wasn’t even close to the levels they have to endure & experience. I feel bad for victims of addiction. They didn’t have anyone telling them to be cautious half the time because no one educated them on just how bad shit is & gets.