Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 918 posts

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#311

Post by beaeglebeachh »

denimnerd42 wrote: post #310
beaeglebeachh wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's oddly not. Only to be a user or addict with a firearm. IIRC if you just like the way weed looks in your hand that doesn't make you a user, and there's plenty of reasonable doubt you're guarding it for grandma or whoever. Of course people are still being convicted of weed and firearm, but it gets recorded as gun law violation and nobody cares, cuz left hates guns and right hates weed, so they'll never repeal it.

oh fair enough about the "user" vs possession. but my point was they could possible use this info to get a warrant to surveil you to catch you using it.

They don't need that. I was served a federal search warrant after a detective wrote an anonymous officer claimed an anonymous DOG accused me of wrongdoing.

When 3rd order anonymous interspecies hearsay is sufficient for a warrant it means a warrant is just a rubber stamp.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#312

Post by alistairSH »

tialaramex wrote: post #130
alistairSH wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note, they're only planning to move it from Schedule 1 (alongside heroin) to Schedule III (alongside anabolic steroids and ketamine). So, it won't be fully legal in the same sense as alcohol. Regardless, unless Congress does something to make it legal nationally, we'll still have the state frameworks. Just hopefully avoiding the most draconian criminal charges.

One very important thing this does is get rid of a really glaring error. As a Schedule I drug, Marijuana supposedly is completely useless, its only role is as a potential danger and that's why nobody must have any - except, we've known for many years a bunch of people find it useful as a therapeutic drug, so that's clearly wrong and the Schedule I status is an error. Perhaps there shouldn't be any Schedule I drugs at…

Yeah, I largely agree. Alcohol is broadly available/legal due to historical quirks, not sane regulation in relation to other similar (social impact, not chemistry) drugs. Same for tobacco to an extent.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#313

Post by jkaplowitz »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #227
mannyv wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can sell schedule 3 drugs to consumers. Pharmacies do this all the time.

'without a DEA licensed rx and dea licensing' Rx under DEA scrutiny is nothing like rec or laughable state controlled medical 'recommendations'. You pull that shit as a provider on controlled scripts and your charts get audited, your DEA license gets pulled.

But it does mean that it will actually, for the first time ever in living memory, be possible for someone to fully federally legally possess a THC-active form of cannabis without further Congressional action. I'm not sure if a state-legal cannabis supply chain could be fully federally legal in this context, but imagine if a pharma company goes through the FDA approval process for a THC pill and then doctors prescribe it for patients based on their medical judgment that it will help alleviate pain for some chronic condition like Crohn's disease. (I expect both of those steps to happen in practice, over time of course due to how many prerequisites exist for FDA approval, to the extent they haven't already been begun.)

Imagine a noncitizen in that situation being able to tell a border officer, or a citizen being able to tell a security clearance investigator: "Yes, I do use THC. Here's my prescription and the bottle from the pharmacy." and being confident of no negative repercussions. Wonderful progress compared to where we are now.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#314

Post by denimnerd42 »

beaeglebeachh wrote: post #311
denimnerd42 wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh fair enough about the "user" vs possession. but my point was they could possible use this info to get a warrant to surveil you to catch you using it.

They don't need that. I was served a federal search warrant after a detective wrote an anonymous officer claimed an anonymous DOG accused me of wrongdoing. When 3rd order anonymous interspecies hearsay is sufficient for a warrant it means a warrant is just a rubber stamp.

fair. its not hard to get a warrant. but your info in the database could still make you a target

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#315

Post by jonathanlb »

tootie wrote: post #267
krapp wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

A panel of judges appointed and confirmed by elected officials. An electoral plurality did want it repealed. And based on current polls, there is not a majority who think it's important enough to change it back. Even if there's an opinion poll saying most people want abortion rights, that's effectively moot if they don't vote that way.

> based on current polls

Citation needed.

Current polls indicate that "[t]wo-thirds of the public, including majorities of Democrats (86%) and independents (67%), support a law guaranteeing a federal right to abortion."

Source: https://www.kff.org/womens-health-policy/poll-finding/kff-he...

> Even if there's an opinion poll [...] that's effectively moot if they don't vote that way.

Weirdly, your own argument is rendered moot with that assertion. But I agree, it's important for people to vote.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#316

Post by [deleted] »

nerdjon wrote: post #238
vkou wrote: post #2

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.

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…

[deleted]

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#318

Post by consumer451 »

treflop wrote: post #148
paxys wrote: post #102

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.

Maybe, maybe not. Support for the legalization of marijuana has consistently only gone up for 50 years and even more than half of conservatives supported it in 2023: https://news.gallup.com/poll/514007/grassroots-support-legal... You typically see flip flop rulings on issues that half the country actually does not support. Abortion is probably the biggest issue and that's because a lot of the country does not support…

> Abortion is probably the biggest issue and that's because a lot of the country does not support it and this has not substantially changed in over 50 years: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx

I'm sorry, am I reading the data incorrectly, or your comment incorrectly?

> Do you think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances?

> 2023 | 34(any) 51(some) 13(illegal) 2(no opinion)

According these data, the vast, vast majority of Americans support the right to abortion, correct?

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#319

Post by realce »

gadflyinyoureye wrote: post #16
throwup238 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bureaucratic process will take about two years. It's definitely not getting done in time for election.

[flagged]

If you prefer speedy executive action, perhaps American democracy isn't for your tastes.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#320

Post by beaeglebeachh »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #313
beaeglebeachh wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'without a DEA licensed rx and dea licensing' Rx under DEA scrutiny is nothing like rec or laughable state controlled medical 'recommendations'. You pull that shit as a provider on controlled scripts and your charts get audited, your DEA license gets pulled.

But it does mean that it will actually, for the first time ever in living memory, be possible for someone to fully federally legally possess a THC-active form of cannabis without further Congressional action. I'm not sure if a state-legal cannabis supply chain could be fully federally legal in this context, but imagine if a pharma company goes through the FDA approval process for a THC pill and then doctors prescribe…

Agree with the sentiment but isn't legal marinol roughly fulfilling that niche of THC pill?

You could already get THC script, in that context this seems like a half hearted concession for flower to stall and poison legalization efforts by giving a victory poisoned with DEA licensing that inserts the nasty tendrils of the weed hating DEA into medical flower.

Post reply on HN