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

401–410 of 918 posts

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#401

Post by pempem »

oooyay wrote: post #279
bregma wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's so sad. Here in Ontario Canada I can walk into a local neighbourhood cannabis store (one of many on every block, it seems) and make a purchase using my debit or credit card. I'm not sure if any of them even keep a cash float although I imagine they must, just in case granny comes in "for medicinal use". Alternatively, I could just go to the government-run web store and get home delivery through Canada Post at…

You can in the U.S. too. For instance, in Portland we have a neighborhood shop and you can use a debit card there because each transaction is classified as an ATM transaction. All the ban ever did was making accounting and reporting more complicated, it didn't stop state legal sales or transactions.

Extended banking services are difficult. Finding a fdic insured bank that will do business with a dispensary is hard. The business, esp those that aren't already multinational or national conglomerates with enormous amounts of cash

This is really exciting to see.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#402

Post by ryandrake »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #337
giantg2 wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. It depends on the risks, morals, and stuff like ESG. We've seen this with stuff like alcohol, tobacco, and guns.

But you can buy alcohol, tobacco and guns with just about any payment method?

Porn and gambling are probably better examples. They're kryptonite to payment processors due to the chargeback risk.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#403

Post by hed »

0x5f3759df-i wrote: post #356
colpabar wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What bothers me is that all these things are only happening because it's an election year and the incumbent doesn't have great polling numbers.

You obviously haven’t been paying attention as these rule making processes started literally years ago that’s how much red tape there is to get through. And even if what you are saying was true (it isn’t) isn’t that the entire argument for democracy in the first place? “Politicians make good policy because they want to get re-elected” is how we should hope things work.

It started in October 2022 (a month before midterms), if anything a skeptic would say that's more confirmation timing is suspect.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#404

Post by hughesjj »

EA-3167 wrote: post #364
bbarn wrote: post #358

I really don't think this is a positive in any way, unless you oppose recreational marijuana usage. Making it a schedule III puts it back in "Doctor prescription" territory, and since there's now a legal route to getting it, a lot of these businesses that have operated with impunity are breaking a different set of laws if it's schedule III. No doubt that laws and decriminalization statutes would need to be updated to…

You seem to believe that a move from Schedule I (totally illegal to sell) to Schedule III (legal to sell under some circumstances) is going to hit the reset button on state laws around cannabis. That seems unlikely, the states are already ignoring the feds on this, this is just a step the feds are taking to bring the federal legal landscape closer to the state landscape. The major changes will simply be, as others ha…

Imo the states get far too much revenue from recreational taxes and I imagine the Fed doesn't want that to change either.

It's really just a few dinosaur pearl clutchers that are preventing it from being descheduled entirely

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#405

Post by SoftTalker »

hollerith wrote: post #250
joecool1029 wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope all these small/mid sized businesses don’t get gulped up by big tobacco or other mega corps Calling it: CVS and Walgreens will move into the medical market for this. You think these little shops will be able to process health insurance payments when that sector gets in on it? lol

I bet that in the US, no health insurer will ever pay for an insured person's marijuana.

I agree it's unlikely. THC may have some medical uses, but smoking it certainly does not.

Perhaps gummies/edibles would be covered under some circumstances -- but to be a prescription or even an OTC "medication" it has to go through FDA approval to demonstrate efficacy and document the side effects, and it will have to be manufactured to pharmaceutical standards of potency and purity, which will make it more expensive.

I think it will most likely be like alcohol: sold for recreational use, age-restricted, and not medical.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#406

Post by tootie »

krapp wrote: post #387
tootie wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By current polls, I mean the ones showing Trump even or slightly ahead of Biden despite him being directly responsible for Dobbs. If 2/3 of the public wanted abortion rights, Biden would have 2/3 of the popular vote, but he won't get anywhere near that. Hence, most people don't want Roe reinstated. QED.

>If 2/3 of the public wanted abortion rights, Biden would have 2/3 of the popular vote, but he won't get anywhere near that. Hence, most people don't want Roe reinstated. QED. That isn't the way people work. Or voting. Or polls.

It is the only practical measure of true public opinion. You can also, by extension, infer that roughly 47% of Americans think sexual assault is acceptable and that democracy is undesirable. It may not be what they say or even what they think but it is reflected in what they do.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#407

Post by cogman10 »

dingnuts wrote: post #360
consumer451 wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?…

the wording of the questions aren't good, but the states that have recently banned it certainly seem to be catering to the 13% who say illegal under all circumstances, due to the extremeness of the actual laws passed before Roe was overturned I would have considered myself pro life because I don't believe in late term abortions, but with the new legal landscape I've become effectively pro choice because the new laws…

> pro life because I don't believe in late term abortions

So something that you'd probably be interested in are the turn away studies.

https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-study

The studies ask questions of people seeking abortions who ultimately can't because the law prohibits their abortion (usually because they waited too long).

One interesting finding of this study is that a big reason people wait too long is because getting to an abortion clinic is just too hard. In the Roe world, in some very large states like Texas there were just 1 or 2 abortion clinics for the entire state.

Late term abortions have never really been very common. That's because as you get later in the process, just doing a c section and adoption would generally be the more preferred route. When they do happen, it's pretty much always due to non-viability of the fetus.

And, this isn't directed to you, but another fascinating part of the turn away studies is that it's fairly common for people seeking abortions to be in long term relationships with children. For those people, financially supporting another child isn't really an option and adoption is really socially taboo. (Imagine explaining why you aren't pregnant anymore and why you don't have an infant child).

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#408

Post by triceratops »

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.

Abortion bans have been extremely unpopular in every state where they have gone on the ballot. Even deep red ones. I'd be curious to see what happens if every state holds a referendum on it.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kansas_abortion_referendu...

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2023_Ohio_Issue_1

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#409

Post by kbelder »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #39
segasaturn wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course not, that's how democracy works! My actual issue with this is: a) it should have been done sooner. Waiting until $election_year to do something popular has severely damaged the growth of cannabis industry and b) it's another executive branch rule by decree that could be reversed as soon as 6 months from now after election day.

> it should have been done sooner. Not everyone agrees though. I don't want it legalized or normalized more.

I wish it was completely legal and completely non-normalized.

Re: US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

#410

Post by CPLX »

umvi wrote: post #101
CPLX wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some day someone will explain what “normalizing” means, specifically what people mean by the “don’t normalize X” construction. Pretty sure between Dr. Dre and Willie Nelson weed got normalized decades ago by any definition I understand.

"Normalize" in this sense means "to make culturally acceptable". A thing can be legal but still be taboo, for example, in Japan tattoos are legal but you might get discriminated against at an onsen if the owner doesn't want tattoos on display in their establishment. Weed might be "normalized" in some communities, but a large portion of Americans will silently judge you if you are a recreational drug user regardless o…

Well yeah. But thats why the premise makes no sense. At this point weed is as culturally acceptable as anything else as far as I can tell. And I travel a lot, that's true in Texas and NYC and wherever else.
Post reply on HN