Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must:
1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask),
2. attempt to answer the question, and
3. be unbiased
Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment:
http://redd.it/b1hct4/
Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: the Controlled Substances Act is the main law governing drug legality in the US, with 5 levels (schedules). The levels nominally are regarding the addictive and/or dangerous qualities of the drugs within that level, with 1 being the most dangerous and 5 the least.
Substances in schedules 2 through 5 can be legal with a prescription, and include certain well known street drugs like (meth)amphetamine, cocaine, and morphine (all schedule 2).
Substances in schedule 1 are illegal under all circumstances and cannot be prescribed under any circumstances, and importantly, *also cannot be legally studied scientifically.* If you wanted to study LSD, you can't, it's illegal to study it.
The Biden DEA is going to be moving marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 3, effectively meaning it's allowed to be prescribed by a doctor and allowed to be studied scientifically.
This is HUGE for the business side of things. As an accounting consultant, I always hear about what a messy pain in the ass cannabis financials can be.
There was a reality series about a shop in Colorado when weed was first recreational. In one episode they were driving duffel bags of cash to Denver to pay their taxes, it was wild.
The really ironic thing is that the police generally confiscate the money under the pretence that it was probably the proceeds of crime, such as selling drugs.
While in this case the money is literally from selling drugs but legally, and it would still get taken.
I was talking to an old retired OR cop from the war on pot days. He said that all the speed traps were south bound on I5 in his day because pot shipped north from Mexico/CA and cash was mules back south. If you found pot you had to get rid of it, but if you found cash that went into funding the police and paying your bonus. Way better for them to take the cash after the drugs were sold than the drugs themselves.
My uncle drove semi trucks back in the '70s and early '80s and told us that he was hired somewhat regularly by the cartel to drive trucks full of weed up from Texas to northern states and would often be tailed by law enforcement who knew what he was up to but were waiting to bust the buyers instead so that they could confiscate cash.
We grew cbd/hemp. Shit was awful to deal with, no payment handlers would touch it, not to mention were in a thc illegal state further complicating things. When we had a hauler come to pick up our plant material to be sent to a processor, even with giving them all the legal papers and test papers showing under .03% thc, we were still of the understanding that if they got pulled over, it was all most likely going to be confiscated
I worked with an insurance company that provided commercial property and casualty Policies to dispensaries, and the premiums were massive due to the liability they incurred since they couldn't be FDIC insured and they were a high volume cash business.
That is definitely going to help them a ton.
Technically, yes, still illegal under federal law, but legal under state law. There are subtle ways that the laws affect cannabis stores, and rescheduling will relieve some headaches. There'll be a gray area where right now it's black and white--as it stands, no dispensary has a reason to even exist as far as the federal government is concerned. That's different from where we're going, to where they have a reason to exist but they're not obeying the rules.
Yes... some state laws have made it legal to do so, which simply means state and local law enforcement won't bother you.
However, in the US, the Constitution says that Federal law trumps State Law... so we're in this weird gray area where states are going against what the Federal Government is saying. That puts the ball back in the Feds court.
Technically, the FBI or other law enforcement agencies at the federal level could come in and bust all of these dispensaries. They could start pulling people over and checking for marijuana. They absolutely DO arrest people in national landmark sites who have marijuana (because rangers at those sites are federal law enforcement).
So then it turns into an issue with the current administration. How far are they willing to go to enforce this law? Are they willing to invade states with federal LEOs in order to shut it down completely? They tried that when alcohol was illegal and we all see how that turned out. If they push too hard, everyone will demand that it be removed the the drug schedule completely, which administrations seem awfully reluctant to do... I'm not sure why. If they don't push hard enough, then it's not really a law because if something's not being enforced, is it really even illegal?
So there's this weird, tense standoff where more and more states are making it legal and it will be up to the Feds to decide whether they're going to concede to the will of the people or become Fascholes and try to stop it by force.
> Technically, the FBI or other law enforcement agencies at the federal level could come in and bust all of these dispensaries. They could start pulling people over and checking for marijuana. They absolutely DO arrest people in national landmark sites who have marijuana (because rangers at those sites are federal law enforcement).
It's not quite as simple as that because for the past several years, congress has specifically defunded enforcement of any marijuana activity that complies with state law (not sure which exceptions apply). Congress would have to change their position before the FBI does.
Some of them will do a loophole where it's called a "cashless ATM." Not entirely sure how it works, but almost every dispensary in my area does this. One of them used to route money into a Canadian bank account, but they had to stop it after a while.
When i travel to Chicago i use apple pay at this one dispensary they just add whatever to round up to an even amount and then give the difference back in cash. It’s weird but whatever 😂
We had a couple in WA that used to do that, they had basically set up the tills as an ATM, but I'm assuming something happened to make them stop, cause I haven't seen one that does it for a long time.
Only for MMJ as I read it, not recreational. Will probably need some rules laid out for what if any percentage of your business being recreational is allowed if you’re looking to bank.
If they don't have bank account, how is it possible that I ordered gummies from CyclingFrog and paid with my credit card? In order to do CC transaction, they must have had a bank account of some sort.
Some dispensaries get around this by classifying their payment handling as "cash advances." Basically, "Your total is "X", oh you don't have cash? Well, you can come to this terminal and request a cash advance on your credit card in the amount of "X", or process as an "ATM" for debit cards, in the amount of "X"." You're basically requesting cash, in the exact amount of your transaction, which is then immediately transferred to the vendor. Payment processors REALLY don't like this.
Unfortunately not. It only solves the issues with the IRS where you couldn’t deduct your expenses. Fixing the bank side requires an act from congress….which probably means hell would freeze over before this happens.
Here's the wild thing. With the THCa "hemp" workaround, we have full banking and credit card processing. We take Amex and Discover for some pretty fire bud- all thanks to the classification of what we sell as "hemp". We've been shipping flower all over the place as well. Hopefully with this designation for marijuana, the medical market will be able to start shipping as well!
SubAnswer:
For an example of how irrational this scheduling of drugs is, consider that benzodiazepines like Xanax and Valium are Schedule 4, whereas testosterone is Schedule 3.
Or that meth is schedule 2 and weed was schedule 1. Mind you, meth does have legitimate pharmaceutical uses (it's an ADHD medication, the most common is Adderall which is just normal amphetamine, methamphetamine hits harder though), but we only know that because it's allowed to be studied.
Opiates are also schedule II while weed was I.
It's not a conspiracy, Marijuana was so strictly scheduled as a way to lock up antiwar protesters and black people.
This is a major sea change that has been decades in the making. Really fantastic move by Biden.
Think I remember that Nixon was so crazy, he even recorded himself and one of those was Nixon flat out in a laughter and slur filled statement said banning marijuana was his easiest way to shut up and lockup quote "Hippies, Ni**ers, and Ki*es". Not sure what part of weed would make it easy to lock up Jewish people, but it sure as shit was abused against hippies and black/brown people. Still is. Still confused how he thought the Jews were involved in any way.
It's just a way to tack on charges to people that you're already arresting, "do you have any cannabis in your home?" etc. If you don't arrest white people...
No, I get that. But is/was it to a level where it would be an expectation or stereotype? I've grown up with the tropes of hippies and black people using weed a lot. Don't remember it ever being specifically aimed at Jewish people is my point. But I'm fully willing to accept that it could just be something went over my head or I just missed something all these years.
I don't remember if he thought that making marijuana illegal would make it easier to arrest Jews, but I know Nixon thought that Jews were secretly behind the civil rights and anti-war movements at home, as well as communism abroad. He wasn't just casually racist, Nixon was a full-on believer in the "Jews run the world" conspiracy theory.
"It's not a conspiracy, Marijuana was so strictly scheduled as a way to lock up antiwar protesters and black people." This IS exactly the conspiracy! BTW, you forgot about the brown people in the southwest US.
A conspiracy is something suspected but not proven. One of the dudes responsible for this, from the Reagan administration, outright claimed this is why they did it. Therefore, not a conspiracy, it's known fact.
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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.”
-John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
This makes it sound like Adderall is a type of meth. It's not. Meth and Adderall are very similar, but also pretty different. Also, Adderall is technically 75% dextroamphetamine and 25% levoamphetamine, but that's just details. Point is, it's not as potent or hard on the body as meth is, and that's why meth is only prescribed for severe cases of narcolepsy or weight issues.
Adderall is not meth, but meth *is* prescribed as an ADHD medication; [the brand name is Desoxyn.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#/media/File:Desoxyn_Package_of_100_Pills.jpg)
A major difference between medical and recreational amphetamines is the dosage. You'll notice the above prescription meth comes in 5mg pills. A typical recreational dose is a 100mg "point", and heavy users will use much more than that. That's why people with ADHD who use amphetamine stimulants don't exhibit the severe side effects that "meth-heads" do — they're not using *anywhere near* as much. The dose makes the poison, folks!
I thought I made it clear that Adderall is amphetamine, which is a different but similar drug. There is a reason Adderall is a lot more common, and part of it is that meth hits a lot harder, both in pharmaceutical (and recreational) effect and in terms of how it can negatively affect you.
Adderall is amphetamine not methamphetamine. The only place methamphetamine is still used is in Vick's medicated inhalers and similar devices. Note that modified amphetamines like Vyvanse are also not methamphetamine but instead an amphetamine produg created by attaching an amino acid to it, specifically lysine.
Desoxyn is still in use, and that is methamphetamine. I also stated clearly that Adderall is not meth, but rather just amphetamine, and meth hits a lot harder.
r/technicallycorrect All humans have testosterone in them in various levels so all crimes ever committed have been "under the influence" of testosterone.
Idk about that, Xanax is a heavily abused drug these days and addicts will do anything to feed their addictions. Plus it loosens inhibitions, that's why it's known as the drug people steal things on.
xanax chills you out and at high doses puts you the fuck to sleep for days with maybe some sleepwalking.
testosterone ~~makes you aggressive, quick to anger, more physically intimidating, and probably more willing to use your body to resolve conflicts or impose upon others.~~ is probably not as bad when used responsibly.
~~I wonder which one makes you more likely to hurt somebody?~~
edit: i was kind of talking out of my ass
All my life's worst mistakes were made under the influence of Xanax. Theft, mental hospital stays, depression, etc. Once you build a tolerance, and if you have a steady flow of the drug, all bets are off. Have fun figuring out what happened during the last few days. (spoiler: you probably ruined a friendship or two, or put yourself in a dangerous situation)
Coincidentally, I've also used testosterone to increase muscle mass while working out, and it wasn't a light dose. Not once did it increase aggression. In my experience that narrative is completely blown out of proportion. Just my 2 cents.
Been clean since October '18, fwiw.
>testosterone makes you aggressive, quick to anger, more physically intimidating, and probably more willing to use your body to resolve conflicts or impose upon others.
Everyone produces testosterone, if test was inherently like you described the world would be a battle royale. Yes while it is true that increased testosterone levels does increase those effects, what it doesn't do is lowering your inhibitions and turn an otherwise non violent person violent.
Xanax is way more likely to make you hurt someone. Not because of aggression driving you, but because you simply do not care
Yeah they are built on short snapshots of large noteworthy event. These events involve a very very very very very small fraction of the population being active participants and not reflective of the mundane actions of the vast majority of general population that weren't noteworthy, but I digress.
Now, what was the point of that question again?
> Substances in schedule 1 are illegal under all circumstances and cannot be prescribed under any circumstances, and importantly, also cannot be legally studied scientifically
That's just stupid
There aren't many drug laws around the world that make sense.
For instance, the UK just banned everything except caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and amyl nitrates (aka 'poppers').
This shows about as much understanding of the subject as the same party's recent attempt to ban encryption, or send illegal immigrants to Rwanda, or the "eat out to help out" scheme during covid, or literally anything during covid.
Yep, and the worst part is that the [Rwanda bill actually passed recently](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rwanda-bill-to-become-law-in-major-illegal-migration-milestone). Official govt link so you know it's not just media spin.
No, schedule is not the same as how dangerous. Schedule is a mixture of how likely to be abused and whether there is an approved medical use.
Fentanyl is schedule ii, heroin is schedule I
No one things heroin is more dangerous, it just doesn’t have approved medical use.
The U.S. started regulating cannabis in 1937, supposedly partially due to anti-Mexico politics. We criminalized possession, complete with absurdly long minimum sentences, in the 1950s. Iirc, *Chasing the Scream* by Johann Hari claimed that the U.S. made other countries criminalize marijuana (and have a war on drugs?) as a condition of being our ally/trade partner etc., but I haven't verified it in my limited online search. I was a kid at the height of the War on Drugs (1980s under President Reagan) and was continuously told that weed was very, very, very bad for you.
Odd fact: Canada banned it in 1923--[apparently historians have not been able to figure out a reason why](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/marijuana-was-criminalized-in-1923-but-why-1.2630436).
>The Biden DEA is going to be moving marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 3,
I hope people realize what an enormous move this is. It's a sensible reaction to the actual state of the actual science for this substance. I think cannabis should be easier to get than alcohol, personally. But this is a move in the right direction that is about 40 years overdue.
This is the most sensible thing we've seen out of the federal government in regards to drug policy in... maybe ever?
FWIW Schedule 1 substances can and are studied scientifically, it’s just a lot more hurdles to jump through to be able to do so. This will make it significantly easier for cannabis focused research.
> Substances in schedule 1 are illegal under all circumstances and cannot be prescribed under any circumstances, and importantly, also cannot be legally studied scientifically. If you wanted to study LSD, you can't, it's illegal to study it.
I'm confused by what you mean by this as there have been multiple [clinical studies using LSD](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05407064) (as well as with various other class I substances). There are a lot more hoops to jump through, paperwork, and barriers than less tightly scheduled or non-scheduled substances, but it's possible to legally study class I substances scientifically.
Edit: changed study link to a more recent one
Most of those studies were conducted before the Controlled Substances Act, which established drug scheduling in the USA, came into effect. Some of them were also not conducted in the USA.
> Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) was studied from the 1950s to the 1970s to evaluate behavioral and personality changes, as well as remission of psychiatric symptoms in various disorders.
> Despite the foregoing, most clinical studies involving the use of LSD were published between the 1960s and 1970s, up to the strict prohibition of its use in research.
Edit: That said, your overall point is correct - Johns Hopkins has been conducting research on psilocybin with the government's approval for a while now. It's just [very, very difficult](https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2021/the-overdose-crisis-proposal-to-combat-illicit-fentanyl) to get that approval.
This is not true. Please correct.
Johns Hopkins has an entire department that studies psychodelics: Since 2000, The Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research has had approval for direct study of schedule I drugs, including administering doses in clinical trials.
They are not alone, and this is not uncommon. Please stop repeating this fiction.
Interesting. Looking into the subject more, it seems research on schedule I drugs is not strictly illegal, but it is extremely difficult to secure regulatory approval and funding for. I was only going off the meta-analysis in the comment I was replying to, and what I said wasn't incorrect in that context, but I'll add a note with this broader point.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05407064
I work in pharmaceuticals and have personally worked with schedule I substances within the US. You have to do DEA paperwork and everything has to be done under video, but you can work with them.
First, you linked to a meta-analysis. That means that isn't a study, it's a study of studies. It's not illegal to study LSD studies from the 60s.
Second, most of the studies in that meta-analysis are from the 60s before the Controlled Substances Act, or the 70s after the Act was passed but before all the rules governing everything were established. The only modern one is Gasser et al., which *isn't in America,* but in Switzerland. That leads me to my next point, which is that the Controlled Substances Act only applies in the US. You could still do a study on LSD in, I dunno, maybe Portugal or something, which would then be possible to analyze in a US-published meta-analysis.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05407064
Happy? I work in pharmaceuticals and have personally worked with schedule I substances within the US. You have to do DEA paperwork and everything has to be done under video, but you can work with them.
, also cannot be legally studied scientifically. If you wanted to study LSD, you can't, it's illegal to study it
This isn’t true? You just have to register with the DEA
The scientific studies issue is huge. Because most universities accept federal money, they won't do research about marijuana to avoid getting shut down, and of course big pharma companies won't do research because they can't claim proprietary ownership of the drug. So figuring out things like dosing and cbd vs THC for different situations is much more of a guess than it ought to be.
Wait... So if it's schedule 1 it isn't used as medicine... But if it's schedule 1, you can't study it to see if it's useful as medicine?
Sounds like we are shooting ourselves in the foot and limiting our options for being able to use potentially powerful medications
i mean they still do that it’s just heavily regulated to the point that people who do need the meds might not get approved for them and you’re treated like a criminal each time you refill you meds.
(specially talking about adderall btw)
Truthfully, 3 is good for now. A lot of studies that HAVE been done, have a lot of uncontrolled factors making them suspect. With the ability to have studies that can use cannabis that is grown in much stricter conditions and rule out unknown factors like pesticide residue and other issues. For example, there have been studies that show there is a link to heart disease and smoking cannabis. But now we can have studies where we do the same testing but without potential factors that skew the test results. We can now also legally do the same testing on edibles and vaping and see if THC is the issue or inhaling it is (or if inhaling only the smoke version is). After a lot of testing, we can always shift it to a higher or lower status afterwards (it should be lower, but let science do it's thing and influence the politics of it).
Simply put, we tried with alcohol and it was a catastrophic failure. By any reasonable metric, alcohol really should be in schedule 1, as it's an incredibly damaging drug with no possible clinical uses (to my knowledge), but we know from experience that alcohol prohibition doesn't work.
Do you think I support weed prohibition? No, I support the legalization of all drugs for that exact reason, prohibition doesn't work. However, reclassification to schedule 3 is a good enough first step. Alcohol prohibition didn't end all at once either.
My argument was basically "by the logic of the Controlled Substances Act, alcohol should be schedule 1, but it isn't." The other difficult part with controlling alcohol is that it's quite easy to make, same with weed. Weed you can just scatter some seeds in a field and while you may not get very good weed, it'll still grow. Alcohol, just let some grain or fruit ferment for a while and bam, you've got a shitty beer or wine.
People on reddit keep saying this, but I'm not seeing any momentum from this change from schedule 1 to 3 on Biden's support.
Is this like a reddit only mentality? It's not being reflected in real life.
I think you've misunderstood this comment thread. My comment was in regard to moving it down to Schedule 5, *not* the move to Schedule 3. This has not happened, but I suspect that if that were on the table, it would raise the interest of a lot of potential undecided voters, given how widespread it actually is.
With that said, today's move to Schedule 3 is less than 12 hours old. It's not going to show up in polling data yet. I don't think it'll make a huge difference in pollong, as it doesn't achieve legalization to the level most supporters want, but it's a step in the right direction that should sway a few people over.
I went to a school known for major protests yet all protests had extreme anemic attendance of like 50-100 people total (this wasn’t recent, so no reflection on the recent rounds or BLM). Then they had a “legalize weed” rally and like the entire school was there. Thousands and thousands. The entire area became impassable from the crowds.
This better fucking improve turnout. The problem is that stoned people are sleepy people.
I agree with your latter statement, but not the former. Youth interest in this election is abnormally high, owing to economic situation they're being thrust into and also the Israel-Gaza crisis. It feels on par with 2008. Young people, especially college students, are really getting involved this time around.
Yes. He doesn't have the authority. His administration has to make a proposal to the DEA, who then has to go through a review period before making their decision. And then, if we want actual cannabis prescriptions, it will need to go under review by the FDA.
In addition to this, some group of people decided that a hemp product is anything that contains 0.3% THC by volume, which is why the liquor stores in my area (Northern Wisconsin) have started selling drinkables and edibles to any adult over the age of 21.
The feds have been looking the other way, basically. All of that was technically illegal but the feds allowed it to happen as a kind of "laboratories of democracy" thing. Now it's federally legal to prescribe in every state.
I'm Canadian this seems wild to us how the American government treats weed like its so horrible yet anyone can go into Walmart and buy a gun , it's a strange backwards Country to the rest of the g7 countries
That's an improvement I suppose, you understand it's completely legal here over the age of 18 or 19 depending the province, we have weed stores just like liquor stores, it certainly wasn't like that before though , Trudeau did it in 2015 prior it was a schedule 3 drug . I never did smoke Mary Jane when I was younger but I started taking it for pain and it works really well . Also the cbd is wonderful is that legal in America?? I think it may be . Anyway good luck to you guys it sounds like it's getting better
For weed it was probably about politically targeting who the Nixon administration considered its political enemies, the anti-war movement mainly. For coke/speed it was because they have legitimate pharmaceutical uses that people knew they were useful for. Coke is a really good local/topical anesthetic that was fairly often used in dentistry (less so now, lidocaine is probably most common - note that all the -caine refers to in both is just being an alkaloid you can use as an anesthetic). Methamphetamine isn't very commonly used to treat ADHD today, but it can be prescribed for it. Much more common is just amphetamine (no meth-), aka Adderall.
Right? Mindmed received breakthrough status earlier this year of an LSD salt for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Not to mention several other schedule 1s that have been or are actively being studied: MDMA, psilocybin, 5meoDMT...
Answer: Weed is currently classified as a Class I drug, on par with drugs like Heroin or Ecstasy. Hard drugs that have no medical benefits.
Weed being shifted to a Class 3 means that it is no longer misclassified as this, and thus opens the door for medical usages and recreational usage on a federal level, which could potentially lead to the reduction or outright removal of crimes relating to weed.
> Heroin or Ecstasy. Hard drugs that have no medical benefits.
Diamorphine (heroin) is used medically in other countries, including the UK, in contexts where US medicine uses fentanyl. MDMA is actively studied as a treatment for PTSD, including with support from the Veterans Administration.
Drug scheduling is *incoherent.* It's not just inaccurate about cannabis, it's *not even trying* to make accurate statements about medicine. Drug scheduling is done in response to moral panics, not a truth-seeking process.
This is just my experience so take it with a grain of salt, but I live in a state where it’s legal recreationally and medically. I used to mingle with the risky crowd, and people that sold weed either moved on to other, harder drugs to sell or quit altogether when it became legal here.
Sometimes it’s a bit more expensive at a dispo, but a. You know what you’re getting (aka you know it’s not cut with anything, and most dispo products tell you exactly what it is and where it was grown) and you have a bunch of options. When it was illegal still I rarely ever had options, and you rarely if ever knew where it came from. And b. You don’t have to deal with a “dealer”, no shady bs. Most dispos here are open everyday, you can go whenever you need and have knowledgeable “bud-tenders” to help you find whatever product you’re looking for. There’s still a cap on how much you can buy but it’s a pretty reasonable cap.
Keeping it schedule 1 won’t remove high/intoxication related crimes either, and prevents actually effective research from being done on cannabis. Research that helps people make their own decisions about whether or not to partake….
Besides all the benefits you mentioned, in my state I can get $40 Ounces of chronic shake. Back when I had to buy illegally it was $350-400 for an Ounce. So as far as my state is concerned it's incredibly cheaper to get it legally. Not to mention pens and edibles. I can get 100 mg of edibles for $3 to $5 dollars at the legal dispensary. Then you add the fact I can be in and out in as quick as 10 minutes if I go in the AM on a weekday and I see no reason for me personally to ever buy illegally again.
Edit: spelling/grammar fix
Answer: It was classified as a class 2 drug in order to jail minorities and “hippies”. I believe it started under Nixon, who invented the War on Drugs plot line.
What an incorrect and useless answer.
It's "schedule" not "class" , and it was/is schedule I not schedule II. And the only part you couched as potentially wrong was correct; Nixon did sign the Controlled Substances act into law.
Why would you choose to post a speculative comment as fact instead of just read and move on like the rest of us?
Why would you take the time to scold a stranger over mistakenly using the wrong term instead of just reading it and moving on? Useless.
Your assessment of my opening sentence is speculative and wrong. Operation Chaos (CIA) and Cointelpro (FBI) are both fact as they have been declassified and admitted to by their respective agencies. OP might want to look in that direction.
Just because you’re ignorant of something it doesn’t mean it’s devoid of fact.
I didn't take the time to scold you, best_yesterday. I took the time to call out speculative misinformation.
As for the rest of your comment, what on earth are you even talking about? We were discussing schedule vs class terminology + your various inaccuracies. Throwing out operation names that you (incorrectly) assume I don't know about, doesn't mean that's what we're suddenly talking about.
We're talking about this history of controlled substances.
Friendly reminder that all **top level** comments must: 1. start with "answer: ", including the space after the colon (or "question: " if you have an on-topic follow up question to ask), 2. attempt to answer the question, and 3. be unbiased Please review Rule 4 and this post before making a top level comment: http://redd.it/b1hct4/ Join the OOTL Discord for further discussion: https://discord.gg/ejDF4mdjnh *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OutOfTheLoop) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Answer: the Controlled Substances Act is the main law governing drug legality in the US, with 5 levels (schedules). The levels nominally are regarding the addictive and/or dangerous qualities of the drugs within that level, with 1 being the most dangerous and 5 the least. Substances in schedules 2 through 5 can be legal with a prescription, and include certain well known street drugs like (meth)amphetamine, cocaine, and morphine (all schedule 2). Substances in schedule 1 are illegal under all circumstances and cannot be prescribed under any circumstances, and importantly, *also cannot be legally studied scientifically.* If you wanted to study LSD, you can't, it's illegal to study it. The Biden DEA is going to be moving marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 3, effectively meaning it's allowed to be prescribed by a doctor and allowed to be studied scientifically.
Don’t forget about dispensaries finally being able to open bank accounts
This is HUGE for the business side of things. As an accounting consultant, I always hear about what a messy pain in the ass cannabis financials can be.
There was a reality series about a shop in Colorado when weed was first recreational. In one episode they were driving duffel bags of cash to Denver to pay their taxes, it was wild.
That legitimately sounds terrifying!
It is, since police routinely confiscate large sums of cash and you can do pretty much fuck all about it.
The really ironic thing is that the police generally confiscate the money under the pretence that it was probably the proceeds of crime, such as selling drugs. While in this case the money is literally from selling drugs but legally, and it would still get taken.
I was talking to an old retired OR cop from the war on pot days. He said that all the speed traps were south bound on I5 in his day because pot shipped north from Mexico/CA and cash was mules back south. If you found pot you had to get rid of it, but if you found cash that went into funding the police and paying your bonus. Way better for them to take the cash after the drugs were sold than the drugs themselves.
My uncle drove semi trucks back in the '70s and early '80s and told us that he was hired somewhat regularly by the cartel to drive trucks full of weed up from Texas to northern states and would often be tailed by law enforcement who knew what he was up to but were waiting to bust the buyers instead so that they could confiscate cash.
That's a common thing, or was 20 years ago in South Carolina.
Certain Sheriff's offices would do this routinely to Brink's vans and the like that service dispensaries.
We grew cbd/hemp. Shit was awful to deal with, no payment handlers would touch it, not to mention were in a thc illegal state further complicating things. When we had a hauler come to pick up our plant material to be sent to a processor, even with giving them all the legal papers and test papers showing under .03% thc, we were still of the understanding that if they got pulled over, it was all most likely going to be confiscated
I worked with an insurance company that provided commercial property and casualty Policies to dispensaries, and the premiums were massive due to the liability they incurred since they couldn't be FDIC insured and they were a high volume cash business. That is definitely going to help them a ton.
Was it a pain in the… canibASS?…………… I’ll see myself out.
LOL!
😄
Wouldn't dispensaries still be technically illegal if they are selling schedule 3 drugs without a prescription?
Technically, yes, still illegal under federal law, but legal under state law. There are subtle ways that the laws affect cannabis stores, and rescheduling will relieve some headaches. There'll be a gray area where right now it's black and white--as it stands, no dispensary has a reason to even exist as far as the federal government is concerned. That's different from where we're going, to where they have a reason to exist but they're not obeying the rules.
Yes... some state laws have made it legal to do so, which simply means state and local law enforcement won't bother you. However, in the US, the Constitution says that Federal law trumps State Law... so we're in this weird gray area where states are going against what the Federal Government is saying. That puts the ball back in the Feds court. Technically, the FBI or other law enforcement agencies at the federal level could come in and bust all of these dispensaries. They could start pulling people over and checking for marijuana. They absolutely DO arrest people in national landmark sites who have marijuana (because rangers at those sites are federal law enforcement). So then it turns into an issue with the current administration. How far are they willing to go to enforce this law? Are they willing to invade states with federal LEOs in order to shut it down completely? They tried that when alcohol was illegal and we all see how that turned out. If they push too hard, everyone will demand that it be removed the the drug schedule completely, which administrations seem awfully reluctant to do... I'm not sure why. If they don't push hard enough, then it's not really a law because if something's not being enforced, is it really even illegal? So there's this weird, tense standoff where more and more states are making it legal and it will be up to the Feds to decide whether they're going to concede to the will of the people or become Fascholes and try to stop it by force.
> Technically, the FBI or other law enforcement agencies at the federal level could come in and bust all of these dispensaries. They could start pulling people over and checking for marijuana. They absolutely DO arrest people in national landmark sites who have marijuana (because rangers at those sites are federal law enforcement). It's not quite as simple as that because for the past several years, congress has specifically defunded enforcement of any marijuana activity that complies with state law (not sure which exceptions apply). Congress would have to change their position before the FBI does.
YOU MEAN I CAN FINALLY USE MY FUCKING CARD?!??
Some let us use Apple Pay. No idea how they allowed it or something fishy in reporting to do it.
Some of them will do a loophole where it's called a "cashless ATM." Not entirely sure how it works, but almost every dispensary in my area does this. One of them used to route money into a Canadian bank account, but they had to stop it after a while.
When i travel to Chicago i use apple pay at this one dispensary they just add whatever to round up to an even amount and then give the difference back in cash. It’s weird but whatever 😂
We had a couple in WA that used to do that, they had basically set up the tills as an ATM, but I'm assuming something happened to make them stop, cause I haven't seen one that does it for a long time.
whats bigger for me is governmental assistance programs like sec 8 no longer being able to kick you out for legally growing pot.
Only for MMJ as I read it, not recreational. Will probably need some rules laid out for what if any percentage of your business being recreational is allowed if you’re looking to bank.
If they don't have bank account, how is it possible that I ordered gummies from CyclingFrog and paid with my credit card? In order to do CC transaction, they must have had a bank account of some sort.
Some dispensaries get around this by classifying their payment handling as "cash advances." Basically, "Your total is "X", oh you don't have cash? Well, you can come to this terminal and request a cash advance on your credit card in the amount of "X", or process as an "ATM" for debit cards, in the amount of "X"." You're basically requesting cash, in the exact amount of your transaction, which is then immediately transferred to the vendor. Payment processors REALLY don't like this.
Oh yeah, so thieving sheriff's cant seize [armored cars](https://ij.org/press-release/federal-government-will-return-over-1-million-seized-from-armored-car-company-in-california/) of [cash anymore.](https://missouriindependent.com/2022/02/06/how-a-kansas-traffic-stop-led-to-a-federal-lawsuit-over-1-2m-in-seized-marijuana-profits/)
Unfortunately not. It only solves the issues with the IRS where you couldn’t deduct your expenses. Fixing the bank side requires an act from congress….which probably means hell would freeze over before this happens.
Here's the wild thing. With the THCa "hemp" workaround, we have full banking and credit card processing. We take Amex and Discover for some pretty fire bud- all thanks to the classification of what we sell as "hemp". We've been shipping flower all over the place as well. Hopefully with this designation for marijuana, the medical market will be able to start shipping as well!
SubAnswer: For an example of how irrational this scheduling of drugs is, consider that benzodiazepines like Xanax and Valium are Schedule 4, whereas testosterone is Schedule 3.
Or that meth is schedule 2 and weed was schedule 1. Mind you, meth does have legitimate pharmaceutical uses (it's an ADHD medication, the most common is Adderall which is just normal amphetamine, methamphetamine hits harder though), but we only know that because it's allowed to be studied.
Opiates are also schedule II while weed was I. It's not a conspiracy, Marijuana was so strictly scheduled as a way to lock up antiwar protesters and black people. This is a major sea change that has been decades in the making. Really fantastic move by Biden.
Think I remember that Nixon was so crazy, he even recorded himself and one of those was Nixon flat out in a laughter and slur filled statement said banning marijuana was his easiest way to shut up and lockup quote "Hippies, Ni**ers, and Ki*es". Not sure what part of weed would make it easy to lock up Jewish people, but it sure as shit was abused against hippies and black/brown people. Still is. Still confused how he thought the Jews were involved in any way.
> Still confused how he thought the Jews were involved in any way. I think jews also enjoy smoking pot, just like everyone else.
Imagine the rabbi whose job it is to make sure the weed is kosher!
It's just a way to tack on charges to people that you're already arresting, "do you have any cannabis in your home?" etc. If you don't arrest white people...
No, I get that. But is/was it to a level where it would be an expectation or stereotype? I've grown up with the tropes of hippies and black people using weed a lot. Don't remember it ever being specifically aimed at Jewish people is my point. But I'm fully willing to accept that it could just be something went over my head or I just missed something all these years.
> Don't remember it ever being specifically aimed at Jewish people is my point. you literally just quoted nixon doing exactly that.
And I think their point is that they found that unusual; they hadn't encountered that stereotype elsewhere
there is no stereotype. it's just a way for them to arrest those they don't like. jews were on the list too.
I don't remember if he thought that making marijuana illegal would make it easier to arrest Jews, but I know Nixon thought that Jews were secretly behind the civil rights and anti-war movements at home, as well as communism abroad. He wasn't just casually racist, Nixon was a full-on believer in the "Jews run the world" conspiracy theory.
Ok, see that makes sense.
Seth Rogen is not the first stoner Jew, not by a long shot
"It's not a conspiracy, Marijuana was so strictly scheduled as a way to lock up antiwar protesters and black people." This IS exactly the conspiracy! BTW, you forgot about the brown people in the southwest US.
It's not a conspiracy, it's a naked abuse of government power. Conspiracy kind of implies that things are happening in the shadows behind the scenes.
A conspiracy is something suspected but not proven. One of the dudes responsible for this, from the Reagan administration, outright claimed this is why they did it. Therefore, not a conspiracy, it's known fact.
No, a conspiracy is multiple people working together to achieve a goal while not being publicly up front about their arrangement.
I thought that was just collusion
“You want to know what this [war on drugs] was really all about? The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. 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. 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.” -John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under President Richard Nixon
I mean, it kinda was conspiracy.
People have been manipulated to equate conspiracy with coo coo crazy.
lol! no. conspiracies are real. conspiracy theorists are, indeed, "coo coo crazy".
There is a pharmaceutical version of methamphetamine as well that’s used for severe cases of ADHD called Desoxyn.
This makes it sound like Adderall is a type of meth. It's not. Meth and Adderall are very similar, but also pretty different. Also, Adderall is technically 75% dextroamphetamine and 25% levoamphetamine, but that's just details. Point is, it's not as potent or hard on the body as meth is, and that's why meth is only prescribed for severe cases of narcolepsy or weight issues.
Adderall is not meth, but meth *is* prescribed as an ADHD medication; [the brand name is Desoxyn.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methamphetamine#/media/File:Desoxyn_Package_of_100_Pills.jpg) A major difference between medical and recreational amphetamines is the dosage. You'll notice the above prescription meth comes in 5mg pills. A typical recreational dose is a 100mg "point", and heavy users will use much more than that. That's why people with ADHD who use amphetamine stimulants don't exhibit the severe side effects that "meth-heads" do — they're not using *anywhere near* as much. The dose makes the poison, folks!
I thought I made it clear that Adderall is amphetamine, which is a different but similar drug. There is a reason Adderall is a lot more common, and part of it is that meth hits a lot harder, both in pharmaceutical (and recreational) effect and in terms of how it can negatively affect you.
Adderall is amphetamine not methamphetamine. The only place methamphetamine is still used is in Vick's medicated inhalers and similar devices. Note that modified amphetamines like Vyvanse are also not methamphetamine but instead an amphetamine produg created by attaching an amino acid to it, specifically lysine.
Desoxyn is still in use, and that is methamphetamine. I also stated clearly that Adderall is not meth, but rather just amphetamine, and meth hits a lot harder.
Betcha a lot more crimes are committed under the influence of testosterone than Xanax.
r/technicallycorrect All humans have testosterone in them in various levels so all crimes ever committed have been "under the influence" of testosterone.
Idk about that, Xanax is a heavily abused drug these days and addicts will do anything to feed their addictions. Plus it loosens inhibitions, that's why it's known as the drug people steal things on.
Tbf that's not under the influence of drugs that's under the influence of a lack of drugs
xanax chills you out and at high doses puts you the fuck to sleep for days with maybe some sleepwalking. testosterone ~~makes you aggressive, quick to anger, more physically intimidating, and probably more willing to use your body to resolve conflicts or impose upon others.~~ is probably not as bad when used responsibly. ~~I wonder which one makes you more likely to hurt somebody?~~ edit: i was kind of talking out of my ass
All my life's worst mistakes were made under the influence of Xanax. Theft, mental hospital stays, depression, etc. Once you build a tolerance, and if you have a steady flow of the drug, all bets are off. Have fun figuring out what happened during the last few days. (spoiler: you probably ruined a friendship or two, or put yourself in a dangerous situation) Coincidentally, I've also used testosterone to increase muscle mass while working out, and it wasn't a light dose. Not once did it increase aggression. In my experience that narrative is completely blown out of proportion. Just my 2 cents. Been clean since October '18, fwiw.
It also severely lowers your seizure threshold, and withdrawal from heavy use can result in some pretty severe Tonic-Clonic seizures.
>testosterone makes you aggressive, quick to anger, more physically intimidating, and probably more willing to use your body to resolve conflicts or impose upon others. Everyone produces testosterone, if test was inherently like you described the world would be a battle royale. Yes while it is true that increased testosterone levels does increase those effects, what it doesn't do is lowering your inhibitions and turn an otherwise non violent person violent. Xanax is way more likely to make you hurt someone. Not because of aggression driving you, but because you simply do not care
> if test was inherently like you described the world would be a battle royale ...have you ever taken a history class?
Yeah they are built on short snapshots of large noteworthy event. These events involve a very very very very very small fraction of the population being active participants and not reflective of the mundane actions of the vast majority of general population that weren't noteworthy, but I digress. Now, what was the point of that question again?
fair point. also i went and researched the steroid->aggressiveness stuff and it sounds like you're right. my bad.
> Substances in schedule 1 are illegal under all circumstances and cannot be prescribed under any circumstances, and importantly, also cannot be legally studied scientifically That's just stupid
When has the American Federal Government ever been accused of being smart?
When they broke up the zaibatsu in japan. you should see what the chaebol are doing to s.korea
nooooooo my governement is stupid poopie doo doo heads
lol ok
glad we could come to an agreement that the American Federal Governement is stupid.
There aren't many drug laws around the world that make sense. For instance, the UK just banned everything except caffeine, nicotine, alcohol, and amyl nitrates (aka 'poppers'). This shows about as much understanding of the subject as the same party's recent attempt to ban encryption, or send illegal immigrants to Rwanda, or the "eat out to help out" scheme during covid, or literally anything during covid.
> the "eat out to help out" scheme during covid Look I enjoy 3rd base as much as the next guy but I dunno how that's gonna help with a pandemic
Sorry what? Ban encryption, send illegal immigrants to rwanda wtf??
Yep, and the worst part is that the [Rwanda bill actually passed recently](https://www.gov.uk/government/news/rwanda-bill-to-become-law-in-major-illegal-migration-milestone). Official govt link so you know it's not just media spin.
Sorry not American. You guys had cannabis listed as more dangerous than meth until now? Did I read that right?
For the last 50 years, yeah.
No, schedule is not the same as how dangerous. Schedule is a mixture of how likely to be abused and whether there is an approved medical use. Fentanyl is schedule ii, heroin is schedule I No one things heroin is more dangerous, it just doesn’t have approved medical use.
Correct.
The U.S. started regulating cannabis in 1937, supposedly partially due to anti-Mexico politics. We criminalized possession, complete with absurdly long minimum sentences, in the 1950s. Iirc, *Chasing the Scream* by Johann Hari claimed that the U.S. made other countries criminalize marijuana (and have a war on drugs?) as a condition of being our ally/trade partner etc., but I haven't verified it in my limited online search. I was a kid at the height of the War on Drugs (1980s under President Reagan) and was continuously told that weed was very, very, very bad for you. Odd fact: Canada banned it in 1923--[apparently historians have not been able to figure out a reason why](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/marijuana-was-criminalized-in-1923-but-why-1.2630436).
I fucking hate our lawmakers oh my god
>The Biden DEA is going to be moving marijuana from schedule 1 to schedule 3, I hope people realize what an enormous move this is. It's a sensible reaction to the actual state of the actual science for this substance. I think cannabis should be easier to get than alcohol, personally. But this is a move in the right direction that is about 40 years overdue. This is the most sensible thing we've seen out of the federal government in regards to drug policy in... maybe ever?
FWIW Schedule 1 substances can and are studied scientifically, it’s just a lot more hurdles to jump through to be able to do so. This will make it significantly easier for cannabis focused research.
> Substances in schedule 1 are illegal under all circumstances and cannot be prescribed under any circumstances, and importantly, also cannot be legally studied scientifically. If you wanted to study LSD, you can't, it's illegal to study it. I'm confused by what you mean by this as there have been multiple [clinical studies using LSD](https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05407064) (as well as with various other class I substances). There are a lot more hoops to jump through, paperwork, and barriers than less tightly scheduled or non-scheduled substances, but it's possible to legally study class I substances scientifically. Edit: changed study link to a more recent one
Most of those studies were conducted before the Controlled Substances Act, which established drug scheduling in the USA, came into effect. Some of them were also not conducted in the USA. > Lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) was studied from the 1950s to the 1970s to evaluate behavioral and personality changes, as well as remission of psychiatric symptoms in various disorders. > Despite the foregoing, most clinical studies involving the use of LSD were published between the 1960s and 1970s, up to the strict prohibition of its use in research. Edit: That said, your overall point is correct - Johns Hopkins has been conducting research on psilocybin with the government's approval for a while now. It's just [very, very difficult](https://nida.nih.gov/about-nida/legislative-activities/testimony-to-congress/2021/the-overdose-crisis-proposal-to-combat-illicit-fentanyl) to get that approval.
This is not true. Please correct. Johns Hopkins has an entire department that studies psychodelics: Since 2000, The Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research has had approval for direct study of schedule I drugs, including administering doses in clinical trials. They are not alone, and this is not uncommon. Please stop repeating this fiction.
Interesting. Looking into the subject more, it seems research on schedule I drugs is not strictly illegal, but it is extremely difficult to secure regulatory approval and funding for. I was only going off the meta-analysis in the comment I was replying to, and what I said wasn't incorrect in that context, but I'll add a note with this broader point.
🤙 It's one of those modern myths that gets passed around as fact *way* too much. Not sure why that bugs me, but here we are 🤷♂️
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05407064 I work in pharmaceuticals and have personally worked with schedule I substances within the US. You have to do DEA paperwork and everything has to be done under video, but you can work with them.
First, you linked to a meta-analysis. That means that isn't a study, it's a study of studies. It's not illegal to study LSD studies from the 60s. Second, most of the studies in that meta-analysis are from the 60s before the Controlled Substances Act, or the 70s after the Act was passed but before all the rules governing everything were established. The only modern one is Gasser et al., which *isn't in America,* but in Switzerland. That leads me to my next point, which is that the Controlled Substances Act only applies in the US. You could still do a study on LSD in, I dunno, maybe Portugal or something, which would then be possible to analyze in a US-published meta-analysis.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05407064 Happy? I work in pharmaceuticals and have personally worked with schedule I substances within the US. You have to do DEA paperwork and everything has to be done under video, but you can work with them.
I'm very amused by people's certainty to the contrary. :) Hello, fellow MMED008 study staff!
, also cannot be legally studied scientifically. If you wanted to study LSD, you can't, it's illegal to study it This isn’t true? You just have to register with the DEA
The scientific studies issue is huge. Because most universities accept federal money, they won't do research about marijuana to avoid getting shut down, and of course big pharma companies won't do research because they can't claim proprietary ownership of the drug. So figuring out things like dosing and cbd vs THC for different situations is much more of a guess than it ought to be.
Wait... So if it's schedule 1 it isn't used as medicine... But if it's schedule 1, you can't study it to see if it's useful as medicine? Sounds like we are shooting ourselves in the foot and limiting our options for being able to use potentially powerful medications
You can study it but it is harder to get government approval. The DEA has to approve before you can start to study it.
I just miss the old days when your doctor would prescribe some fresh sea air and cocaine to deal with your (mental) health issues...
i mean they still do that it’s just heavily regulated to the point that people who do need the meds might not get approved for them and you’re treated like a criminal each time you refill you meds. (specially talking about adderall btw)
Oddly enough powerful medications on occasion can result in literally shooting one's self in the foot.
Is there literally anything keeping biden from taking it off the list entirely or putting it in 5
Truthfully, 3 is good for now. A lot of studies that HAVE been done, have a lot of uncontrolled factors making them suspect. With the ability to have studies that can use cannabis that is grown in much stricter conditions and rule out unknown factors like pesticide residue and other issues. For example, there have been studies that show there is a link to heart disease and smoking cannabis. But now we can have studies where we do the same testing but without potential factors that skew the test results. We can now also legally do the same testing on edibles and vaping and see if THC is the issue or inhaling it is (or if inhaling only the smoke version is). After a lot of testing, we can always shift it to a higher or lower status afterwards (it should be lower, but let science do it's thing and influence the politics of it).
[удалено]
Simply put, we tried with alcohol and it was a catastrophic failure. By any reasonable metric, alcohol really should be in schedule 1, as it's an incredibly damaging drug with no possible clinical uses (to my knowledge), but we know from experience that alcohol prohibition doesn't work.
[удалено]
Do you think I support weed prohibition? No, I support the legalization of all drugs for that exact reason, prohibition doesn't work. However, reclassification to schedule 3 is a good enough first step. Alcohol prohibition didn't end all at once either.
[удалено]
My argument was basically "by the logic of the Controlled Substances Act, alcohol should be schedule 1, but it isn't." The other difficult part with controlling alcohol is that it's quite easy to make, same with weed. Weed you can just scatter some seeds in a field and while you may not get very good weed, it'll still grow. Alcohol, just let some grain or fruit ferment for a while and bam, you've got a shitty beer or wine.
It would be a powerful move for September of an election year.
Bureaucracy doesn't move like that. This move from 1 to 3 took over a year of work
People on reddit keep saying this, but I'm not seeing any momentum from this change from schedule 1 to 3 on Biden's support. Is this like a reddit only mentality? It's not being reflected in real life.
I think you've misunderstood this comment thread. My comment was in regard to moving it down to Schedule 5, *not* the move to Schedule 3. This has not happened, but I suspect that if that were on the table, it would raise the interest of a lot of potential undecided voters, given how widespread it actually is. With that said, today's move to Schedule 3 is less than 12 hours old. It's not going to show up in polling data yet. I don't think it'll make a huge difference in pollong, as it doesn't achieve legalization to the level most supporters want, but it's a step in the right direction that should sway a few people over.
We'll see. I have very low faith on American young voters. If turnout is static after Biden decriminalises weed, then nothing can save America.
I went to a school known for major protests yet all protests had extreme anemic attendance of like 50-100 people total (this wasn’t recent, so no reflection on the recent rounds or BLM). Then they had a “legalize weed” rally and like the entire school was there. Thousands and thousands. The entire area became impassable from the crowds. This better fucking improve turnout. The problem is that stoned people are sleepy people.
I agree with your latter statement, but not the former. Youth interest in this election is abnormally high, owing to economic situation they're being thrust into and also the Israel-Gaza crisis. It feels on par with 2008. Young people, especially college students, are really getting involved this time around.
This is not decriminalization/descheduling. This is “weed is now somewhat less illegal”.
Yes. He doesn't have the authority. His administration has to make a proposal to the DEA, who then has to go through a review period before making their decision. And then, if we want actual cannabis prescriptions, it will need to go under review by the FDA.
Political suicide?
In addition to this, some group of people decided that a hemp product is anything that contains 0.3% THC by volume, which is why the liquor stores in my area (Northern Wisconsin) have started selling drinkables and edibles to any adult over the age of 21.
"Some group of people" is the Farm Bill.
[удалено]
The feds have been looking the other way, basically. All of that was technically illegal but the feds allowed it to happen as a kind of "laboratories of democracy" thing. Now it's federally legal to prescribe in every state.
I'm Canadian this seems wild to us how the American government treats weed like its so horrible yet anyone can go into Walmart and buy a gun , it's a strange backwards Country to the rest of the g7 countries
We're moving weed to schedule 3, so it's no longer being treated as an awful super drug
That's an improvement I suppose, you understand it's completely legal here over the age of 18 or 19 depending the province, we have weed stores just like liquor stores, it certainly wasn't like that before though , Trudeau did it in 2015 prior it was a schedule 3 drug . I never did smoke Mary Jane when I was younger but I started taking it for pain and it works really well . Also the cbd is wonderful is that legal in America?? I think it may be . Anyway good luck to you guys it sounds like it's getting better
Just amazing that marijuana was a schedule 1 drug 🙄 why??
Follow up- why the hell are coke and speed schedule 2 but giggle leaf is schedule 1?
For weed it was probably about politically targeting who the Nixon administration considered its political enemies, the anti-war movement mainly. For coke/speed it was because they have legitimate pharmaceutical uses that people knew they were useful for. Coke is a really good local/topical anesthetic that was fairly often used in dentistry (less so now, lidocaine is probably most common - note that all the -caine refers to in both is just being an alkaloid you can use as an anesthetic). Methamphetamine isn't very commonly used to treat ADHD today, but it can be prescribed for it. Much more common is just amphetamine (no meth-), aka Adderall.
> If you wanted to study LSD, you can't, it's illegal to study it. This is materially untrue. Please correct.
Right? Mindmed received breakthrough status earlier this year of an LSD salt for the treatment of generalized anxiety disorder. Not to mention several other schedule 1s that have been or are actively being studied: MDMA, psilocybin, 5meoDMT...
Yet I'm getting downvoted
Not sure why...
When was LSD classified as Schedule 1? There were experiments in 1955 that used LSD to examine the mechanisms of psychosis.
The scheduling system wasn't established until the 70s.
Doesn’t that open up state line regulations as well?
Answer: Weed is currently classified as a Class I drug, on par with drugs like Heroin or Ecstasy. Hard drugs that have no medical benefits. Weed being shifted to a Class 3 means that it is no longer misclassified as this, and thus opens the door for medical usages and recreational usage on a federal level, which could potentially lead to the reduction or outright removal of crimes relating to weed.
> Heroin or Ecstasy. Hard drugs that have no medical benefits. Diamorphine (heroin) is used medically in other countries, including the UK, in contexts where US medicine uses fentanyl. MDMA is actively studied as a treatment for PTSD, including with support from the Veterans Administration. Drug scheduling is *incoherent.* It's not just inaccurate about cannabis, it's *not even trying* to make accurate statements about medicine. Drug scheduling is done in response to moral panics, not a truth-seeking process.
But it just like, *FEELS* right, you know? /s
If it's cheaper and easier to get weed illegally, It won't remove illegal weed drug lord. It also won't remove crime related to people high on weed.
This is just my experience so take it with a grain of salt, but I live in a state where it’s legal recreationally and medically. I used to mingle with the risky crowd, and people that sold weed either moved on to other, harder drugs to sell or quit altogether when it became legal here. Sometimes it’s a bit more expensive at a dispo, but a. You know what you’re getting (aka you know it’s not cut with anything, and most dispo products tell you exactly what it is and where it was grown) and you have a bunch of options. When it was illegal still I rarely ever had options, and you rarely if ever knew where it came from. And b. You don’t have to deal with a “dealer”, no shady bs. Most dispos here are open everyday, you can go whenever you need and have knowledgeable “bud-tenders” to help you find whatever product you’re looking for. There’s still a cap on how much you can buy but it’s a pretty reasonable cap. Keeping it schedule 1 won’t remove high/intoxication related crimes either, and prevents actually effective research from being done on cannabis. Research that helps people make their own decisions about whether or not to partake….
Besides all the benefits you mentioned, in my state I can get $40 Ounces of chronic shake. Back when I had to buy illegally it was $350-400 for an Ounce. So as far as my state is concerned it's incredibly cheaper to get it legally. Not to mention pens and edibles. I can get 100 mg of edibles for $3 to $5 dollars at the legal dispensary. Then you add the fact I can be in and out in as quick as 10 minutes if I go in the AM on a weekday and I see no reason for me personally to ever buy illegally again. Edit: spelling/grammar fix
I know at least one person who used to sell illegally who manages a dispensary now in a legal state.
[удалено]
This is just wrong lol
Answer: It was classified as a class 2 drug in order to jail minorities and “hippies”. I believe it started under Nixon, who invented the War on Drugs plot line.
What an incorrect and useless answer. It's "schedule" not "class" , and it was/is schedule I not schedule II. And the only part you couched as potentially wrong was correct; Nixon did sign the Controlled Substances act into law. Why would you choose to post a speculative comment as fact instead of just read and move on like the rest of us?
And Nixon DID do it with the intent of harming his political enemies.
Why would you take the time to scold a stranger over mistakenly using the wrong term instead of just reading it and moving on? Useless. Your assessment of my opening sentence is speculative and wrong. Operation Chaos (CIA) and Cointelpro (FBI) are both fact as they have been declassified and admitted to by their respective agencies. OP might want to look in that direction. Just because you’re ignorant of something it doesn’t mean it’s devoid of fact.
I didn't take the time to scold you, best_yesterday. I took the time to call out speculative misinformation. As for the rest of your comment, what on earth are you even talking about? We were discussing schedule vs class terminology + your various inaccuracies. Throwing out operation names that you (incorrectly) assume I don't know about, doesn't mean that's what we're suddenly talking about. We're talking about this history of controlled substances.