-5 points
Business Insider - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for Business Insider:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: Mostly Factual - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.businessinsider.com/harris-marijuana-legalization-biden-views-election-2024-9

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

permalink
report
reply
89 points

The president can order agencies to reschedule it, which makes it defacto legal in a lot of states, and means federal employees in states where it’s legal can use, including military.

She should do that asap, because the fight to actually legalize is a lot harder.

I don’t want to see her say it needs to be legalized and then refuse to take any step thats not the hardest

permalink
report
reply
96 points
*

Biden already started that process to move it to schedule 3. It’s been moving through slowly but it’s got a public hearing on December 2nd

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/29/2024-19370/schedules-of-controlled-substances-rescheduling-of-marijuana

permalink
report
parent
reply
49 points

The public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of full deschedule/legalization, but all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why. Hopefully Harris can lean into it a little harder than Biden has.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

As a senator Harris introduced bills that would’ve fully legalized it. Meanwhile I don’t think Biden ever publicly said he wanted full legalization

I think there’s pretty good odds she would go further than Biden in executive action alone

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points
*

The public comments were overwhelmingly in favor of full deschedule/legalization, but all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why

The Lesser Evil Party in a nutshell 😮‍💨

Granted, it’s of course still a MUCH lesser evil than the American Fascist Party, but fucking HELL! Your very bleak guess is probably the best case scenario with these fuckers!

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

all he’s pushing for is reschedule to 3, which means they’ll probably go to 2 because fuck you that’s why

I figure you’re partially joking but they can’t really make it 2. The HHS recommendation was 3 and even the DEA kind of has to agree even if they don’t want to. It would have been super controversial to do something else, they’re mainly supposed to follow it through with the rulemaking process unless they’re willing to make a serious case. And even then it would probably be to leave it where it is.

One of the theories going around as to why they added the hearing is that they wanted to take the heat off themselves for the call they’ve made by really drawing out the public consultation. Like people will be mad at them for following the recommendation so they want to make a big show of the fact they’re listening to concerns etc.

Hopefully Harris can take some stronger action or legalize through executive order or something. Schedule III is better but it’s then in the same class as ketamine. No judgement of people who like ketamine but COME ON

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Schedule 3 for weed is a joke when Xanax and Ambien are schedule 4

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

It’s moving slowly because the DEA and police want it to stay illegal because that’s where half their funding comes from

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

Rescheduling is a lot more complicated than that. The president can not just wave a wand and make it legal. Congress could pass a law doing so, but they are not going to do that. The other way is via the Controlled Substances Act which is, to put it mildly, is a cluster fuck.

In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition.

If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House—through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of information and Regulatory Affairs—determines the rule to be “significant,” it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule—a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO.

FYI, Biden already initiated this process to reschedule marijuana in 2022. At this point, it has been reviewed and the Attorney General has submitted a rule change to the DEA. They will have a public comment period which they will no doubt drag out as long as possible. If approved, marijuana will be reclassified at the same level as steroids (schedule III). It is disappointing that Biden only requested changing the schedule rather than descheduling it all together. Not ideal, but a hell of a lot better than now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-22 points

It is disappointing that Biden only requested changing the schedule rather than descheduling it all together. Not ideal, but a hell of a lot better than now.

Which is actually the reasonable thing to do here. Marijuana is not something that doesn’t have brain-altering side effects. It has pretty clear effects which could impair driving, etc - It doesn’t need to be descheduled completely; that would be asinine.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points

Is alcohol scheduled? Is it regulated? I feel like morons are making excuses for control because it’s got stigma. You know the real reason weed is a schedule 1?

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Driving under the influence is completely seperate and would still be illegal. Same as it is for alcohol

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

So technically, the president could order the people he is in charge of to deschedule the drug and to do it immediately by everyone agreeing that the change is not significant.

If they refuse he could just keep firing people until someone agrees.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Nope, the president doesn’t have the legal authority to give that order. He has the legal authority to order them to consider the question, which is the process that’s going on.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

The law requires certain time frames for comment periods and he cannot just ignore those. He also cannot just fire anyone he wants. That is one of the things Project 2025 includes. Giving the president to fire any federal employee at will is a bad idea.

The only immediate thing he might do is issue an executive order making Marijuana a very low priority offense and telling DoJ to direct limited enforcement and prosecution resources elswhere.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Holy shit the NSA, FBI and CIA will finallyl get competent, weed smoking engineers.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

There would be full divisions of stoned furries.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

PirateSoftware’s CEO, Thor, once saidnl in a stream how national security relies on furry conventions flights making it to and from conventions safely, and that there is nearly no bigger single point of failure on our security infrastructure. Those planes go down and we have a serious problem.

I think he’s right.

permalink
report
parent
reply
42 points
*

Living in a legal state is fucking AWESOME! The prices dropped to below black market before legalization and flying with a big ol bar of chocolate makes everything so much more tenable.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

I can’t do edibles. I took 10 mg once and my heart-rate was 155 just sitting on the couch. Never again.

permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points

I am supremely jealous because I need a herculean dose.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I can assure you that this was not an enjoyable experience.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

I hear this sometimes. I also hear some people aren’t affected at all by edibles. Strange thing edibles. They work for me, but are somewhat different than how I remember when I used to smoke (I’ve been using for 20+ years, and simply switched over to edibles 6 years ago). I’m also a little older now so things may be different for other reasons.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

My husband is one of those who isn’t affected hardly at all. He ate an entire 110mg tin of gummies and felt “a little buzzed”. I eat a half a gummy, or sometimes even a quarter, and I’m coasting for a couple hours, lol.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The reason for the wide variety of reactions is probably because cannabis isn’t processed in the body like most drugs. THC is not water soluble which means it’s much less readily absorbed by the digestive system.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Same. It’s been legal here for so long that when I visit others in non-legal states it’s always so weird that I can’t just go buy some.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

Paywall, didnt read

permalink
report
reply
160 points

permalink
report
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That’s all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 14K

    Posts

  • 427K

    Comments