politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Aren't these dispensaries currently registered with the DEA? Why would lowering it on the schedule change that?
It also means regular pharmacies can sell it, and via normal banking channels.
They are registered to the various states programs, but I can’t imagine there is a way to register with the DEA to sell a Schedule 1 drug for recreational use.
I think currently they're not. They're registered to their state as they're still technically illegal at the federal level. The DEA has taken kind of a don't ask don't tell approach to marijuana and is currently relying on a patchwork of state regulations to manage it because for a variety of (terrible) reasons they haven't taken the sane step of reclassifying it. It honestly shouldn't be a scheduled drug or at worst a schedule 4. Moving it from schedule 1 to 3 is better than nothing, but it's still a chicken shit maneuver.
Devil's advocate here...
I'm pretty sure the DEA has a ton of funding directly tied to Marijuana enforcement, they can't just deschedule it entirely without losing that funding immediately. Those funding requirements need to be reclassified for other uses.
Nah. As a schedule I, it's in the same category as things like meth. Tito your corner drug dealer ain't telling the feds where he's selling, right?
Meth is schedule 2. Which highlights how absurd cannabis being schedule 1 for so long was.
My bad! I just assumed.
Schedule I is reserved for only the most vile drugs, like LSD!
And crack... But not powder cocaine.
I'm sure that has NOTHING to do with the types of people who tend to use one or the other.
I mean, cocaine hydrochloride (aka powder cocaine) does have medical uses. No, seriously. In the form of a nasal spray before certain kinds of nasal surgeries as a local anesthetic. According to my wife it also opens your sinuses like nothing else, as she's had a couple of such surgeries.
There is some evidence suggesting there's a higher risk for abuse and dependence when cocaine is injected or smoked as opposed to intranasal use, but the research there is kinda limited. While the racial angle is certainly relevant, that there is no accepted medical use for cocaine base (aka crack) but there is for cocaine hydrochloride probably also plays a part in why crack is in the "no medical uses" schedule and cocaine hydrochloride is in the same schedule as fentanyl (you know, the one for highly abusable drugs that do have accepted medical applications). The laws calling out crack specifically as opposed to merely referencing the drug schedules are all about race though.
As someone unfamiliar with the law my guess would be that the DEA doesn't have mechanisms in place to register distributors of schedule 1 substances, since it doesn't recognize them as having any legitimate use.