A decision on a major policy shift on marijuana won’t come until after the presidential election (apnews.com)

submitted 3 months ago by givesomefucks@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last week set a hearing date to take comment on the proposed historic change in federal drug policy for Dec. 2.

The hearing date means a final decision could well come in the next administration. While it’s possible it could precede the end of President Joe Biden’s term, issuing it before Inauguration Day “would be pretty expedited,” said cannabis lawyer Brian Vicente.

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

4 years ago Biden said he'd deschedule cannabis...

Then he said reschedule...

Then he said he'd "look into it"....

And four years later, the DEA is getting ready to announce their opinion...

Biden could have ordered them to do it, and if they didn't replaced them.

That's the threat he used to make every federal agency return to office, it's 100% possible. He just didn't want to do it because his son is a fucking crackhead and to a man in his 80s all drugs are drugs and terrible (not counting alcohol, caffeine, sugar, or nicotine)

[-] NineMileTower@lemmy.world 27 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah, there's definitely no nuance to it and "the president's son is a crack head".

It's not like the proposed rule is the result of a review of U.S. cannabis policy that was ordered by President Joseph Biden in October 2022. At the same time, the president pardoned thousands of individuals with federal convictions for simple cannabis possession, a move that was expanded a year later to include thousands more Americans with convictions under federal drug laws. It's not like it's being delayed by the DEA.

[-] nepenthes@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

My friend struggled with heroin and was told to use marijuana to get off of opiates. It worked for him-- I guess happily baked people can't be arsed to get off the couch to go score drugs.

Regardless, it's ridiculous that something with medical potential isn't deemed a priority to "look into". One thing our JT did right was to legalize it federally 2.5 years into his first term. I'm assuming some US pharma companies are delaying it.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

My friend struggled with heroin and was told to use marijuana to get off of opiates. It worked for him-- I guess happily baked people can’t be arsed to get off the couch to go score drugs.

Turns out, cannabis is a gateway drug. It's a gateway out.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

It was already bullshit, the only need to "look into it" was to stall and hope someone found something that can be twisted into backing an existing opinion.

The DEA didn't do a single study, they "looked into" stuff we've known for over a decade hunting for that unicorn study that says cannabis is dangerous.

Like with climate change. We started "looking into" that in 1982 with a political committee. But Biden set record setting fossil fuel production this term.

Or when Dems and Republicans united to tell FDR we had to "look into" universal healthcare 80 years ago. And still say we need to "look into" it more.

"Moderates" love to say they're going to "look into" stuff, but in reality it's just an excuse not to do anything and avoid the negative press.

We can't keep giving them credit before they do anything like our memories only last 2 years and we can't see the pattern. I mean, surely there are some people who can't figure it out, but an average adult should be able to pretty quickly.

"Moderates" only exist to prevent progress. That's their whole thing, they'll never going to let meaningful progress happen at a pace that beats conservatives breaking everything. It's just not a valid strategy, but that's what wealthy donors want, so that's what we get.

[-] Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

Legalising cannabis is a slippery slope towards abolishing the DEA, which would be very detrimental… to the people working at the DEA that is.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Legalising cannabis is a slippery slope towards abolishing the DEA

Like, I get the rest is a joke, obviously...

But even outright legalizing cannabis federally wouldn't mean the DEA ran out of work. It means they run out of easy work.

There's an opioid epidemic, fentanyl being put in everything, meth being made all over, cocaine and heroin being smuggled in...

It's just the people who do that stuff are actually dangerous and/or actually know what they're doing.

Like when you call the cops to report a robbery and they show up 3 days later to fill out a report for your insurance. They could try to solve the crime, but that's difficult, so they don't.

The DEA has lots of important shit they could be doing, it's just important shit is rarely easy.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

And lemmy's centrists all act like cannabis has already been rescheduled because Biden said he was gonna.

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -1 points 3 months ago

Yep.

Just a question of if they really believe it and are just that naive

Or if they're just saying whatever makes Biden look best in any scenario.

[-] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago

I've had long arguments with centrists where they insist that he's rescheduled cannabis when he hasn't.

[-] Today@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

In most states you can buy from vendors/farms online and it legally shows up in your mailbox thanks to the 2018 farm bill. I like hoku seed co. Flow gardens and eight horses hemp are also decent and have good sales.

[-] Dkarma@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

Hemp is not cannabis...lol

[-] Today@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago

It is. Only ∆9 is restricted. THCa is legal as hemp in the farm bill.

this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2024

51 points (89.2% liked)

politics

19233 readers

2244 users here now

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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
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

• 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