If cannabis gets rescheduled to III, how can it ever get the state - federal differences resolved when it comes to the recreational market?
The feds will still go after it as an illegal drug when presented as recreational and the will keep the stigma going on forever. Furthermore it will keep a lot of talented people out of good job opportunities for smoking a joint after work instead of having a glass of wine.
It’ll get rescheduled when Big Pharma comes up with a potion that does a better job and that they can sell for $10k per dose. So long as cannabis works better than anything they can monetize, they’ll fight to keep it illegal. And they have very deep pockets.
A better job at what, getting you high? Pretty sure they already have that, and while it doesn’t net them 10k per dose the Sacklers would have liked that very much no doubt.
I think people need to actually research THC and cannabinoids. The handful of studies that have been done on them show that it’s no better than OTC medication in all but the very rarest cases.
Medical marijuana is a complete hoax, it was always about making money and getting high.
Nope. It’s been 2-3 years, but I read every single research paper on the subject.
You’re confusing blog posts with actual academic papers. Just a heads up the the effects of medicines are no where near as clearcut as people think. Cannabiniods have fairly weak evidence for efficacy.
Imagine thinking that journalists have the capacity to analyze papers. Try getting a degree or atleast taking some classes on biostatistics.
You’ve had plenty of time to prove your claim that marijuana is an important medicine and anyone who disagrees must be citing Fox news, and yet all you have been able to do is act incredulous that there might be a more effective methodology for finding relevant research than a keyword search. The amount of relevant high-quality papers is not in the thousands, it’s not even in the hundreds. You arrived at your conclusion by the most useless and sophmoric methodology and are acting smug because you (supposedly) teach an introductory class to highschool graduates. Guess what dipshit? We don’t use your shitty lessons.
“Then we can talk”
You already admitted that you don’t understand pharmacology so what exactly do you think you’re going to talk about? How you still don’t understand how to perform graph traversal to find related studies?
The only reason cannabis is Schedule I is to "felonize" people who are more likely to vote against Republicans, so their right to vote can be taken away. Pharmceutical companies would frankly love for it to be descheduled, so they can research and develop it for prescription uses.
What blows my mind is how benzos are listed as schedule iv: low risk of abuse or dependence. Except that many, many people abuse and get hooked on them, and along with alcohol, the withdrawal can directly kill you.
Withdrawal can be lethal sure, but you can just overdose on them, like alcohol. They have a very simily mechanism of action to alcohol. It’s also why they’re so dangerous combined. The scheduling system has little relationship to medical reality.
Meanwhile if you smoke too much weed you’ll have a panic attack, see God, fail asleep, and wake up with a terrible hangover. I’ve witnessed it a bunch (and experienced it myself) since the NY market is unregulated so dispensaries push 100mg+ edibles like it’s a normal amount. Hell, I’ve seen drinks with 1250mg/8oz. It’s wildly unpleasant, but way better than death.
Man, I fill with rage whenever I think about how much harm to the American public our “leadership” did with the War on Drugs just so they could have an excuse to be racist and classist
Totally. It’s not impossible to harm yourself with weed/THC, especially if it’s in combination with certain other drugs or medications or interacting with certain health conditions. And some of the doses you can get now in the dispensaries I’ve also noticed are pretty massive. The synthetic cannibinoids are potentially more dangerous, having even more blood vessel constrictive properties than typical cannabinoids (can increase stroke and heart attack risks). But weed doesn’t hold a candle to the dangers and damage of perfectly legal alcohol or tobacco. And there’s plenty of other still illegal without a prescription but more dangerous drugs that are lower on the schedule list than relatively safer ones like marijuana and psychedelics (pretty much all schedule I).
Don’t even get me started on psychedelics. Psylocibin is the only antidepressant that has ever worked for me. 1.5g of shroomies will improve my mood for 2-4 weeks. I’m convinced the only reason they’re still Schedule I is because they work too well.
Psychedelics should absolutely be decriminalized at the very minimum. Anybody that has ever actually taken psychedelics regardless of their stance before dose one can agree with this sentiment.
Honestly, I really think they should be legal for medical purposes and potentially even recreational purposes. Yes, people shouldn’t probably be getting fucked up on acid or mushrooms out in public, but people shouldn’t be on alcohol either. Difference is, I don’t see anyone on psychedelics going and committing crimes while they are high.
My only thing about psychoactive substances is that you should probably still get screened for recreational purposes as they can seriously exacerbate certain mental illnesses if you are not careful, however almost any substance can do this with different disorders.
“People shouldn’t be getting fucked up on acid or mushrooms out in public, but people shouldn’t be on alcohol either.”
I’m on team decriminalization…and I think it’s going to be extra hard in the US because of our car addiction. I have never driven on psychedelics, nor do I ever intend to, but I’m concerned that someone will make a bad judgment call and drive to the convenience store (because that’s the only reasonable way to get places in most of the US) and it could end in tragedy. I see this as an extra hurdle we have to tackle, but it doesn’t change my stance on decriminalization.
We don’t have a lot of police in my area for the amount of people, so I would not count on them to recognize many drunk/drugged drivers. Traffic is largely unpatrolled and I have only been pulled over for anything twice in ~20 years.
I would be fascinated to hear about what driving on psychedelics is like from anyone who is willing to fess up to having done it (or has a story about a “friend”). Sounds like a bad idea, but I’m not an authority on the topic.
It is possible to eat a lethal amount of THC oil but the process of eating it would be so uncomfortable that your stomach would have to be absolutely huge and still be stuffed to the brim.
I don’t see you seeing god on just THC though, that sounds more like psychedelics and a lot of it.
While true, an inch foreword is better than a mile backwards. And any movement whatsoever from the federal government is a sign that there are finally cracks forming in the dam.
I’m not American, how the fuck would I know what system the USA uses and whether it’s legal? It’s obvious to you because you know the background information. Others don’t.
The feds have already made it perfectly clear that they're not going to interfere with legal cannabis sales at the state level - even while it's Schedule I - as evidenced by ::gestures widely::. As long as there's no interstate transportation, rescheduling it isn't going to change anything.
The current state of affairs is the justification employers use for continuing to test and discipline folks for usage even in legal or medically legal states. It's also the justification banks use for not allowing dispensaries to use their services.
They don’t legally need a justification. The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees. If a company actually needs employees they won’t do them, or lower the standards so low that anyone that isn’t actively injecting or murdering someone would pass.
The moment there isn't federal law to lean on, I hope for and expect court cases predicated on the fact that there's no basis for an employer to care more about whether someone has smoked cannabis in the past thirty days than they do about whether that same employee gets blackout drunk every Friday and Saturday night - nor for that matter if the person responsibly drinks a couple beers after work some nights. (Or is someone pushing to detect alcohol use within the past 30 days as a reason to disqualify employment?)
Neither of those details of their lives speaks to someone's sobriety at work, and the basis for considering marijuana usage as somehow "worse" is rooted directly in the racist basis for policies enacted at the very start of cannabis prohibition.
The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees.
If this is true, drug testing should start at the CEO.
Edit2: Hanging onto this for 2 months before replying, or just like trolling through old cannabis discussions looking for an argument, or...?
So you literally don’t know how drug tests work? Marijuana clears an oral test in about a day, most jobs that test for it simply tell you to come back the next day. This is in legal state, and covers the vast majority of jobs. If you can’t be sober for a full 24-hrs before a pre-employment check you’re an addict. This would be like if someone admitted to being drunk the morning of an interview.
“Neither of those details speaks to sobriety at work”
Again you’re confused by the efficacy of drug tests. If you can’t be sober for 1 or 2 days to get your job that you applied for, it’s far less likely that you are going to be sober on the clock. (Few places do uranalysis, and I’ve literally never heard of a blood or hair test which are the ones that actually can reliably test that far back).
Strictly speaking you cannot prove that the person who shot heroin during your interview, is also going to do drugs on the clock. It is however a very good indicator that they are unprofessional, will be a bad employee and are quite likely to drugs on the clock. Companies don’t just spend thousands of dollars a year to be cruel to employees.
I was thinking urinalysis, which I was always told was ~30 days. It doesn't change the argument.
C-level or anyone in the company exempt? Do we monitor alcohol usage so closely? Would people tolerate it if we did? Federal law is the only reasonable basis for an employer to be testing for off the clock use of a drug that is legal or decriminalized in that state. Otherwise it's an invasion of privacy. And yes, it is, whether you tell me it legally is or not.
Point is it’s a stroke of a pen to change the priority… One president or one DEA switch away. The supreme court upheld Roe V Wade which was why it wasn’t important to codify it into law… until it was.
Progress in government is made in steps. Scheduling to 3 allows research. Research that will show it’s no worse than alcohol. Then we push for removal from the schedule.
Also, are there any studies supporting it being banned? As I understand it, it was a PR campaign and moral panic that lead to its ban on the first place, not anything rational.
The research at the time said not to ban it because it is reasonably safe for consumption and banning it would cause social unrest and distrust of the government. Check out “A Signal of Misunderstanding: The First Report of the National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse”, a report from a commission created by Richard Nixon with the passage of the 1969 Narcotics Act.
I wish I could agree that we need studies to convince our rational leaders in government to make the rational actions based on available evidence, because that’s what drives changes in government.
The best way to remove it from the schedule is to dismantle prison slave labor. Financial incentives for imprisoning people will always lead here and are immoral. However, I offer a false solution, because I don’t have a way to implement it.
Add comment