- cross-posted to:
- usnews@lemy.lol
- cross-posted to:
- usnews@lemy.lol
A coalition of 22 state attorneys general is calling on Congress to address “the glaring vagueness” that has led to legal cannabis products being sold over the counter across the country — including sometimes from vending machines or online.
A letter dated March 20 addresses the consequences of Republican lawmakers’ choice to legalize hemp production in the 2018 omnibus Farm Bill — a decision that perhaps inadvertently led to a multibillion-dollar market in intoxicating cannabis products that are arguably federally legal.
Now, the attorneys general want Congress to shutter the market it helped create. In the new Farm Bill, they want the legislature to enshrine in statute the idea that intoxicating cannabis is not federally legal — contrary to what the law currently states.
You must log in or register to comment.
They don’t want to raise taxes on the rich. Here’s a massive way to raise taxes that won’t affect the income of rich people unless they want to buy a shit ton of weed.
And yet they’re still against it.
They pretend like a 100% tax free nation is a possibility.
When Kansas under Brownback, (with full control of the statehouse), went all-in on supply side and it was a objective failure that really shoulda been the end of the idea that R’s had any savvy regarding improving the economy.
Magical thinkers do not respond well to concrete examples.
They pretend like a 100% tax free nation is a possibility.
Well sure there are, Haiti probably isn’t collecting any taxes right now, so they’ve got that going for them…
They pretend like a 100% tax free nation is a possibility.
They know this isn’t possible. They want no income tax for the wealthy and increased taxes on goods and services, which will mostly affect the working masses.
Then shouldn’t they want highly-taxed cannabis?
I think you’re giving them too much credit. They’re ideologues that think taxes = bad. They just don’t care so much when they hurt the poor because they think the poor deserve to have bad things happen to them.
To prove your point, Colorado has collected over $1.5 billion is cannabis tax since it was legalized. That’s just a single state, and not a huge one at that.
Here’s even republican/wealthy friendly article talking about it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthoban/2021/05/23/the-success-of-colorados-marijuana-tax-dollars/?sh=14e60c79529d
Illinois got even more. $1.6 billion in 2020 alone. That’s where I buy from, although I cross the border from Indiana.
Is it expensive because of the tax? Yes it is. But I’m fine with that because legalizing and taxing it should be the model everywhere and I’m happy to support it.
As someone from MO, fuck IL’s tax. Went from paying $125 for a gram of wax to ~$40 once MO legalized.
It’s better than it being illegal, obviously, but it’s so clearly only that high so they can extort out of state buyers.
Sounds like an argument for national legalization. Which raising a bunch of tax money will encourage.
Oh absolutely agreed. The fact we have to play these games in the first place is bullshit
Yup. In MO we’ve seen not far off of $100mil in state tax revenue and it’s only been legal since Feb 2023. At least one city near me was pushed into a surplus because of the extra revenue (admittedly, they were running at a very, very small deficit previously, but still).
It might compete with big pharma’s profits, though.
I honestly think it’s totally ideological for a lot of them. Drugs = bad and it doesn’t go further than that.
These AGs are elected officials and they aren’t getting elected for their brains, they’re getting elected for their party affiliation.
As we have seen with lawyers like Alina Habba and Rudy Giuliani, it doesn’t actually take a lot of intelligence to pass the bar exam.
Wow, imagine Republicans getting worked up about the wording of a law being twisted in ways it was never intended when it was first drafted. That’s wild.
The party of taking things away from others. That’s the only way I can think of them anymore. For years now. It’s their entire platform.
Except obscenely rich people and giant corporations!
I prefer to think of the moral right side of any issue: Republicans are almost always against it.
I get an ounce delivered to my mailbox on a monthly subscription and occasionally order extra when something goes on sale. I keep trying to share about legal weed on lemmy whenever the topic comes up, but i just get downvoted. I don’t know if people think it can’t be real or just want something to bitch about.
Possibly because I’m from a legal state and wasn’t paying attention to it, but I’m not sure what you’re talking about if you care to expound?
Look up thca. Essentially cannabis doesn’t have thc until it’s burned, which the law targets. It’s technically full of thca which is generally referred to as thc. So companies are selling thca products with tests showing thc itself below the 3% limit because it’s technically legal.
The total THC test is early enough that it isn’t yet present. After that, only ∆9 is tested. It’s all the same thca you would get in a dispensary. DEA asked courts to change the testing requirement and limits. Court said the law is written as intended. There are many farms that sell online through their own websites or through other vendors. I’m in Texas and I’ve had so much delivered without a single problem. I had 5 lb delivered to my porch in one order– it was in big plastic bags in boxes. That order was mostly CBD and CBG, but still smelled weedy. I’m more worried about the neighborhood kids stealing it than I am about the USPS or FedEx.
Thanks for the additional insight. The package thief paranoia with these boxes is real! Feel you there
I think people are still scared especially in states that have a hardon for locking up anyone that remotely does anything but otc drugs.
I’m not fully sure but believe this is a “if you want federal money then you’ll accept these terms” deal, sort of like how all states have to set the drinking age to 21 or lose out on highway money.
They don’t make you feel the same way as the normal weed you are used to though. I have gotten them when I can’t get the real stuff and it’s just not the same. I wish it was.
I just got this and at 23% thca, it definitely works for me. https://eighthorseshemp.com/products/indoor-jungle-juice
DON’T SHARE THAT LINK!!
they already have problems keeping inventory and I’m selfish lmao
I know. I hesitated before I did it but then I felt guilty… Sharing is caring.
We’ve had some delta-8 edibles that up the concentration so high it’s silly. We were cutting them in half and that was getting us higher than some delta-9 stuff. Then we noticed that the bag actually recommends a whole one wtf. If those fucking things are legal, I don’t know why we’re arguing about the rest.
There’s some new workarounds on the market that take it further. The law is that you can’t have any more than 0.3% delta 9 by dry weight. Well, 10mg / 0.003 = 3.3g, so you can pack 10mg of delta9 into a gummy as long as its dry weight is about 3g, which isn’t much.
Some of the THCa stuff has gotten me couch-lock high, but I agree with RagingRobot, the high doesn’t feel the same. I’ve tried many different THCa/THCo, Delta 8, and Delta 10 products and the overarching trend with all of them was a high that typically only lasted 30 mins (compared to an hour with Delta 9) and they’re almost always just an intense head high that makes me feel uncomfortably stuffy. I haven’t had a single non-delta 9 product that felt anything close to the more natural high’s you get from the various types/blends of Delta 9.
Thca=∆9. I avoid the rest (∆8, 10, etc.) because of the chemicals used in processing.
3 Tall Pines Farm does not use chemicals in their extraction process, if you are looking for a chemical free company.
They specialize in a heat/pressure-only extraction process and include COA’s for solvents and residuals to prove their products are clean.
Have you tried THCjd? It tends to be more potent. If anything, it needs to be brought back a little on some of the gummies out there.
I agree it’s not one to one, but I’ve questioned how much if that is the drying, curing and process of getting it to me. Also they used boveda packs which didn’t help. The ones I’ve tried. But I think the post saying it’s due to an early chop sounds right. Probably not enough amber crystals which is when I would assume actual thc gets tested. It’s more complex than I made it seem I’m sure but I think as far as the loophole goes its along those lines. On a related note I’ve been trying thca concentrates and that is definitely more comparable, which makes me think it’s how they’re processing the flower that makes a difference.
I’ve been a weed fan for 30 years and I cannot tell the difference at all. In fact, from what I’ve read, the THC that THCa turns into as it’s being smoked is identical in every way to any other THC that develops in marijuana.
My friends and I, all long time users, have done several blind tests and can’t tell a difference. Make sure you are comparing the same strains when you do your blind tests, otherwise you will inadvertently be testing the differences between strains. Various strains of cannabis have very pronounced differences in flavor and effect in my experience.
Republicunts did not read or maybe comprehend a bill they passed during the Trump years which accidentally legalized THC products derived from hemp or products that technically are hemp and not cannabis because the delta 9 THC concentration is low enough.
From my also limited understanding cannabis can be harvested early before the delta 9 thc crystals form… from the precursor THCa already present in the plant
THCa on its own is not psychoactive however it breaks down into normal THC when exposed to sunlight … or heat when you smoke/vape it
So you can buy legal (for now) basically weed in the form of high thca flower online and have it shipped to your mailbox.
Im considering anonymously buying some online and having it shipped to my states AG office because fuck that dude needs to smoke some weed
I believe the ones who knew, knew; and the rest didn’t read it.
They’re probably tired of viral marketing teams pushing their shit
How do you get it delivered to your mailbox?
My subscription is from Hoku Seed Co. Several other places have started doing subscriptions also… I think flow gardens and maybe holy city. Other than hoku, I usually buy from flow or eight horses hemp. I use a dry herb vape mostly at home. When I want a pocket vape, I buy from secret garden.
I’ll definitely check it out. I just purchased a vaporizer and I don’t care for it but it’s probably user error.
What did you get? I have a pax2 and a dynavapB. There’s a bit of a learning curve with different ones. I watched a bunch of videos when i got them.
DaVinci MIQRO C.
I just buy it online at 3tallpinesfarm.com or any other place that sells it online. They have a list of states they won’t ship to based on those state’s laws.
Sounds like not real weed because if it was, the DEA would be all over that shit……so probably not what you get from a rec or medical dispensary.
What do you think is different?
It’s hemp, so low THC, so doesn’t do a whole lot.
It’s better than nothing, technically, but you’re basically buying oregano all over again in middle school.
It’s ok, it works for you, but it’s not real weed, I would call it gas station weed lol
My subscription is type 2 (thc+cbd) and i buy type 1 (high thc) when there’s a good strain on sale. Both are legally available at the links i shared. Not sure about gas station weed - i haven’t seen that.
I hear you, but you are smoking hemp, not real weed. It’s classified as such as there is low THC, as in, not real weed. When I say real weed, I mean what the DEA says is real weed, not what some random company is selling. You aren’t going to jail in your illegal state for weed with your hemp.
You can go read all about it on the wiki, but again, you aren’t smoking real weed nor getting high.
A good friend of mine was telling me the same thing as we were hitting my bong. I blew his mind when I told him we were smoking the very stuff he was claiming wasn’t real. He admitted he could not tell any difference at all and would not have known had I not told him. I had to show him the packaging because he thought I was kidding.
He couldn’t tell a difference because there is no functional difference the instant heat is applied to it. THCa is the natural precursor to THC in cannabis. It becomes regular old THC the instant heat is applied to it.
You are still just smoking hemp, and unlikely actually getting high. I’m sorry you don’t really understand it either like the first person I pointed this out to.
THCa does not get you high, that’s why it’s legally allowed to be grown in America because it’s not an illegal substance….as it is not psychoactive.
THC converts down from THCa when you combust it, so even if there is a large THCa concentration, it results in a low THC amount and not getting you high like you’d expect.
I think the loophole is going to stay in place. The hemp lobby has exploded since 2018, and has done a lot to keep the loopholes from closing in even very Red states. In the real world money is what talks, and I think there’s too much money at this point to put the genie back in the bottle.
But that’s my two cents. I could be wrong. Hope I’m not.
Besides that, the winds have changes with regards to weed as half the country has already legalized it while something like 38 states have some sort of MMJ. The genie isn’t going back into the bottle and the sky hasn’t fallen in the states that legalized.
Hilarious that their argument is that “these products are unregulated” when their solution is an outright ban which just shifts everything back to the unregulated black market. You know where these type of products are regulated? In states that have legal weed.
Depends. Ideological movements can push past distributed money using targeted money aimed at those it puts in power that don’t care about the effects of their actions, even if usually only briefly. Like what led to prohibition of alcohol. If Trump gets into office and is given enough money by the ideologs, he’ll be perfectly happy to destroy the whole system for personal profit. And he doesn’t care if a whole section of the oligarchy falls apart, he just wants to be dictator for the rest of his life. And that’s not all that many years anymore.
Even the worst Roman emperors knew not to fuck with what makes the crowd content. If those right wing motherfuckers think they can touch our bread and circuses without consequences, they will find out.
Here’s the thing: this was a super irresponsible way to legalize. It encouraged the creation of an industry using dubious extraction and synthesis technologies that are not well studied for safety. We know the effects of delta 9 THC on humans, and it’s relatively safe. Much of this new stuff are analogs of delta 9 that might be safe, but might not. You have to search out stuff that has accredited lab test results (which exist in California and some other legalized states). Rando stuff being sold at gas stations all over is sketch as hell.
The solution to that is to legalize delta 9 and bring it under a proper regulation framework for testing, not go backwards.
Started buying Farm Bill hemp products over COVID. I’m surprised really that it took them this long to start pushing to change it.
So many hemp products available these days. You can get hemp dog chews! My dog loves them! No, they don’t get her high.
I guess these AGs don’t want those businesses anymore.
I fully expected my state AG to have been one of the signatories on that (they’ve made a big stink about this in the past), but surprisingly they weren’t.
Our legislature did outlaw D8 last year, but somehow it’s still being sold (yay).
There are two companies in-state that rely on this law (Blue Ridge and Thrax). Blue Ridge is ran by veterans, and both would have been affected (read: shut down completely). I don’t know the details, but I want to say they lobbied and I guess are allowed to continue?
My AG is a complete scumbag, but I guess shutting down a family / vereran-run business was too much bad press even for him. The tax revenue is probably just a bonus.
As far as outlawing delta-8, I that’s going to be a losing battle, especially since there’s already delta-10. They can’t outlaw hemp because of the farm bill and, while it does take a lot of hemp, it’s pretty trivial to extract THC from it.
Unfortunately, my AG is a much bigger scumbag than yours. I live in Indiana. Guess which AG has the very first signature on this letter?
Todd Rokita may very well be the worst AG in the country. And he’s constantly wasting taxpayer money on things like taking trips down to the southern border, as if Indiana had something to do with it.
For real. I was pretty skeptical but I really can’t tell the difference between the delta 9 THC edibles I buy (in a state without even medical) and the real thing.
If they reverse this, a shit load of tax dollars are going back to states with legal recreational cannabis.
From my understanding, when it comes to edibles, your liver converts both delta-9 and delta-8 into 11-hydroxy-thc so the effect should be almost exactly the same. Where as when you smoke or vape delta-8 or delta-9 there is no conversion that happens which leads to differing effects.
That’s interesting because I never really got much out of the delta-8/9 carts. I’ve tried a few over the years hoping they’d get better; guess I’ll quit doing that lol
Just to be clear “Delta 9 THC” is the “real thing”.
Delta 8 is also real but a minor cannabinoid with a milder effect.
Hemp-derived THC is too many word
I mean that you’re probably confusing Delta 8 and 9. Delta 9 is the main cannabinoid in regular cannabis, it’s just regular THC.
I couldn’t believe this stuff was legal the first time I had a THC seltzer. I was skeptical as hell. 2 cans later and I was surprisingly high.
Only problem is I find these products tend to be like drinking cheap vodka. You feel it more the next day.
Steal from the poor to give to the rich. They’re focusing on it again because they’re being told the money isn’t going to the correct people.
Legalize all drugs you shitters
If someone wanted to purchase this legal weed, say, in South Carolina, is there a guide somewhere indicating what is legally available in that jurisdiction?
Asking for a friend…
I’m just guessing, but they might be referring to delta 8 thc products.
Just google thca weed.
You can buy Delta-8 THC and maybe Delta-10 THC. Your mileage may vary. I wasn’t a huge fan but you can get a lot for a little.
I order mine online from a U.S. company called 3 Tall Pines that only sells to states where it’s legal. You can check to see if they ship to your state.
Nowadays there’s a company that sells products that will boost your mood
Wasn’t expecting soo many legal states.
The attorneys general of Indiana, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Commonwealth of Virginia, and Washington for any wondering.
Personally I’m of the opinion that they can’t take it back now. It’s too late.
They cannot undo or erase the harms it’s caused. However they could regulate it…and that would be fair. No one under the ages of 18-21 should be able to buy or access this stuff ever; and the required packaging and regulations surrounding that should reflect it.
This should be no more heavily restricted than tobacco products; which already ARE restricted heavily through taxation, permitting, and ID checking at the Point of Purchase.
It would even be fine if you had to obtain these products from behind a dispensing counter; with no prescription needed…just an ID and a clue of the risks that these products carry. There is no need to amend the previous law, just make new ones.
Three words:
Roe versus Wade.
What harms has it caused?
A lot of people in jail for no good reason.
For legal hemp products?
I can’t speak for anyone being arrested but if you ever see the thc-a flower they sell, it looks like normal weed. And gets you high like normal weed. Unless cops are doing tests to figure out which is which, surely people will/have gotten arrested with it.
Fair point. Not sure how big of a problem it is, but I would certainly be discreet if it was a possibility.
You have to have faith that it has caused harm. The Holy Ghost will tell you
Personally I’m of the opinion that they can’t take it back now. It’s too late.
Hold their beer.
Is this a prohibition 1.0 joke?
They got to start bribing congress they want to keep around, just like everyone else.
Removed by mod
The best thing we can do is deschedule and regulate it.
You should have just stopped there.
Why?
The rest of their comment is spurious nonsense
he can tell the DEA to deschedule.
No, he can’t. Biden isn’t emperor, and the DEA is an independent agency. Presidents don’t just get to tell the DEA what to do. You clearly don’t understand how our government works. What he can do is have the Dept. of Health and Human Services order a review of marijuana’s scheduling, which he has done.
Now, the FDA has already recommended changing the scheduling, and the DEA is currently considering it, so the process is actually underway.
No, he can’t. Biden isn’t emperor, and the DEA is an independent agency. Presidents don’t just get to tell the DEA what to do. You clearly don’t understand how our government works. What he can do is have the Dept. of Health and Human Services order a review of marijuana’s scheduling, which he has done.
This on paper is effectively true, however the DEA is in part under the scope of the executive branch. In practice the president has enough influence over the DEA to practically give the head of the DEA an “order”. Or at least suggest that if his instructions are not followed that the head of the DEA should be job searching.
In other words, the head of the DEA would not move forward with following the recommendations of the dept of health without the approval of the executive. In all likelihood he could reschedule at any time, and I imagine that time will be based on the elections.
Again, no. Biden can order a review (which he has), but he cannot tell them what or how to decide. There’s a legally-defined process they have to follow in reaching their determination, and that process was laid out by congress when they passed the Controlled Substances Act. The DEA can’t simply ignore that because the president tells them to. That would be against the law.
If he fires the head of the DEA for refusing to break the law at his command, the president can be impeached for abuse of power.
Again, no. Biden can order a review (which he has), but he cannot tell them what or how to decide.
Right, I already said that. What you are ignoring is that he has the power or fire the person who makes the actual decision.
If your boss let it be known that he wanted a certain result, and your career depended on it… Even if he can’t by strict definition order you to do it so, they are still implicitly controlling the outcome.
There’s a legally-defined process they have to follow in reaching their determination, and that process was laid out by congress when they passed the Controlled Substances Act.
A legally defined process that’s already been carried out? The rescheduling process has virtually been complete, everything but the actual rule making and rescheduling that is.
The DEA can’t simply ignore that because the president tells them to. That would be against the law.
And what aspect of the law is conflicting with the DEAs ability to initiate rule making or rescheduling? They’ve e already received recommendations for rescheduling it to level 3 from HHS.
he fires the head of the DEA for refusing to break the law at his command, the president can be impeached for abuse of power
What law? Rescheduling is entirely within the scope of practice for the head of the DEA. Maybe if they hadn’t already received a letter from HHS, but that’s already completed. The next legitimate move would be for the DEA to announce new rules/rescheduling.
Wow, practically everything you said is wrong, and it illustrates how you really don’t understand how this works.
To answer one of you last questions first:
What law…?
The Controlled Substances Act
And, no, just because Biden has the power to fire the head of the DEA doesn’t mean he has the legal authority to force them to come to a determination he favors. That’s just ridiculous.
The most he can do is what he already did, and that is to direct the HHS to order a review by the FDA and the DEA of the scheduling of cannabis, and they’ve already done that. The FDA has made its recommendation, and now the DEA has to make a recommendation for final approval. That’s the process as laid out by the Controlled Substances Act, a law passed by Congress, which lays out, in very specific detail, the process for this. And no matter what you insist, the president cannot shortcut this process nor force a decision either way.
Wow, practically everything you said is wrong, and it illustrates how you really don’t understand how this works.
Lol, I own and operate a CBD based company. I am well aware of the laws.
The Controlled Substances Act
And how does rescheduling conflict with the controlled substance act? They’ve already done their due diligence, as I said you may have had a point prior to the HHS recommendation, but according to the controlled substance act setting new rules/rescheduling is the next step.
The FDA has made its recommendation, and now the DEA has to make a recommendation for final approval.
It’s not the food in drug administration, its the department of health and human services that makes the recommendation. Again, you have no idea what you are talking about.
And, no, just because Biden has the power to fire the head of the DEA doesn’t mean he has the legal authority to force them to come to a determination he favors. That’s just ridiculous.
He can just fire them if he doesn’t and hire someone he knows will follow orders. You’re just being pedantic.
That’s the process as laid out by the Controlled Substances Act, a law passed by Congress, which lays out, in very specific detail, the process for this. And no matter what you insist, the president cannot shortcut this process nor force a decision either way.
First of all, the initial process of drug scheduling is laid out by the controlled substance act, but not how the rules are changed or modified. That’s handled under the purview of the administrative procedure act. According to both of these bodies the only thing left for them to do is have the DEA actually rewrite the rules, or reschedule.
The only reason the head of the DEA hasn’t done so already (she has made pro cannabis rescheduling remarks) is because the executive is holding off for a bigger impact for the election.
And no matter what you insist, the president cannot shortcut this process nor force a decision either way.
Lol, what short cut? The job is done, it’s just waiting for a signature. You don’t even know what the process is, what agencies are involved, or even the difference between rule making and law making. Stop pretending that you have any kind of actual experience in this field.
I am well aware of the laws.
You have very clearly demonstrated that you are, in fact, not.
The FDA is part of the HHS, btw. Which, of course, you would know if you r really did “know the law” as you claim.
I’m tired of explaining this to you, as I have over and over again. And I’m sorry you just refuse to accept the fact that you’re wrong. But you are, nothing you said your change with that.
Presidents don’t just get to tell the DEA what to do.
Explain how Biden ordered every federal agency to return to office.
He started out asking
Then ordered them to return
Non paywalled article
https://www.axios.com/2024/01/19/zients-biden-cabinet-return-to-office
Maybe you don’t have federal experience, but agencies have to do what the president tells them to do.
It’s the whole “chain of command” thing…
Edit for your edit:
Now, the FDA has already recommended changing the scheduling, and the DEA is currently considering it, so the process is actually underway.
So…
Absolutely nothing?
For 80 years the Dem party has been “looking into” FDR wanting universal healthcare. It’s naive to believe this is any different when Dems have been saying the same thing since at least 2008. It doesn’t take 16 years to deschedule. And if you believe there’s still doubts about how harmful cannabis is and if it’s as bad as heroin…
I’m very sorry you can’t tell the difference between a president telling people to get to work and telling them what decision to reach.
I suggest you look up the word “nuance” while you’re trying to cherry pick your way around the facts of the matter, btw
Removed by mod
Thanks for explaining how ordering federal employees back to the office has nothing to do with making a decision regarding the scheduling of marijuana, and how telling people to get back to the office is a totally different order than telling the DEA how to reach a decision.
And, as I recall, your stubborn attempts to refuse all efforts at good reason often end similarly as this one has— poorly for you.
Removed by mod
Nonsense. People aren’t arguing with AIs over Lemmy. There are plenty of people on the left who act like Biden is the worst president in U.S. history. Because American politics is all about hyperbole over rationality.
Removed by mod
Biden is in the Executive side of the government. He is in charge of executing the work of the government. In your example, he chose how those organizations executed their business. He did not choose what outcome those organizations had from the work he directed them to execute. It’s like a professor telling you to research a new thing. They can tell you what work to do and how to do it, but the results of your research should be out of their hands.
Biden can force them to study legalizing weed. Biden might even be able to propose a law to legalize weed that Congress can vote on, but he knows that vote won’t pass and that the Speaker of the House might not even allow it to come to a vote in the House.
A general can order a private to run into a firefight.
A general can’t order a private to give him oral sex.
It’s that whole ‘chain of command’ thing.
Congress explicitly made it the DEA’s job to schedule and deschedule drugs in the Controlled Substances Act. Much like a general can tell a private to do their job by running into a firefight, the president can tell the DEA to do their job by descheduling cannabis.
Funny, because you started by explaining that Congress created the DEA and laid out how they work, then end by claiming the President tell them what to do, as if that makes any sense.
The DEA is part of the Executive Branch, which the president is the head of. The president tells members of the executive branch, such as the DEA, what to do as a matter of course. Biden even appointed the current head of the DEA, Anne Milgram.
The president tell the DEA to review cannabis’s scheduling, but he can’t tell them what or how to decide.
And he’s done that. And they’re reviewing it now.
But the decision is theirs to make, and Biden can’t force them to decide one way or the other.
As mentioned in another comment:
The president can order the operations of federal agencies, but they can’t order specific procedural outcomes.
The power of the DEA to schedule drugs comes from Congress, not from the executive branch. Congress created the DEA to build process to review drugs and manage them. The president is in charge of executing that procedure, not changing it or skipping it entirely. The power to effectively make laws is Congress, not the president.
As weird as it seems, there isn’t actually a loophole where the president can order someone to change the law even if that person is technically their employee.
No, the president can tell the DEA to do their job, which is studying whether they should deschedule cannabis. He can’t tell them what results their job should have.
In this metaphor, the general can tell the private to go fight on the battlefield. The general cannot determine whether the private kills people or comes back alive. The general can train the private and give the private all the support and tools necessary to win a fight, but in the end the results come down to the private.
This is an insane attempt at analogy. Nobody’s suggesting Biden sexually assault the DEA or anyone at the DEA, or anything of the sort.
Do you really not understand that they were illustrating "the power to give orders does not mean every order is legal”?
The president can order the operations of federal agencies, but they can’t order specific procedural outcomes.
The power of the DEA to schedule drugs comes from Congress, not from the executive branch. Congress created the DEA to build process to review drugs and manage them. The president is in charge of executing that procedure, not changing it or skipping it entirely. The power to effectively make laws is Congress, not the president.
As weird as it seems, there isn’t actually a loophole where the president can order someone to change the law even if that person is technically their employee.
What does that have to do with anything anyone is talking about about?
Biden can tell the DEA to reschedule, and they have to listen.
It’s part of the DEA’s job to schedule drugs, it’s not their job to hand out blowjobs
Biden can tell the DEA to reschedule, and they have to listen.
Just like people here in the comments can keep explaining that you’re wrong, and you don’t have to listen.
The president can order the operations of federal agencies, but they can’t order specific procedural outcomes.
The power of the DEA to schedule drugs comes from Congress, not from the executive branch. Congress created the DEA to build process to review drugs and manage them. The president is in charge of executing that procedure, not changing it or skipping it entirely. The power to effectively make laws is Congress, not the president.
As weird as it seems, there isn’t actually a loophole where the president can order someone to change the law even if that person is technically their employee.The power to effectively make laws is Congress, not the president.
Nothing about descheduling involves passing a law…
There’s no federal laws about cannabis (technically there is now about hemp).
It’s illegal federally because it’s scheduled 1.
Biden 100% can change it, you just don’t seem to understand the process.
Maybe that’s why so people disagree with me tho. They think this has something to do with laws?
The law is the Controlled Substances Act.
The process has been explained to you (I explained it pretty clearly in my first response to you). We understand the process.
You seem to think it’s just a matter of Biden saying to the DEA, “Do it!”
You’re wrong.
No matter how many times you assert that Biden can simply order the DEA to reschedule cannabis, you’ll always be wrong.
No, you very much don’t understand how the government works.
Federal agencies operate with the force of law because they were given regulatory power derived from Congress. The ability for the DEA to manage drug scheduling is derived from it’s congressional creation. They can’t execute the process as they wish, but have to follow the rules created by Congress for them to change the scheduling.https://mainelaw.maine.edu/faculty/can-the-president-reschedule-or-deschedule-marijuana/
There’s a law professor explaining it in nice short form.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655
A more in depth analysis from the congressional research service.
Tldr: you are mistaken as to how it works.
Thanks!
We also argue that the CSA’s scheduling procedure may allow the President to remove marijuana from the CSA’s ambit entirely. This proposition, we acknowledge, is much more uncertain. It would hinge on a reinterpretation of some of the CSA’s key terms, a generous construction of a CSA provision that deals with treaty obligations, and a modicum of deference to the administrative agencies on judicial review.
Right there, by a source you just vouched for.
It’s been a busy morning, so I really appreciate you taking the time to link that for me
What, exactly, do you think that says? Because I’m pretty sure you just read that as, “The President can tell the DEA to reschedule cannabis,” and that’s not at all what it says.
Taken out of context, that sentence loses significant meaning.
We argue that this procedure gives the President—acting through the FDA and DEA—power to reschedule marijuana to a less restrictive schedule (as the Biden Administration is currently trying to do). Those administrative agencies can conclude that marijuana has an accepted medical use and a relatively low potential for abuse—characteristics that align with placement on Schedule III, IV, or V.
That’s the part you skipped, which indicates that the president has the power to direct the agencies to reevaluate and reschedule. They further contend that this process could be used to entirely unschedule the drug.
The question being answered in the portion you cherry picked is not if the president has unilateral authority, but rather what the extent of the administrative process they must follow actually is.
An even more direct segment from the CRS report:
If the President sought to act in the area of controlled substances regulation, he would likely do so by executive order. However, the Supreme Court has held that the President has the power to issue an executive order only if authorized by “an act of Congress or . . . the Constitution itself.” The CSA does not provide a direct role for the President in the classification of controlled substances, nor does Article II of the Constitution grant the President power in this area (federal controlled substances law is an exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce). Thus, it does not appear that the President could directly deschedule or reschedule marijuana by executive order. Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.
That paragraph you just quoted said it MAY be possible… but only if you completely reinterpret one law, use a wide interpretation of how we deal with treaties, and also just ignore other laws in deference to the President.
So basically it is only possible if we ignore the law.
If Biden says he doesn’t want to use that power, than we need a president who’s willing to do things he’s legally allowed to do.
And you think Trump will be that president? Because it’s going to be either Biden or Trump.
And then the next time there’s a Republican president they make it illegal again and you get to bitch and moan about how it’s all the Democrats’ fault for not doing more to protect it.
Just like what happened with abortion.
I love that one. There were no times that Obama or Biden would have been able to codify abortion into law. They needed congress. Obama had anti-choice Democrats in the Senate like Joe Donnelly and Biden has had Manchin and Sinema working against him since January of 2020.
But somehow Obama or Biden were supposed to magically make abortion access the law.
This is why people are okay with Trump being a dictator. They think the president is already a dictator.
And even if it was a law, it would have been repealed during the first two years of the Trump presidency when the R’s had both the house and the senate.
deleted by creator
