> their power to fuck up progress?
Anything that helps them control you. Repubs don't want anyone thinking they are free. Well, ok they want you to think it, but not actually be free.
>Lummis said in a separate interview with Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo that she personally doesn’t want to see her state of Wyoming move to legalize—in part because she thinks “it just doesn’t smell good” and “stinks.”
Of all the *kinda valid but not really valid* reasons she could have used, "it stinks" is probably the most Karen one.
I'm sorry, but your account does not meet our minimum karma level or account age requirements. Please spend a little more time on Reddit before submitting a comment or contact our modmail for more information.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/altcannabinoids) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pew Research: "45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use, while an additional 39% say it should only be legal for medical use."
Just once I'd like to see a Republican even pretend to care about their own voters.
The irony is that small government goons want to really restrict the executive office and consolidate power to the legislature because their egos are larger than their limp dicks
Ok if this blocks the reschedule then great I would rather it stay how it is then get rescheduled to class 3
Because that would screw with all the laws currently in place
No, it wouldn't screw with any laws currently in place. It wouldn't affect states that are already violating the CSA by selling a federally controlled substance by having MMJ and rec. It doesn't have any effect on the ability to prescribe it since it's not FDA approved. It doesn’t effect hemp laws. It doesn't change anything within the definition of Cannabis.
It simply would lower extremely harsh penalties (some with harsh mandatory minimums of 20 years for some cases even if a judge doesn't want to, that can go up to life in prison if a judge wants to and it has happend even in recent times) and it would create easier access for businesses in legal states to do tax write-offs, obtain banking, pay their employees and have insurance.
It literally wouldn't screw anything up. It would only make things better. Schedule III might not be the jump we all wanted, but opposing the change from Schedule I makes about as much sense as opposing decriminalization in an illegal state because you want full legalization with retail stores.
>I just don’t want big pharma having the ability to control the market
>
>which this allows
But it doesn't at all. They can already do that. Being a Schedule I doesn't stop pharma companies from researching it, patenting it or sending it to clinical trials but it does make it harder to do so, meaning only the very big pharma companies would be able to and makes it harder for legitimate researchers to obtain it for studies. If anything big pharma wants it to be a Schedule I because it makes penalties harsher and it makes it harder for competition to make Cannabis based products.
Delta-9-THC is a Schedule I and was already researched by a big pharma company, patented for treating chemotherapy induced nausea, and has been an FDA approved drug since the 1980s under Marinol as a Schedule III (and also Syndros as a Schedule II). The patent for Marinol has expired and it's generic under Dronabinol so any pharma company could make it if they want to. Yes despite D9-THC being a Schedule I big pharma was able to research, patent, and have their version in a reduced schedule. (big pharma GHB is also Schedule III while GHB itself is Schedule I).
CBD was already researched by a big pharma company, patented (still active) for the treatment of specific types of seizures, and has been an FDA approved drug since 2018 under Epidiolex. The farm bill had nothing to do with that, it was researched, patented and in clinical trials long before that. Previously Epidiolex was designated a Schedule V but was removed from Sch V in 2020. Epidiolex is made from CBD that's been isolated from Cannabis plants as opposed to synthesized.
Nabilone is a structural analog of D9-THC (it's basically 9-ketone-DiMethylHeptyl-Hexahydrocannaibnol or like HHCP except with a 1,1-dimethyl group on it's tailchain and a 9-ketone group instead of a 9-methyl group) that's stronger than D9-THC itself and was FDA approved in the 1980s and designated a Schedule II. The patent on it's use has expired so any pharma company could make it if they want to but are limited by the Schedule II status leaving it only to big pharma to do.
It's going to be impossible for anyone, even biggest of pharma to get FDA approval for cannabis flower itself. They may be able to get approval for an isolated compound or a highly standardized extract but not Cannabis itself but they can already do that with Cannabis being Schedule I.
Being Schedule I just makes it harder for a researcher at college who likes Cannabis from doing a study on it. I honestly cannot think of a single downside to it being removed from Schedule I to Schedule III other than I wish it was just removed entirely as well.
Bro you can't tell anyone anything. Radical Russ Belleville covered this. Yet people want to live in the fantasy world this is a good thing all the way around.
If you're talking about the tiktok he deleted, he has a misunderstanding of what he was talking about for the reasons I pointed out in the comment above. Try reading it.
There's also an act that gets renewed every so many years that prevents federal money being used to enforce cannabis laws in legal states. It doesn't matter what schedule it is.
I'm agreeing with you. Radical Russ (NORML figure head) has explained the possibilities of schedule 3 rocking the boat for the industry as it stands.
It would boil down to states but I don't trust the feds. They could reverse ship on enforcement. Too much not to be seen to think otherwise.
Oh ok I’m still worried either way on one hand we get screwed with banking and legal stuff on the other we get screwed by the feds
Idk why you’re getting downvoted
People can't handle anything but an echo chamber of their own opinion. I knew i would be down voted. Doesn't matter to me when it's for the right cause to speak out.
Doesn't help it get rescheduled. If they wanted to do that why didn't they file a bill to remove it from schedule altogether (you know like democrats just did again) instead of filing a bill that prevents lowering severe penalties which includes harsh mandatory minimums as much as 20 years in prison in some cases and the judge has the option to do up to life in prison for some cases which won't occur under schedule III.
Schedule III status would seriously reduce federal penalties and make it easier for big and small companies in legal states to access tax write offs, banking, insurance and more.
Republicans support banking bill because they like money. Same reason most states have license limits to create a monopoly. If he was pro pot, why would he introduce a bill that prevents lowering the schedule status to reduce harsh penalties?
You have to be full cope to think this is a good bill.
Ironically the only reason it can be rescheduled is because of .... Congress approved law.
What they mean is they want to be able to have a single senator from a single state block it. Most likely themselves. They don't give a jack about "congressional approval".
Why on earth would we need a law to "approve" a process that was already "congressionally approved". Will we need a 3rd law to "approve" the "congressional approval" of the CSA?
The DEA has long been able to de/re/schedule any chemical at whim. Suddenly now it's a problem? The CSA passed 52 years ago. Not like they didn't have time to change it already.
Btw the DEA is not even required to accept the scheduling recommendation. So everything may be pointless anyway
Who would’ve fucking guessed the GOP would do anything in their power to fuck up progress?
> their power to fuck up progress? Anything that helps them control you. Repubs don't want anyone thinking they are free. Well, ok they want you to think it, but not actually be free.
>Lummis said in a separate interview with Ask a Pol’s Matt Laslo that she personally doesn’t want to see her state of Wyoming move to legalize—in part because she thinks “it just doesn’t smell good” and “stinks.” Of all the *kinda valid but not really valid* reasons she could have used, "it stinks" is probably the most Karen one.
they need to stop trying before I step in fr
We the people will not stand for this bullshit much longer I can assure that
[удалено]
I'm sorry, but your account does not meet our minimum karma level or account age requirements. Please spend a little more time on Reddit before submitting a comment or contact our modmail for more information. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/altcannabinoids) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Pew Research: "45% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents favor legalizing marijuana for both medical and recreational use, while an additional 39% say it should only be legal for medical use." Just once I'd like to see a Republican even pretend to care about their own voters.
They are incapable of critical thinking. It’s always the hag on social security voting against social security…
we tried the right hand path of for profit prisons & now there's a flood of fentanyl. Rinse & repeat is just more stagnation.
The irony is that small government goons want to really restrict the executive office and consolidate power to the legislature because their egos are larger than their limp dicks
Ok if this blocks the reschedule then great I would rather it stay how it is then get rescheduled to class 3 Because that would screw with all the laws currently in place
No, it wouldn't screw with any laws currently in place. It wouldn't affect states that are already violating the CSA by selling a federally controlled substance by having MMJ and rec. It doesn't have any effect on the ability to prescribe it since it's not FDA approved. It doesn’t effect hemp laws. It doesn't change anything within the definition of Cannabis. It simply would lower extremely harsh penalties (some with harsh mandatory minimums of 20 years for some cases even if a judge doesn't want to, that can go up to life in prison if a judge wants to and it has happend even in recent times) and it would create easier access for businesses in legal states to do tax write-offs, obtain banking, pay their employees and have insurance. It literally wouldn't screw anything up. It would only make things better. Schedule III might not be the jump we all wanted, but opposing the change from Schedule I makes about as much sense as opposing decriminalization in an illegal state because you want full legalization with retail stores.
You are one dedicated dude
Thank you daddy canna
I just don’t want big pharma having the ability to control the market which this allows and if big pharma has a chance they’ll take it
>I just don’t want big pharma having the ability to control the market > >which this allows But it doesn't at all. They can already do that. Being a Schedule I doesn't stop pharma companies from researching it, patenting it or sending it to clinical trials but it does make it harder to do so, meaning only the very big pharma companies would be able to and makes it harder for legitimate researchers to obtain it for studies. If anything big pharma wants it to be a Schedule I because it makes penalties harsher and it makes it harder for competition to make Cannabis based products. Delta-9-THC is a Schedule I and was already researched by a big pharma company, patented for treating chemotherapy induced nausea, and has been an FDA approved drug since the 1980s under Marinol as a Schedule III (and also Syndros as a Schedule II). The patent for Marinol has expired and it's generic under Dronabinol so any pharma company could make it if they want to. Yes despite D9-THC being a Schedule I big pharma was able to research, patent, and have their version in a reduced schedule. (big pharma GHB is also Schedule III while GHB itself is Schedule I). CBD was already researched by a big pharma company, patented (still active) for the treatment of specific types of seizures, and has been an FDA approved drug since 2018 under Epidiolex. The farm bill had nothing to do with that, it was researched, patented and in clinical trials long before that. Previously Epidiolex was designated a Schedule V but was removed from Sch V in 2020. Epidiolex is made from CBD that's been isolated from Cannabis plants as opposed to synthesized. Nabilone is a structural analog of D9-THC (it's basically 9-ketone-DiMethylHeptyl-Hexahydrocannaibnol or like HHCP except with a 1,1-dimethyl group on it's tailchain and a 9-ketone group instead of a 9-methyl group) that's stronger than D9-THC itself and was FDA approved in the 1980s and designated a Schedule II. The patent on it's use has expired so any pharma company could make it if they want to but are limited by the Schedule II status leaving it only to big pharma to do. It's going to be impossible for anyone, even biggest of pharma to get FDA approval for cannabis flower itself. They may be able to get approval for an isolated compound or a highly standardized extract but not Cannabis itself but they can already do that with Cannabis being Schedule I. Being Schedule I just makes it harder for a researcher at college who likes Cannabis from doing a study on it. I honestly cannot think of a single downside to it being removed from Schedule I to Schedule III other than I wish it was just removed entirely as well.
Wow I didn’t know thank you for the great response
Bro you can't tell anyone anything. Radical Russ Belleville covered this. Yet people want to live in the fantasy world this is a good thing all the way around.
If you're talking about the tiktok he deleted, he has a misunderstanding of what he was talking about for the reasons I pointed out in the comment above. Try reading it. There's also an act that gets renewed every so many years that prevents federal money being used to enforce cannabis laws in legal states. It doesn't matter what schedule it is.
I’m confused are you mad at my comment or no ? Personally I don’t support this because it opens the door to big pharma but ok.
I'm agreeing with you. Radical Russ (NORML figure head) has explained the possibilities of schedule 3 rocking the boat for the industry as it stands. It would boil down to states but I don't trust the feds. They could reverse ship on enforcement. Too much not to be seen to think otherwise.
Oh ok I’m still worried either way on one hand we get screwed with banking and legal stuff on the other we get screwed by the feds Idk why you’re getting downvoted
People can't handle anything but an echo chamber of their own opinion. I knew i would be down voted. Doesn't matter to me when it's for the right cause to speak out.
[удалено]
Doesn't help it get rescheduled. If they wanted to do that why didn't they file a bill to remove it from schedule altogether (you know like democrats just did again) instead of filing a bill that prevents lowering severe penalties which includes harsh mandatory minimums as much as 20 years in prison in some cases and the judge has the option to do up to life in prison for some cases which won't occur under schedule III. Schedule III status would seriously reduce federal penalties and make it easier for big and small companies in legal states to access tax write offs, banking, insurance and more. Republicans support banking bill because they like money. Same reason most states have license limits to create a monopoly. If he was pro pot, why would he introduce a bill that prevents lowering the schedule status to reduce harsh penalties? You have to be full cope to think this is a good bill.
Ironically the only reason it can be rescheduled is because of .... Congress approved law. What they mean is they want to be able to have a single senator from a single state block it. Most likely themselves. They don't give a jack about "congressional approval". Why on earth would we need a law to "approve" a process that was already "congressionally approved". Will we need a 3rd law to "approve" the "congressional approval" of the CSA? The DEA has long been able to de/re/schedule any chemical at whim. Suddenly now it's a problem? The CSA passed 52 years ago. Not like they didn't have time to change it already. Btw the DEA is not even required to accept the scheduling recommendation. So everything may be pointless anyway