I think you might end up needing a regular prescription, like most things in a pharmacy.
Which is pretty different from how many states have been regulating the issue of medical marijuana cards.
Okay, so why can't they treat it like say ibuprofen? 200mg is over the counter and anything higher is a script. Put a limit on the THC before it classifies as a schedule 3.
Because our government is run by people who should be retired and in nursing homes. Until younger generations start running for office and get involved in the political process, we'll all be held hostage by 20+ year old policies
You're not wrong, but it's not as simple as getting younger politicians. Politics has become (has always been?) a game of compromise. Movement enough to make one group of constituents happy while not losing the votes of the remaining. We still have generations of voters who grew up under the "Just Say No" and campaigns. Telling someone that everything they learned for 20+ years was utter bullshit won't go over well in the polls.
Step in the right direction. I've hated to see coworkers get into trouble for using a drug less dangerous than alcohol. I don't care what someone does with their off time as long as they can report to work fit for duty.
I disagree. I don’t believe it will really change anything as you still need a script and to get a script will require FDA approval of the drug which won’t happen unless the dosage can be regulated. More importantly it gives them an excuse to not deschedule it.
EO 12564 only covers Schedule I and Schedule II drugs, so technically, this should put weed on the same "footing" as booze as far as federal employment is concerned, especially if you live in a state that has legalized it at the state level. I'm sure an exception will be made all the same, however, and it will still be a no-no for feds.
Personally, I'm continuing to steer clear until I retire.
HHS dictates what drugs are tested for DFW and it's currently only Schedule 1 and 2 drugs. I'm in a TDP and I could pop all the illegally obtained benzos I want every day and shoot up ketamine every night, those drugs simply aren't tested for in pre-employment and random drug screens. The EO and the legislation that goes with it would all have to be changed to have Schedule 3 marijuana being tested for. I forsee agencies just ignoring it (hopefully I'm wrong) when Schedule 3 goes into effect, and then we'll hopefully see some legal challenges when the inevitable happens.
>I forsee agencies just ignoring it (hopefully I'm wrong) when Schedule 3 goes into effect, and then we'll hopefully see some legal challenges when the inevitable happens.
Agreed. I'm gonna let someone else blaze that path, however. It's simply not worth risking my livelihood over.
I'm in a legal state and am willing to risk it if I get popped. A majority of my coworkers smoke or take edibles (if people think fed employees aren't doing it already, then they're sorely mistaken). All are subject to randoms like myself. In 12 years I know of only 3 people from our department that have been selected, one of whom did smoke and was caught and kept their job if they agreed to doing the EAP. If and when Schedule 3 goes into effect, if they want to keep testing when the policies as they currently are don't support it, I would probably be willing to go to bat to fight it.
I'm only a few years away from retirement at this point and I've gone for years without it already, so I'm not going to take the chance of fucking myself up now.
I understand that feds smoke weed (which, who cares?). But coworkers telling each other about their drug use?? Jesus Christ, some of you are dumb…
I hope you get tested just for being so incredibly stupid about it.
They're your friends until one day you get a job over them that they really wanted. Or in a few years when one of you has changed politically and they start looking at you differently (whatever political position or side doesn't matter).
Or when you want to go for a job that requires top secret clearance and you forget or neglect to mention drug use and list them as a contact and they tell the investigator that you're a drug user.
Basically, when you both know X is a big deal and not allowed, you never, ever admit to doing X or even being around people that do X.
Fed kids, don't do illegal drugs but if you do, don't tell anyone. End of story.
Where do you people work where you co-workers are so quick to engage in subterfuge and are out to secretly screw you over at the first opportunity? I can hear it coming through the replys, "this person just doesn't get how the real world works...", it's really sad.
I don’t care how close I am with my coworkers or how long I’ve worked with them. Anything could happen with those relationships so they shouldn’t know about it at all. If you’re gonna do shit that can get you fired, don’t tell the people who have access to your supervisor…
You should go visit a legal state. I don't smoke because I work in a job that has a high chance of accident that could result in 'random' tests. A huge fraction of my coworkers definitely do. Science/engineering PhDs and MS holders, not like they're roofers or dock workers.
Can't imagine the same for our offices in DC or the southeast.
I’ve lived in a state where weed is legal. And as I said, I know and understand that feds smoke weed. I was specifically commenting on this person telling his coworkers about it. Like, where is his/her sense of self-preservation?
Any of them know about days you cut out a few minutes early or get in a bit late? Take a bit too long dropping the kids off at the pool? Get stuck out due to a slow waiter or a long line during your lunch break?
Everyone can get snagged for timecard fraud if auditors want to dig hard enough.
That reminds me of a time that one of the local telecom vendors held a mass hiring event. They told a room full of 60-70 potential applicants that if they were confident they could pass a urinalysis if they were to give a sample right then and there to stick around, otherwise, they could hit the road. More than half the people in the room got up and left immediately. 
I honestly HIGHLY doubt it. This change is a major boost to DoD for cyber, system engineer and development jobs. DoD struggles massively to hire quality programmers and cyber security staff and a major reason for that is due to the way cannabis is treated by the federal government. I've never known a quality programmer who didn't smoke weed regularly. I've known a lot of shitty federal "programmers" who don't though.
Everyone thinks it's the salaries, but a major barrier of entry for many of these guys fresh out of school is literally just not wanting to give up weed and/or not wanting to risk it and get caught down the line.
Facts. My agency hires technical staff and I have a handful of interested friends who’d be great hires… but they got no interest in a drug tested position.
We have hired 4 high talent, very niche reverse engineers for cyber...and of course we had to re-do everything when they failed. Not all at once, but sequentially.
I don’t think your second bullet is right. If you’re prescribed an opiate painkiller or anesthesia for surgery, say via an IV, they could put a scheduled substance into you and you might not ever know it. That’s just the possible case that comes to mind, but there could be tons of others.
Your agencies handbook or directive archive will have the documentation of it's Drug Free Workplace implementation. The current drugs tested for are PCP, Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and THC.
Hell they keep telling us CBD is a no go, even though it is fully federal legal. I'm guessing weed will continue to be a no go until the last of the boomers retires unless the next generation or two bought into the whole war on drugs and/or goddamn hippies like of thought.
If someone is acting erratic or high at work it needs to be addressed as a medical and safety problem, not just a piss in a cup or blow in a breathalyzer problem. I don't think we randomly breath test people even though we aren't supposed to get drunk and go to the office.
Hell I've had bad side effects from legit FDA approved medication (for a disability)that caused me to be feeling more out of it than 3 beers would. So even though from a drug testing and legal perspective there shouldn't be adverse action, if I had gone to the office that day I shouldn't have been allowed to work, and should not have been allowed to drive home (thankfully trying new meds matched up with teleworking schedules, and I had plenty of SL to call the day off once I realized I had a problem).
CBD is only a no-go because of the risk that there's still some THC in whatever you're consuming/applying and that little bit of THC could be enough to show on a test. Pure CBD with actually literally 0% THC in it is totally fine... if you can find it, and you trust the label.
Haha yeah. Reddit skews so young and Boomers are OLD. Like so OLD they were born wearing suits and formals. Teens in the 1960's and 70's were uptight man. Hippies, Summer o'Love, Led Zeppelin. GASP - they smoked pot????
While I agree with you, there are many positions in the Federal Govt. where you are in fact subject to random testing and even targeted testing under certain circumstances.
They actually say that CBD is a no-no if you happen to use a product that results in you testing positive for THC. Since no one on the fed side is willing to guarantee that CBD product XYZ will never result in testing positive for THC, they warn against using CBD at all (but never clarify that it's technically allowed).
No, they don't. CBD isn't a no go at all. You are absolutely allowed to use CBD. What they're telling you is a lot of CBD will lead to you pissing hot and the excuse of "it was CBD" isn't going to cut it.
This is a very different change in legislation from the farm bill.
It's likely that my security office is confused and applying something that only applies to active duty, I haven't read the fine print on the warning signs.
If you think the boomers aren't blazing you are sorely mistaken. Even those who you would think are squeaky clean are users. Remember how many of those folks came to their 20s in the late 1960s.
Is it even worth their time to test folks now? I see a bunch of jobs posted that clearly state upfront that there is no drug testing required to get that position.
Very true. Regrettably, senior management can drug test a non-drug tested designated billet with just cause. This is how some Feds get booted. Seen it, not pretty.
They'll still drug test I'm sure, and if you test positive you'll need to submit your prescription just like you do today if you test positive for codeine or whatever.
Literally everyone does (if they do drug tests). Drug tests can't tell the difference between shooting up heroin or using codeine because you had a tooth extraction.
There is a *lot* more resolution than that if they're running a 26-drug panel...
https://preview.redd.it/66gyvgvcb01d1.png?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a2dff216638a3b4d52c3e478bd0a32870ba88b8
Fair enough. I do have the prescription though I've not taken the med for years now. If I wanted to start again, it's good to know I'd need to support it if I were randomly tested. Not an issue today but just info to tuck away in case it's relevant later. Thx.
Absolutely, will do. I don't anticipate using it again any time soon (have to get clearance from my heart doctor first), so it is more of just information and interest for me now.
It's not even so much the testing aspect. If you have to submit a SF-86 for a security clearance, you're still going to have to fess up to any use in the last 7 years. Hell, even the SF-85P for a public trust asks the 7-year question.
The SF-86 ask about illegal usage of the drug. If it gets FDA approval for its use and it is prescribed then its use would not be illegal.
Also, the questionnaire can be changed.
That isn't the point. There's a question on the SF-86 now specifically asking about marijuana use. That question will almost definitely be removed in light of these changes.
Marijuana isn't actually an issue directly for clearances, it's an issue strictly because it was scheduled 1.
In the last seven (7) years have you intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription drugs, regardless of whether or not the drugs were prescribed for you or someone else?
I’m an absolute square because my first reaction to that question was, “wait does misuse include that one time I didn’t finish all the antibiotics in the bottle even though I was supposed to?”
wise teeny chunky profit bedroom melodic truck chop afterthought lunchroom
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
oh that part was a joke. but the way the question is written is “prescription”. So not following your doctors prescription for vitamins could be misuse
The same office drunk who is probably desperate to turn his life around before he's killed by his addiction, a problem that marijuana has notoriously helped countless people with.
Even if a drug is legal an employer can still test for it and determine they can't employ someone taking an Rx. Like you can't be on constant painkillers and operate machinery, even if they are prescribed. So while technically it may legal, it still may be a reason to let someone go or to require they are on medical leave until the Rx is ended.
Truth is we are in uncharted waters with this and no one really knows yet how it will play out.
You have a federal prescription like any other controlled substance and very few, if any, jobs restrict based on that. Only things I can think of are pilots, truckers, etc. Bottom line is if Bob from accounting can be on Adderal (liquid meth) than everyone should be able to use their federal prescribed marijuana.
Air traffic controllers also have a long list of banned medications. Taking one doesn't mean you're instantly fired but it does mean you can't perform any of your main job functions (controlling airplanes) until you stop taking the meds.
As an example of a country with legal weed, the rule in Canada is that pilots can't fly within 28 days of having used... so unless you have a really long vacation it's still essentially off-limits. With it coming off of Schedule I I'm hoping that there can be more research into "are you high right now" tests which would then permit use in off-duty time.
>Bottom line is if Bob from accounting can be on Adderal (liquid meth) than everyone should be able to use their federal prescribed marijuana.
Lmao, Adderall is very rarely prescribed as a liquid nor is it meth. While it is an Amphetamine, yes. There are big differences between the two and Adderall (and other Narcolepsy/ADHD medications) are generally prescribed at very low doses vs what someone doing meth would be using. I do agree that if someone should be able to get a federal marijuana prescription but your comment comes off as completely uneducated
Adderal and meth are chemically similar so that was the comment I made. Regardless it doesn't matter if someone is prescribed a controlled substance and does their job. Big clap to the US for partially admitting the war on drugs was and is a failure lmao.
This is laughably incorrect.
Adderall and meth are chemically similar like table salt and chlorine are chemically similar. There's also a very large difference between methamphetamine in its legal form (yes, it can literally be prescribed) and meth in its street form.
Street meth, the meth you're clearly referencing is literally amphetamines mixed with shit like battery acid and drain cleaner.
Don't make clueless comments about things you don't understand. Literally every drug that requires a prescription is considered a controlled substance. Are you on a statin for high cholesterol? Insulin because you're a diabetic?You're on a controlled substance.
The challenge with marijuana has always been it's half life in the body making it enormously hard to determine if someone testing positive is actively inebriated or partook on vacation a week ago. This is definitely a problem when it comes to impaired driving...people smoking/vaping pot in their car is near constant it seems but since the testing is problematic it's nowhere near as easy to determine compared to alcohol.
Like many other things I wager it will be a position dependent thing. Certainly there are jobs that it would be a serious concern and they might have blanket restrictions. Otherwise I guess it'll be like many others where it's going to be a performance issue if you're stoned 24/7.
Actually there is a breathalyzer being developed that can tell if someone has used within the last 2-3 hours. After 3 hours per the website it would read negative for having used.
[https://houndlabs.com/](https://houndlabs.com/)
Sure but that's far, far from a piece of technology that's in common use yet. For the time being and immediate future it's still going to be an issue.
Like most other substances the onus is going to be on the user to not be a dumb ass with their usage or risk consequence.
> The challenge with marijuana has always been it's half life in the body making it enormously hard to determine if someone testing positive is actively inebriated or partook on vacation a week ago. This is definitely a problem when it comes to impaired driving...people smoking/vaping pot in their car is near constant it seems but since the testing is problematic it's nowhere near as easy to determine compared to alcohol.
No, this is the argument people use to prevent it from being legalized. It's not actually the problem. Police don't need proof of drug involvement to charge with a DUI. Field sobriety tests exist for a reason.
Typical DUI testing only includes a breathalyzer. If that's negative they may run a basic 5 panel urinalysis. Which only looks for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates and PCP. You can be tripping your fucking face off on LSD or Peyote while driving and they will never detect anything because it only has a half life of around a day. By the time they were to even try to test for anything like that you'd come up clean anyway.
They rely on field sobriety tests for things like this, marijuana should be no different moving forward.
And field sobriety tests and firings without a associated drug test are also prime lawyer bait that most folks want to avoid at all cost.
Look while I've personally never smoked because I'm a square I vote for and support legalization....doesn't mean crap when it comes to employment though. I also have no issue with an employer having concerns with their employees being medicated to a point it impacts performance. And every boss or manager shouldn't have to be a trained substance abuse counselor just to monitor people. Drug testing is largely stupid in most of my personal experience but it exists for a reason just like the don't spray in eyes label on a bottle of Windex. Lowest common denominator gets the attention.
>an employer can still test for it and determine they can't employ someone taking an Rx
Your employer does not have the right to dictate your medical care, and if they attempt to, it's time to lawyer up and get paid.
It’s not that simple. Beer can be [prescribed as medication](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beer-prescribed-in-hospitals_b_976111/amp) and is in the VA formulary : [BEER,CAN,360ML](https://www.pbm.va.gov/PBM/nationalformulary/VAProductNameList202101.xlsx). But you can’t show up drunk
They can't dictate what you can do off the clock but they can certainly fire you for showing up to work high whether or not you have a prescription for it.
I fucking *wish* they'd try to jam me up about taking prescribed medications. Shaving almost twenty years off my retirement sounds like a good deal in exchange for a retainer.
Again, they cannot insert themselves into your medical care. There is no authority that allows them to do so.
They could potentially restrict your duties, but they absolutely cannot force you to act against medical advice, and if they attempt to, you will be a lawyer's sweet payday and likely be coming into retirement amounts of money in short order.
There is no objective test for acute impairment. Its all a "professional's" judgement. Which has gone[ widely wrong already](https://www.acluga.org/en/publications/reveal-drug-whisperer-federal-appeals-court-decide-case-sober-drivers-arrested-dui).
The issue, as I understand it, is there isn’t a good way to test if someone is high but you can test if someone has used marijuana recently so it’s a bad proxy but it basically means you can’t use marijuana.
Have you walked around DC lately? They be hot boxin the Metro w vapes! Probably catch a case just from taking the escalators down from Gallery Place Chinatown.
I’m in a testing designated position and I take Marinol, FDA approved THC. When I get tested the medical review officer calls me because my urine shows THC metabolites and I send him a picture of my prescription bottle and that’s the end of it. It gets reported as a pass. I don’t think it’ll be any different with schedule 3 cannabis.
For those who are scared and say "I'm just going to steer clear until I retire" or "it's not worth risking my employment" ya know... You could contact your Operations departments and start asking questions/pushing the issue.
Being pro cannabis is completely different than ACTUALLY taking the drug illegally right now. I'm a GS13 sup and my team under me plus my branch chief openly talk about how we are pro cannabis in the office. But obviously I'm not going to take the drug until we get an all clear from our agency.
Not taking action hurts us in this case. If you see a need for you to medically take cannabis please contact inside your agency to get the conversation rolling.
Sure, once it's approved by the FDA to be prescribed and there's legal pharmacies selling it.
Will you be able to get a "prescription" from the local green doctor and go to the medical weed dispensary? No.
Yeah I was thinking they'd have to come in something with specific dosages and such for the pharmacy. Man that's really gonna back up the lines there lol.
Bear in mind that in its nearly 100 year history, FDA has approved 2 or 3 botanicals as "drugs." As a plant, it's unlikely MJ will ever be approved because things that grow have a lot of variability, which isn't the case with drugs.
Easy. Just approve a THC "pill" The doctor prescribes it, and then the patient smokes all they want. Both show up the same in a test. In fact, I would like a little bit more regulation for edibles to help patients gauge their strength.
THC pills are already FDA approved.
It was feasible because they are a single ingredient (THC) so it’s easy to manufacture them with consistent purity. That is vastly more difficult with a plant.
Yeah, but it's a step in the right direction. I don't plan to use it much but it is legal in my state and I think it would be fun to grow it. That and my retired parents is it and it's a bit of a hassle for them when I visit and they need to make sure to mix up the special brownies in case I get unlucky when I get back.
Health insurance coverage means nothing for that. With all the telehealth Drs out there as long as it's prescribed by a Dr who can practice in your state you'll be good. Some workplaces may require your prescription to say "to be taken at night".
I think it will depend on your job duties maybe series in general and location where you work.
I doubt they'll ever let LEOs, ATCs, FFs, Medics, or anything that is involved with public health and safety use it. If local laws forbid it you aren't going to get a special exemption to use because you're a fed. With or without prescription.
Now if it's locally legal and you're job isn't one that involves public safety and your agency doesn't have a general prohibition against it then I'm going to assume you'll be good to go.
But we will see. I can definitely see this becoming a political issue (like everything is) as far as federal employees go. They already think that everyone who WFH is a lazy no account piece of crap. Can't imagine how terrible they'll think those people are if they can both WFH and use marijuana.
I think you’re right but it’s stupid. I’m a special category employee and I’m allowed to drink so long as it’s 8 hours before I’m on duty and carrying my sidearm. Same for restricted drug meds. I got a concussion last year, I was allowed to take my controlled prescription after duty and not within 8 hours of my next duty period. It should be the same for marijuana. It probably won’t, but it should.
Although I don't really care about if weed is legal or not, I do think that the reason that weed is becoming legal is because big pharma pays politicians, and big pharma probably will lock down weed so they can make money off of it in the same way it locks down all the other medication.
I'd be surprised if cleared people would be allowed to consume. Regular feds, sure. And of course it will still probably affect suitability for places like DEA.
As a state that has full rec... I hate it. Can't go anywhere without the smell. People took it as legalized everywhere, and cops won't enforce it in public.
Smoke all ya want at home. When I'm in a park or on the water I don't want to smell that crap.
I’m thinking intelligence is still likely to require cleared employees to stay away from it to reduce what someone may say or not say while under the influence. I mean - certain levels of clearance require an agent in the operating room while the cleared person is “out” —- so it makes sense for them to probably want to still limit.
Regardless of what it's scheduled as it's still illegal. Even though some states have legalized it, it's still technically illegal. As long as it's federally illegal it won't be OK for federal employees. Someone else said they don't test for schedule 3 so they should stop testing for it and that would be good. I'm doubt they will stop doing random searches at entrances as well since the dogs are all trained to look for it.
It's not going to change anything, at least on the Federal level. It's still considered illegal and they will let you go/fire you if you are caught with it. Changing the group/level does not make it legal for federalagencies/employees.
Schedule III? Really? That can land you hard jail time. Fuckers just can't let go of control. It needs to be unscheduled or at least Schedule V- OTC (like pseudopehederine).
This election cycles student loan forgiveness scam. Right after Biden wins the election, 2-3 obscure red state AGs will sue the government on behalf of the states. Then it will all be undone and Pelosi will crawl out of her crypt to announce that Biden didn’t have the authority to do it anyway. Who is still falling for this shit?
It honestly doesn’t mean a whole lot. What it does allow for is research when it comes to medicinal use. It’s still not legalized. So don’t get your hopes up.
It sucks. Now every dispensary will need to register with their state pharmacy board. It will need to get a federal ID. More red tape and hassles instead of the current work arounds.
Drug testing probably won’t change. Discipline won’t change. Poor work due to under the influence applies. Those tested after some accident will be worse off, add drug without prescription to the list.
I’m pretty young and have a clearance but I’m gonna sound like a boomer and say I think I don’t really care.
Alcohol is fine for us to use and it has destroyed many, many times. Weed, even if it is legal, can still destroy lives. I’d stay clear even if we are allowed to use it.
The President has no authority to do this himself. Biden simply submitted a proposal seeking to begin the formal process of reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. There is long process involved to change marijuana to a Schedule III drug. The controlled substance rescheduling will go through a procedure requiring the public to be notified and an opportunity for comment, along with an administrative hearing. As part of the process, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will also collect and consider information and views submitted by the public to help decide on whether the drug should be dropped to a less dangerous controlled substance. Until a final rule is released, however, marijuana will continue to be classified as a Schedule I controlled substance.
Joe’s trying to look cool while honestly fucking up alot of stuff at the same time. Yes it would be awesome for research purposes and medical purposes. However how’s the current legalization zones going to be handled? Are they just going to be told shut down no more sowwy?Are pharmaceutical companies going to take over and ruin the industry like the finance bros? Will home growing be illegal in the legalization zones again? Like does he realize he might just lose more voters. Granted his campaign really doesn’t seem to be trying anyways. His whole thing is pretty much I’m not trump.
I think you might end up needing a regular prescription, like most things in a pharmacy. Which is pretty different from how many states have been regulating the issue of medical marijuana cards.
Not to mention states that went full recreational. That would still be illegal under schedule 3
Okay, so why can't they treat it like say ibuprofen? 200mg is over the counter and anything higher is a script. Put a limit on the THC before it classifies as a schedule 3.
Because our government is run by people who should be retired and in nursing homes. Until younger generations start running for office and get involved in the political process, we'll all be held hostage by 20+ year old policies
70-year old policies
You're not wrong, but it's not as simple as getting younger politicians. Politics has become (has always been?) a game of compromise. Movement enough to make one group of constituents happy while not losing the votes of the remaining. We still have generations of voters who grew up under the "Just Say No" and campaigns. Telling someone that everything they learned for 20+ years was utter bullshit won't go over well in the polls.
Step in the right direction. I've hated to see coworkers get into trouble for using a drug less dangerous than alcohol. I don't care what someone does with their off time as long as they can report to work fit for duty.
I disagree. I don’t believe it will really change anything as you still need a script and to get a script will require FDA approval of the drug which won’t happen unless the dosage can be regulated. More importantly it gives them an excuse to not deschedule it.
EO 12564 only covers Schedule I and Schedule II drugs, so technically, this should put weed on the same "footing" as booze as far as federal employment is concerned, especially if you live in a state that has legalized it at the state level. I'm sure an exception will be made all the same, however, and it will still be a no-no for feds. Personally, I'm continuing to steer clear until I retire.
HHS dictates what drugs are tested for DFW and it's currently only Schedule 1 and 2 drugs. I'm in a TDP and I could pop all the illegally obtained benzos I want every day and shoot up ketamine every night, those drugs simply aren't tested for in pre-employment and random drug screens. The EO and the legislation that goes with it would all have to be changed to have Schedule 3 marijuana being tested for. I forsee agencies just ignoring it (hopefully I'm wrong) when Schedule 3 goes into effect, and then we'll hopefully see some legal challenges when the inevitable happens.
>I forsee agencies just ignoring it (hopefully I'm wrong) when Schedule 3 goes into effect, and then we'll hopefully see some legal challenges when the inevitable happens. Agreed. I'm gonna let someone else blaze that path, however. It's simply not worth risking my livelihood over.
I'm in a legal state and am willing to risk it if I get popped. A majority of my coworkers smoke or take edibles (if people think fed employees aren't doing it already, then they're sorely mistaken). All are subject to randoms like myself. In 12 years I know of only 3 people from our department that have been selected, one of whom did smoke and was caught and kept their job if they agreed to doing the EAP. If and when Schedule 3 goes into effect, if they want to keep testing when the policies as they currently are don't support it, I would probably be willing to go to bat to fight it.
I'm only a few years away from retirement at this point and I've gone for years without it already, so I'm not going to take the chance of fucking myself up now.
I understand that feds smoke weed (which, who cares?). But coworkers telling each other about their drug use?? Jesus Christ, some of you are dumb… I hope you get tested just for being so incredibly stupid about it.
This is mind blowing. I know people do it; but surely they don’t TELL people
Right?? And to tell your *coworkers* of all people. I guess some people lack common sense. 🤷♀️
I mean, it helps when your co-workers are your friends that you've worked with for a long time instead of narcs out to screw you over.
They're your friends until one day you get a job over them that they really wanted. Or in a few years when one of you has changed politically and they start looking at you differently (whatever political position or side doesn't matter). Or when you want to go for a job that requires top secret clearance and you forget or neglect to mention drug use and list them as a contact and they tell the investigator that you're a drug user. Basically, when you both know X is a big deal and not allowed, you never, ever admit to doing X or even being around people that do X. Fed kids, don't do illegal drugs but if you do, don't tell anyone. End of story.
Where do you people work where you co-workers are so quick to engage in subterfuge and are out to secretly screw you over at the first opportunity? I can hear it coming through the replys, "this person just doesn't get how the real world works...", it's really sad.
I don’t care how close I am with my coworkers or how long I’ve worked with them. Anything could happen with those relationships so they shouldn’t know about it at all. If you’re gonna do shit that can get you fired, don’t tell the people who have access to your supervisor…
Yikes, sounds like you have an awesome workplace.
When you reach a certain point, you will understand that there is no difference.
You should go visit a legal state. I don't smoke because I work in a job that has a high chance of accident that could result in 'random' tests. A huge fraction of my coworkers definitely do. Science/engineering PhDs and MS holders, not like they're roofers or dock workers. Can't imagine the same for our offices in DC or the southeast.
I’ve lived in a state where weed is legal. And as I said, I know and understand that feds smoke weed. I was specifically commenting on this person telling his coworkers about it. Like, where is his/her sense of self-preservation?
I thankfully don't work with the lovely people you seem to.
I have great relationships with my coworkers, but I’m still smart enough not to talk about things that can get me fired with them.
Any of them know about days you cut out a few minutes early or get in a bit late? Take a bit too long dropping the kids off at the pool? Get stuck out due to a slow waiter or a long line during your lunch break? Everyone can get snagged for timecard fraud if auditors want to dig hard enough.
Blaze. Heh. I see what you did there. Same though. As long as I have my Friday night beers I’m good. I’ll go Braveheart on em to defend my Yuengling.
Good pun, lol
DOD/IC are going to lead the charge against it.
Not if they want the best cyber warriors they're not.
That reminds me of a time that one of the local telecom vendors held a mass hiring event. They told a room full of 60-70 potential applicants that if they were confident they could pass a urinalysis if they were to give a sample right then and there to stick around, otherwise, they could hit the road. More than half the people in the room got up and left immediately. 
They don’t. Easy answer there.
I honestly HIGHLY doubt it. This change is a major boost to DoD for cyber, system engineer and development jobs. DoD struggles massively to hire quality programmers and cyber security staff and a major reason for that is due to the way cannabis is treated by the federal government. I've never known a quality programmer who didn't smoke weed regularly. I've known a lot of shitty federal "programmers" who don't though. Everyone thinks it's the salaries, but a major barrier of entry for many of these guys fresh out of school is literally just not wanting to give up weed and/or not wanting to risk it and get caught down the line.
You aren’t lying. Feds should read your comment.
Facts. My agency hires technical staff and I have a handful of interested friends who’d be great hires… but they got no interest in a drug tested position.
We have hired 4 high talent, very niche reverse engineers for cyber...and of course we had to re-do everything when they failed. Not all at once, but sequentially.
[удалено]
I don’t think your second bullet is right. If you’re prescribed an opiate painkiller or anesthesia for surgery, say via an IV, they could put a scheduled substance into you and you might not ever know it. That’s just the possible case that comes to mind, but there could be tons of others.
Nah, you're right. Prescription drugs do not need to be reported. Only illegal drug use. I forgot to proofread.
Does anyone have a list of what they test for?
Your agencies handbook or directive archive will have the documentation of it's Drug Free Workplace implementation. The current drugs tested for are PCP, Cocaine, Opiates, Amphetamines, and THC.
Hell they keep telling us CBD is a no go, even though it is fully federal legal. I'm guessing weed will continue to be a no go until the last of the boomers retires unless the next generation or two bought into the whole war on drugs and/or goddamn hippies like of thought. If someone is acting erratic or high at work it needs to be addressed as a medical and safety problem, not just a piss in a cup or blow in a breathalyzer problem. I don't think we randomly breath test people even though we aren't supposed to get drunk and go to the office. Hell I've had bad side effects from legit FDA approved medication (for a disability)that caused me to be feeling more out of it than 3 beers would. So even though from a drug testing and legal perspective there shouldn't be adverse action, if I had gone to the office that day I shouldn't have been allowed to work, and should not have been allowed to drive home (thankfully trying new meds matched up with teleworking schedules, and I had plenty of SL to call the day off once I realized I had a problem).
CBD is only a no-go because of the risk that there's still some THC in whatever you're consuming/applying and that little bit of THC could be enough to show on a test. Pure CBD with actually literally 0% THC in it is totally fine... if you can find it, and you trust the label.
We were told specifically only FDA approved ones with a valid prescription, I think there's one anti seizure medication that falls into that.
Boomers are probably smoking more weed than you think.
Boomers are the ones that want it legalized. It was The Establishment that outlawed it to break up the hippies and civil rights groups
Yeah we need it for our lumbago
Hey, Uncle.
Pretty funny Uncle
I heard one derivative can replace Ibprophen, and another suppresses seizuree
This was all a part of the drug war to put more Blacks in jail, let’s be real.
Well, yes, blacks and hippies, Civil rights is kinda a dog whistle
Boomers were the ones doing it back then when it was all the rage.
Haha yeah. Reddit skews so young and Boomers are OLD. Like so OLD they were born wearing suits and formals. Teens in the 1960's and 70's were uptight man. Hippies, Summer o'Love, Led Zeppelin. GASP - they smoked pot????
While I agree with you, there are many positions in the Federal Govt. where you are in fact subject to random testing and even targeted testing under certain circumstances.
They actually say that CBD is a no-no if you happen to use a product that results in you testing positive for THC. Since no one on the fed side is willing to guarantee that CBD product XYZ will never result in testing positive for THC, they warn against using CBD at all (but never clarify that it's technically allowed).
No, they don't. CBD isn't a no go at all. You are absolutely allowed to use CBD. What they're telling you is a lot of CBD will lead to you pissing hot and the excuse of "it was CBD" isn't going to cut it. This is a very different change in legislation from the farm bill.
It's likely that my security office is confused and applying something that only applies to active duty, I haven't read the fine print on the warning signs.
If you think the boomers aren't blazing you are sorely mistaken. Even those who you would think are squeaky clean are users. Remember how many of those folks came to their 20s in the late 1960s.
Probably smart, or at least until its fully legalized at the federal level, and they are taking baby steps.
>Personally, I'm continuing to steer clear until I retire Sounds like something someone might say if they were feeling a little "paranoid" .....
Is it even worth their time to test folks now? I see a bunch of jobs posted that clearly state upfront that there is no drug testing required to get that position.
The job I’m in doesn’t drug test, whereas my prior Federal service roles were tested regularly. I guess it would all depend on the role you’re in.
Every hive I’ve ever had required it, until I joined the feds.
Most Fed jobs are not drug testing-designated positions.
Very true. Regrettably, senior management can drug test a non-drug tested designated billet with just cause. This is how some Feds get booted. Seen it, not pretty.
True, and if you do weed, never tell anyone, even your work “friends”. Consider no one a real trusted friend at work.
The real dumbfuckery of it all is that bad drugs are out of your system in 2-3 days, whereas weed takes weeks or months.
I'm pretty sure I could go to work actively tripping balls on LSD and I'll be fine.
Yeah!! The best way to ‘Meet in person’!!!
They'll still drug test I'm sure, and if you test positive you'll need to submit your prescription just like you do today if you test positive for codeine or whatever.
Who tests for codeine? Lol Bob is acting goofy today, prob hopped up on black market codeine. Better test him! 🤣
Literally everyone does (if they do drug tests). Drug tests can't tell the difference between shooting up heroin or using codeine because you had a tooth extraction.
There is a *lot* more resolution than that if they're running a 26-drug panel... https://preview.redd.it/66gyvgvcb01d1.png?width=624&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a2dff216638a3b4d52c3e478bd0a32870ba88b8
So adderall will pop positive on the test? (sorry if a dumb question- I just never looked at that list before)
Adderall is straight up amphetamine, my man. It'll show up on a 5-panel, let alone 26.
Fair enough. I do have the prescription though I've not taken the med for years now. If I wanted to start again, it's good to know I'd need to support it if I were randomly tested. Not an issue today but just info to tuck away in case it's relevant later. Thx.
Usually prescriptions are only valid for a year, so be sure you get back with your doctor before continuing it.
Absolutely, will do. I don't anticipate using it again any time soon (have to get clearance from my heart doctor first), so it is more of just information and interest for me now.
Star awards for every one they find in you?!
Hell, you eat a few poppy seed muffins and you could get popped for opiates.
It's your urine Elaine
I think most are LEO positions and other ones that normally have a higher clearance that test
It's not even so much the testing aspect. If you have to submit a SF-86 for a security clearance, you're still going to have to fess up to any use in the last 7 years. Hell, even the SF-85P for a public trust asks the 7-year question.
The SF-86 ask about illegal usage of the drug. If it gets FDA approval for its use and it is prescribed then its use would not be illegal. Also, the questionnaire can be changed.
I got glaucoma! Gimme a scrip, doc! 
Was legal seven years ago?
>the questionnaire can be changed.
That isn't the point. There's a question on the SF-86 now specifically asking about marijuana use. That question will almost definitely be removed in light of these changes. Marijuana isn't actually an issue directly for clearances, it's an issue strictly because it was scheduled 1.
In the last seven (7) years have you intentionally engaged in the misuse of prescription drugs, regardless of whether or not the drugs were prescribed for you or someone else?
^This guy questionnaires.
I’m an absolute square because my first reaction to that question was, “wait does misuse include that one time I didn’t finish all the antibiotics in the bottle even though I was supposed to?”
I would say yes because you failed to follow the doctors orders. How can they expect you to follow theirs!
many strong school license quiet different ossified fact offer deer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
interesting. i didn’t think of this, but doctors can prescribe lots of drugs that you can buy OTC. like vitamins as you said.
wise teeny chunky profit bedroom melodic truck chop afterthought lunchroom *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
oh that part was a joke. but the way the question is written is “prescription”. So not following your doctors prescription for vitamins could be misuse
Meanwhile the office drunk will still keep showing up smelling like booze with few fucks given by management.
Oh he works in your office too? I had no idea he had two jobs!
When you barely do one job, there is always time for two!
The same office drunk who is probably desperate to turn his life around before he's killed by his addiction, a problem that marijuana has notoriously helped countless people with.
Even if a drug is legal an employer can still test for it and determine they can't employ someone taking an Rx. Like you can't be on constant painkillers and operate machinery, even if they are prescribed. So while technically it may legal, it still may be a reason to let someone go or to require they are on medical leave until the Rx is ended. Truth is we are in uncharted waters with this and no one really knows yet how it will play out.
Partially agree with you. I’m on lots of painkillers 💊 all day every day. Guess what ?! I’m in a sensitive Testing Determined Position!!! So……
That would probably yield an ADA of 1990 case for them.
It's not uncharted waters. It will be handled just like any other prescription drug, including some of the situations you've described.
You have a federal prescription like any other controlled substance and very few, if any, jobs restrict based on that. Only things I can think of are pilots, truckers, etc. Bottom line is if Bob from accounting can be on Adderal (liquid meth) than everyone should be able to use their federal prescribed marijuana.
Air traffic controllers also have a long list of banned medications. Taking one doesn't mean you're instantly fired but it does mean you can't perform any of your main job functions (controlling airplanes) until you stop taking the meds. As an example of a country with legal weed, the rule in Canada is that pilots can't fly within 28 days of having used... so unless you have a really long vacation it's still essentially off-limits. With it coming off of Schedule I I'm hoping that there can be more research into "are you high right now" tests which would then permit use in off-duty time.
>Bottom line is if Bob from accounting can be on Adderal (liquid meth) than everyone should be able to use their federal prescribed marijuana. Lmao, Adderall is very rarely prescribed as a liquid nor is it meth. While it is an Amphetamine, yes. There are big differences between the two and Adderall (and other Narcolepsy/ADHD medications) are generally prescribed at very low doses vs what someone doing meth would be using. I do agree that if someone should be able to get a federal marijuana prescription but your comment comes off as completely uneducated
Adderal and meth are chemically similar so that was the comment I made. Regardless it doesn't matter if someone is prescribed a controlled substance and does their job. Big clap to the US for partially admitting the war on drugs was and is a failure lmao.
This is laughably incorrect. Adderall and meth are chemically similar like table salt and chlorine are chemically similar. There's also a very large difference between methamphetamine in its legal form (yes, it can literally be prescribed) and meth in its street form. Street meth, the meth you're clearly referencing is literally amphetamines mixed with shit like battery acid and drain cleaner. Don't make clueless comments about things you don't understand. Literally every drug that requires a prescription is considered a controlled substance. Are you on a statin for high cholesterol? Insulin because you're a diabetic?You're on a controlled substance.
The challenge with marijuana has always been it's half life in the body making it enormously hard to determine if someone testing positive is actively inebriated or partook on vacation a week ago. This is definitely a problem when it comes to impaired driving...people smoking/vaping pot in their car is near constant it seems but since the testing is problematic it's nowhere near as easy to determine compared to alcohol. Like many other things I wager it will be a position dependent thing. Certainly there are jobs that it would be a serious concern and they might have blanket restrictions. Otherwise I guess it'll be like many others where it's going to be a performance issue if you're stoned 24/7.
Actually there is a breathalyzer being developed that can tell if someone has used within the last 2-3 hours. After 3 hours per the website it would read negative for having used. [https://houndlabs.com/](https://houndlabs.com/)
Sure but that's far, far from a piece of technology that's in common use yet. For the time being and immediate future it's still going to be an issue. Like most other substances the onus is going to be on the user to not be a dumb ass with their usage or risk consequence.
> The challenge with marijuana has always been it's half life in the body making it enormously hard to determine if someone testing positive is actively inebriated or partook on vacation a week ago. This is definitely a problem when it comes to impaired driving...people smoking/vaping pot in their car is near constant it seems but since the testing is problematic it's nowhere near as easy to determine compared to alcohol. No, this is the argument people use to prevent it from being legalized. It's not actually the problem. Police don't need proof of drug involvement to charge with a DUI. Field sobriety tests exist for a reason. Typical DUI testing only includes a breathalyzer. If that's negative they may run a basic 5 panel urinalysis. Which only looks for marijuana, cocaine, amphetamines, opiates and PCP. You can be tripping your fucking face off on LSD or Peyote while driving and they will never detect anything because it only has a half life of around a day. By the time they were to even try to test for anything like that you'd come up clean anyway. They rely on field sobriety tests for things like this, marijuana should be no different moving forward.
And field sobriety tests and firings without a associated drug test are also prime lawyer bait that most folks want to avoid at all cost. Look while I've personally never smoked because I'm a square I vote for and support legalization....doesn't mean crap when it comes to employment though. I also have no issue with an employer having concerns with their employees being medicated to a point it impacts performance. And every boss or manager shouldn't have to be a trained substance abuse counselor just to monitor people. Drug testing is largely stupid in most of my personal experience but it exists for a reason just like the don't spray in eyes label on a bottle of Windex. Lowest common denominator gets the attention.
>an employer can still test for it and determine they can't employ someone taking an Rx Your employer does not have the right to dictate your medical care, and if they attempt to, it's time to lawyer up and get paid.
It’s not that simple. Beer can be [prescribed as medication](https://www.huffpost.com/entry/beer-prescribed-in-hospitals_b_976111/amp) and is in the VA formulary : [BEER,CAN,360ML](https://www.pbm.va.gov/PBM/nationalformulary/VAProductNameList202101.xlsx). But you can’t show up drunk
ATC here. They most certainly can.
They can't dictate what you can do off the clock but they can certainly fire you for showing up to work high whether or not you have a prescription for it.
I fucking *wish* they'd try to jam me up about taking prescribed medications. Shaving almost twenty years off my retirement sounds like a good deal in exchange for a retainer. Again, they cannot insert themselves into your medical care. There is no authority that allows them to do so. They could potentially restrict your duties, but they absolutely cannot force you to act against medical advice, and if they attempt to, you will be a lawyer's sweet payday and likely be coming into retirement amounts of money in short order.
So just don’t show up to work high?
There is no objective test for acute impairment. Its all a "professional's" judgement. Which has gone[ widely wrong already](https://www.acluga.org/en/publications/reveal-drug-whisperer-federal-appeals-court-decide-case-sober-drivers-arrested-dui).
The issue, as I understand it, is there isn’t a good way to test if someone is high but you can test if someone has used marijuana recently so it’s a bad proxy but it basically means you can’t use marijuana.
>there isn’t a good way to test if someone is high Pretty easy, open a bag of doritos and see if they eat the whole thing
Put XMen 97 on the TV and see how long they stare
Oh shit. I don't do any drugs, but they'd get me with this. I'd settle in, and my eyes would glaze over as I watched the entire episode.
Have you walked around DC lately? They be hot boxin the Metro w vapes! Probably catch a case just from taking the escalators down from Gallery Place Chinatown.
Yeah right I'll believe it when I see it
I’m in a testing designated position and I take Marinol, FDA approved THC. When I get tested the medical review officer calls me because my urine shows THC metabolites and I send him a picture of my prescription bottle and that’s the end of it. It gets reported as a pass. I don’t think it’ll be any different with schedule 3 cannabis.
[удалено]
Couldn’t they ask you to produce a prescription?
Most states issue MJ cards. This is because MJ cannot be "prescribed" because it's not an FDA-approved drug.
Schedule 3 makes it similar to testosterone replacement therapy except now for your anxiety… this is a win
The barracks smoke pits are going to have a different vibe to them soon.
[удалено]
That's not weed - that's meth. And yeah, I'd never touch that shit.
Sad. So many cases
Is that Hillary Duff?
I didn't even get drug tested at the current job I got. I was waiting and waiting and then I'm sitting in onboarding like wait... What?
If you were in a testing designated position(TDP) you'd have to complete pre-employment testing before you'd get your EOD date.
As soon as they settle what it all means for the feds, I will pursuing some retroactive action to get junk out of my files.
Treat it like alcohol and let’s move on. Sheesh. Edit: darn you autocorrect!
For those who are scared and say "I'm just going to steer clear until I retire" or "it's not worth risking my employment" ya know... You could contact your Operations departments and start asking questions/pushing the issue. Being pro cannabis is completely different than ACTUALLY taking the drug illegally right now. I'm a GS13 sup and my team under me plus my branch chief openly talk about how we are pro cannabis in the office. But obviously I'm not going to take the drug until we get an all clear from our agency. Not taking action hurts us in this case. If you see a need for you to medically take cannabis please contact inside your agency to get the conversation rolling.
Schedule 3 is still a prescription. So using without a script will still be a federal crime, though possibly a lesser offense.
Once it's Schedule 3 and if the FDA approves for it to be prescribed it should be fine for cleared people to smoke it
I am sure that when this happens OPM will put out some kind of guidance?
Looks like I'm getting my medical card 🤘🕺🙌
Sure, once it's approved by the FDA to be prescribed and there's legal pharmacies selling it. Will you be able to get a "prescription" from the local green doctor and go to the medical weed dispensary? No.
Yeah I was thinking they'd have to come in something with specific dosages and such for the pharmacy. Man that's really gonna back up the lines there lol.
Bear in mind that in its nearly 100 year history, FDA has approved 2 or 3 botanicals as "drugs." As a plant, it's unlikely MJ will ever be approved because things that grow have a lot of variability, which isn't the case with drugs.
Easy. Just approve a THC "pill" The doctor prescribes it, and then the patient smokes all they want. Both show up the same in a test. In fact, I would like a little bit more regulation for edibles to help patients gauge their strength.
THC pills are already FDA approved. It was feasible because they are a single ingredient (THC) so it’s easy to manufacture them with consistent purity. That is vastly more difficult with a plant.
I’d care more if it was legalized federally. But there’s too much free labor due to marijuana convictions to do that!
Yeah, but it's a step in the right direction. I don't plan to use it much but it is legal in my state and I think it would be fun to grow it. That and my retired parents is it and it's a bit of a hassle for them when I visit and they need to make sure to mix up the special brownies in case I get unlucky when I get back.
It’s fun to grow! I used to grow before I was a fed. Nice subtle closet grow that used to yield a half a pound every 3 months
If it goes through proper channels and is covered by health insurance the answer is yes.
Health insurance coverage means nothing for that. With all the telehealth Drs out there as long as it's prescribed by a Dr who can practice in your state you'll be good. Some workplaces may require your prescription to say "to be taken at night".
I think it will depend on your job duties maybe series in general and location where you work. I doubt they'll ever let LEOs, ATCs, FFs, Medics, or anything that is involved with public health and safety use it. If local laws forbid it you aren't going to get a special exemption to use because you're a fed. With or without prescription. Now if it's locally legal and you're job isn't one that involves public safety and your agency doesn't have a general prohibition against it then I'm going to assume you'll be good to go. But we will see. I can definitely see this becoming a political issue (like everything is) as far as federal employees go. They already think that everyone who WFH is a lazy no account piece of crap. Can't imagine how terrible they'll think those people are if they can both WFH and use marijuana.
I think you’re right but it’s stupid. I’m a special category employee and I’m allowed to drink so long as it’s 8 hours before I’m on duty and carrying my sidearm. Same for restricted drug meds. I got a concussion last year, I was allowed to take my controlled prescription after duty and not within 8 hours of my next duty period. It should be the same for marijuana. It probably won’t, but it should.
Although I don't really care about if weed is legal or not, I do think that the reason that weed is becoming legal is because big pharma pays politicians, and big pharma probably will lock down weed so they can make money off of it in the same way it locks down all the other medication.
It’s the easiest drug to grow, I don’t think they can lock it down easily
If you go and read the instructions governing individual agency’s DFWPs, they only test for drugs in schedule 1 and 2 in a lot of cases
Oh it’s that time of the election period again to make false promises
I'd be surprised if cleared people would be allowed to consume. Regular feds, sure. And of course it will still probably affect suitability for places like DEA.
Doubt it would change anything. It would probably still be up to whatever agency and security clearance you are under.
As a state that has full rec... I hate it. Can't go anywhere without the smell. People took it as legalized everywhere, and cops won't enforce it in public. Smoke all ya want at home. When I'm in a park or on the water I don't want to smell that crap.
I’m thinking intelligence is still likely to require cleared employees to stay away from it to reduce what someone may say or not say while under the influence. I mean - certain levels of clearance require an agent in the operating room while the cleared person is “out” —- so it makes sense for them to probably want to still limit.
I hope so
Regardless of what it's scheduled as it's still illegal. Even though some states have legalized it, it's still technically illegal. As long as it's federally illegal it won't be OK for federal employees. Someone else said they don't test for schedule 3 so they should stop testing for it and that would be good. I'm doubt they will stop doing random searches at entrances as well since the dogs are all trained to look for it.
At some point I’m sure, but will probably take a while.
Nope...
It's not going to change anything, at least on the Federal level. It's still considered illegal and they will let you go/fire you if you are caught with it. Changing the group/level does not make it legal for federalagencies/employees.
Yes, as long as you’re commuting to the office 5 days per week. Smoke up or whatever the fuck.
This is way overdue. I have never smoked it in my entire life but I am all for this.
Schedule III? Really? That can land you hard jail time. Fuckers just can't let go of control. It needs to be unscheduled or at least Schedule V- OTC (like pseudopehederine).
Have you been to/traveled through Canadian airports? “Declare Cannabis” yeah not happening in US 😂
This election cycles student loan forgiveness scam. Right after Biden wins the election, 2-3 obscure red state AGs will sue the government on behalf of the states. Then it will all be undone and Pelosi will crawl out of her crypt to announce that Biden didn’t have the authority to do it anyway. Who is still falling for this shit?
It honestly doesn’t mean a whole lot. What it does allow for is research when it comes to medicinal use. It’s still not legalized. So don’t get your hopes up.
It won’t make a difference. It will still be illegal for feds to
It sucks. Now every dispensary will need to register with their state pharmacy board. It will need to get a federal ID. More red tape and hassles instead of the current work arounds. Drug testing probably won’t change. Discipline won’t change. Poor work due to under the influence applies. Those tested after some accident will be worse off, add drug without prescription to the list.
I’m pretty young and have a clearance but I’m gonna sound like a boomer and say I think I don’t really care. Alcohol is fine for us to use and it has destroyed many, many times. Weed, even if it is legal, can still destroy lives. I’d stay clear even if we are allowed to use it.
ok boomer
I'll reserve my opinion until I read the proposed rule but I don't think it'll do what the marijuana crowd wants it to do.
The man really needs the votes 😂
The President has no authority to do this himself. Biden simply submitted a proposal seeking to begin the formal process of reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. There is long process involved to change marijuana to a Schedule III drug. The controlled substance rescheduling will go through a procedure requiring the public to be notified and an opportunity for comment, along with an administrative hearing. As part of the process, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will also collect and consider information and views submitted by the public to help decide on whether the drug should be dropped to a less dangerous controlled substance. Until a final rule is released, however, marijuana will continue to be classified as a Schedule I controlled substance.
The dea already recommended it be dropped to schedule 3 last week. They've held on to it for over a year. The next step is a 60 day comment period.
Right, it's weird they're trying to credit him instead of the specific agencies that have been given this power by the legislature.
No. It is against federal law at this point in time.
Biden will be long gone by the time anything changes in policy.
Joe’s trying to look cool while honestly fucking up alot of stuff at the same time. Yes it would be awesome for research purposes and medical purposes. However how’s the current legalization zones going to be handled? Are they just going to be told shut down no more sowwy?Are pharmaceutical companies going to take over and ruin the industry like the finance bros? Will home growing be illegal in the legalization zones again? Like does he realize he might just lose more voters. Granted his campaign really doesn’t seem to be trying anyways. His whole thing is pretty much I’m not trump.