 On May 16, 2024, President Biden announced that his administration took a major step to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule III drug. Biden called the move “monumental”. So, what’s all the fuss about, and what are the practical implications of reclassifying marijuana? Currently marijuana is legal for medical use in 38 states, and fully legal in 24 of these states. The federal government still considers the production, distribution, and use of marijuana to be illegal. But it is the policy of the Department of Justice not to prioritize marijuana enforcement in those states that have legalized it’s use. As long as states have marijuana regulations in place that prevent the use by minors, prevent sales across state lines, and don’t contribute to other criminal activity, the federal government has a hands-off approach.  Federal Regulation of Marijuana (Cannabis): The DEA has the final authority to schedule, reschedule, or de-schedule a drug under the Controlled Substances Act. Only practitioners licensed with the DEA may prescribe a controlled substance, and only DEA licensed pharmacies may dispense them. Marijuana is a Schedule I controlled substance under the federal Controlled Substances Act (The Federal Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970) . A controlled substance is any drug or chemical with the potential to cause harm through dependency, misuse, or abuse, and falls into one of five schedules of the Controlled Substances Act.
 Timeline of Marijuana Reclassification: October 6, 2022: President Biden directed the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Attorney General to review how marijuana is currently scheduled under federal law. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) then conducted a scientific and medical evaluation on whether marijuana has any current medical use in the United States, it’s potential for abuse, and other factors necessary for rescheduling a drug under the Controlled Substances Act. August 2023: The FDA issued a 252-page report recommending that marijuana be reclassified as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. The report concluded that there is some scientific support for therapeutic uses of marijuana, and though frequently abused, it is not as dangerous as drugs listed in Schedules I or II. The National Institute on Drug Abuse concurred with the findings of the report. August 29, 2023: The Department of Health and Human Services made a formal request to the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug. May 16, 2024: President Biden announced that his administration initiated the process of reclassifying marijuana. The Attorney General submitted to the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking initiating the formal rulemaking process to consider moving marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. May 21, 2024: The Federal Register published a notice of proposed rulemaking to reschedule marijuana to the less restrictive Schedule III. This triggered a 60-day public comment period on the proposed rulemaking change. People objecting to the rule change may request a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge. This process could take months or years depending upon the objections raised. Once the process plays out, the Administrative Law Judge will make their recommendation to the DEA who has the ultimate authority to reschedule marijuana.  What Reclassification of Marijuana Will Achieve:
 What Reclassification of Marijuana Will Not Achieve:
 Unanswered Questions:
 Final Thoughts: A recent study published in the journal Addiction shows that more Americans than ever are using cannabis related products. The study concludes that the number of Americans who use cannabis daily is greater than the number of Americans who use alcohol daily. I am not naïve to the dangers of increased access to marijuana, or any other potentially dangerous drug, particularly among our youth. The concentration of THC (the principal psychoactive compound in marijuana) in marijuana today is up to five times greater than it was in the 1990s. This increases the potential for dependence and the development of psychotic symptoms, particularly in young people. I am in favor of strict regulations to limit the sale of marijuana, just like with alcohol, to protect young people and society at large.  Even though reclassifying marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug will not be the panacea that many advocates hope for, it is a step in the right direction. Expanding research into marijuana’s potential medical benefits, and moving the cannabis industry out of the shadows, makes rescheduling it worthwhile. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected]. Thanks, Armchair American 
0 Comments
 A lot has happened in the country since I posted my last blog in early March. It was good to tune out the barrage of news focused on the ongoing wars, politics, the Trump trials, and college protests. But as I reenter the fray, I want to make a few comments on some of the stories that caught my attention.  Speaker Johnson Shows Some Leadership: On March 22 House Speaker Mike Johnson, despite fierce opposite by far-right members of his own party, pushed through a $1.2 trillion bipartisan spending package that will fund the government for the rest of the year. The Senate approved the bill the following day and it was signed into law by President Biden that afternoon. By reaching across the aisle to get Democrat support for the spending bill, Speaker Johnson showed that he was willing to act in a bipartisan way to avert a government shutdown. In April Speaker Johnson once again showed his willingness to put country ahead of party by getting the House to approve the $95 billion foreign aid bill. Among other things, the bill provides urgently needed military aid to Ukraine and Israel, as well as humanitarian assistance to civilians in Gaza. Getting this bill passed in the House was the right thing to do despite opposition from many Republicans. House member Marjorie Taylor Greene will likely call for a vote in the House to have Johnson removed as Speaker. Many Democrats have vowed to support the Speaker, so his job should be secure. House Republicans are not foolish enough to remove another Speaker and throw the House of Representatives into chaos this close to a presidential election.  “No Labels” Drops Out of Presidential Contest: The centrist political organization No Labels announced in early April that it would not nominate a candidate for the 2024 presidential election. Several nationally recognized politicians were under consideration, such as Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, and former Maryland Governor Larry Hogan. But in the end no politician of consequence was willing to run as a third-party candidate and potentially spoil the election for either Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Whoever wins the presidential election will do so by a very slim margin. A third-party candidate backed by No Labels would have certainly swayed the election by pulling many independent voters and some Democrats that are not thrilled that Joe Biden is running for reelection. I am not opposed to third-parties, but with the stakes so high in this election, I am happy that No Labels is not running a candidate for president.  Trump on Trial: Donald Trump is currently on trial in a New York courtroom facing thirty-four criminal counts of falsifying business records. He is the first ever former U.S. president to face criminal charges. The so-called “hush-money trial” revolves around $130,000 paid to former porn actress Stormy Daniels, who claims to have had an affair with Donald Trump. The prosecution claims that Trump falsified checks and invoices to his personal lawyer Michael Cohen to disguise the payments as legal expenses. Paying people for their silence is not a crime. Disguising the payments as legal expenses runs afoul of business and tax laws. Prosecutors are also trying to show that the payments were a criminal effort to deceive voters ahead of the 2016 presidential election. If the payments to Stormy Daniels and others were indeed meant to influence the 2016 election, then Trump’s campaign committee violated campaign finance laws by not reporting them as campaign expenses. Donald Trump will likely get convicted on one or more of the 34 counts that he is facing, but will it matter? Probably not. If Trump is convicted, the conviction will immediately be appealed, and the outcome will not be known until after the election. For me, whether or not Trump is convicted is not as important as the spotlight the trial shines on his character. The salacious and unsavory details brought out in the trial are reminders of the character of the man currently leading the Republican Party. Through his several bankruptcies we know that Trump has always been reckless in his business life. The trial reminds us that ethical behavior, morality and the practice of family values are not his strong points. His personal associations, his ability to twist the truth, and his seeming inability to take responsibility for his actions demonstrate his true character. Trump’s violations of the court’s gag orders during the trial show how undisciplined he is and highlights his disdain for authority. Donald Trump will continue to claim that the trial is proof that the Department of Justice has been weaponized against him, and he will raise millions of dollars in campaign donations as a result. Trump has called the trial “election interference” since it prevents him from being out on the campaign trail. But isn’t the payment of “hush-money” to keep damaging reports of extramarital affairs from the American people the real election interference?  College Campus Protests: Pro-Palestinian rallies on U.S. college campuses began soon after the Israel-Hamas war began on October 7, 2023. But as the war has dragged on and the suffering of the people in Gaza has intensified, pro-Palestinian protests at over 46 college campuses has escalated. Since the middle of April protestor encampments have sprung up at many college campuses to show solidarity with Palestinians and to voice opposition to what they view as a war of aggression by Israel. Protest leaders vowed to keep their encampments in place until the colleges agreed to meet such demands as divestment from Israeli companies and companies that do business with Israel. Many Jewish students have felt unsafe and unprotected on campus, and in some cases have been the victims of intimidation and antisemitism. There have been calls from Congress for colleges and universities to do more to protect Jewish students. Since the beginning of the war, campus protests have been mostly peaceful. But this all changed in recent weeks as counter protests have sprung up on some campuses, aided by outside agitators, leading to violence, destruction of property, and the upheaval of campus activities. This has led many college administrations to call in law enforcement to clear the encampments, leading to over 2400 arrests to date. Most of the protests have been peaceful and lawful. But some, like Columbia University and UCLA , were allowed to get out of control by the campus administrators leading to destruction of property, violence and mass arrests. Colleges need to balance the 1st Amendment rights of students and faculty with campus safety while maintaining orderly operations of their institutions. The exercise of free speech and the right to peacefully assemble should be guaranteed on all college campuses, within limits. These limits should include:
Students have the right to protest, but not at the expense of the rights of other students to study and learn in peace. Students should be allowed to voice their opinions on the Israel-Hamas war, or on any other topic. But when that speech interferes with the rights of other students, or it becomes unlawful, then a line has been crossed and it is no longer protected.  War protests are not new on our college campuses or public squares. Free speech and peaceful protests are protected by our constitution. But expressions of hate and the threats of violence against another person or group are not protected speech. Hate speech should be condemned in the strongest possible way, regardless of which side of the conflict you are on. If you enjoy reading this type of commentary please subscribe to my blog and tell a friend. You will receive an email notification when new blogs are posted. The email will come from the site’s email: [email protected].
Thanks, Armchair American |
AuthorThe Armchair American. 
Archives
November 2024
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed