Cannabis could soon be rescheduled: from 1 to 3

[PromoTheRobot]

https://www.greenmarketreport.com/biden-administration-calls-on-dea-to-move-marijuana-to-schedule-3/

 

Quote

The move is potentially the first step toward cannabis legalization in the United States, since Schedule 1 is reserved for drugs that have “no currently accepted medical use,” such as heroin, while Schedule 3 is defined as having “a potential for abuse” and “may lead to moderate or low physical dependence.” Schedule 3 drugs are easily available for medical patients, and the category includes ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and some anabolic steroids.

Not to mention make banking easier for Cannabis companies.

[Logic]

5 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

https://www.greenmarketreport.com/biden-administration-calls-on-dea-to-move-marijuana-to-schedule-3/

 

Not to mention make banking easier for Cannabis companies.

This is the key point to me.

I live in Oregon and my wife works in cannabis, and it is positively INSANE what these companies have to go through to do their banking. Totally unreasonable.

As for rescheduling cannabis -- and, frankly, full federal legalization -- it's long past time. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for cannabis to be a schedule 1 drug or to be illegal in any state. It's preposterous and prehistoric. If nothing else, the revenue that states can make from taxing cannabis is absolutely massive, and any state not reaping those rewards is making a huge mistake.

End the madness. Reschedule cannabis and end all state and federal prohibition. It's time.

 

[PromoTheRobot]

1 minute ago, Logic said:

This is the key point to me.

I live in Oregon and my wife works in cannabis, and it is positively INSANE what these companies have to go through to do their banking. Totally unreasonable.

As for rescheduling cannabis -- and, frankly, full federal legalization -- it's long past time. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for cannabis to be a schedule 1 drug or to be illegal in any state. It's preposterous and prehistoric. If nothing else, the revenue that states can make from taxing cannabis is absolutely massive, and any state not reaping those rewards is making a huge mistake.

End the madness. Reschedule cannabis and end all state and federal prohibition. It's time.

 

 

Baby steps...especially when the DEA is involved.

[Augie]

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+about+bob&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:a1d8de35,vid:tk9iWXsdB-8

 

Baby steps. 

 

Sorry, I don’t know how to do that right. 

[WhoTom]

This also opens up the potential for serious research on the positive and negative effects of cannabis. Big-pharma won't sponsor it because they can't patent a plant (although they could do like Big-ag and patent a genetic strain of a plant), and the NSF won't fund cannabis-related grants because Schedule 1 means no valid use whatsoever. What little scientific research exists is due to a handful of dedicated scientists who jumped through ridiculous hoops in order to conduct their studies.

 

Knowledge is power.

 

 

[billsfanmiamioh]

34 minutes ago, Logic said:

This is the key point to me.

I live in Oregon and my wife works in cannabis, and it is positively INSANE what these companies have to go through to do their banking. Totally unreasonable.

As for rescheduling cannabis -- and, frankly, full federal legalization -- it's long past time. There is no legitimate reason whatsoever for cannabis to be a schedule 1 drug or to be illegal in any state. It's preposterous and prehistoric. If nothing else, the revenue that states can make from taxing cannabis is absolutely massive, and any state not reaping those rewards is making a huge mistake.

End the madness. Reschedule cannabis and end all state and federal prohibition. It's time.

 

It looked like there was finally some promise and enough bipartisan support with the SAFE banking act last year, but then our wonderful elected officials had to screw it up yet again. 
 

Rescheduling is long overdue. Makes zero sense for the feds to deem that it has “no accepted medicinal use”, while multiple FDA approved cannabinoid medicines are on the market. 
 

What does your wife do in the industry? I’m getting into it myself. In May, I finished up a masters degree in medical cannabis science and therapeutics from the Univ. of Maryland's school of pharmacy. I was actually out in Portland in April at the Cannabis Science conference. 

[billsfanmiamioh]

23 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

This also opens up the potential for serious research on the positive and negative effects of cannabis. Big-pharma won't sponsor it because they can't patent a plant (although they could do like Big-ag and patent a genetic strain of a plant), and the NSF won't fund cannabis-related grants because Schedule 1 means no valid use whatsoever. What little scientific research exists is due to a handful of dedicated scientists who jumped through ridiculous hoops in order to conduct their studies.

 

Knowledge is power.

 

 

It’s going to be a lot easier to do research now between the Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act and possible rescheduling. We’re just scratching the surface of our collective knowledge about cannabis, the endocannbinoid system, benefits, risks, etc. This is mainly due to the insane restrictions and hoop jumping you mentioned.
 

From my program I’ve gotten to know some pretty amazing and smart people who are really spearheading these changes both in the lab and through grassroots activism. If you’re looking to support people like this I recommend joining / donating to Americans for Safe Access, Council For Federal Cannabis Regulation, or NORML. These people are the ones on the front lines in DC leading the fight. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by billsfanmiamioh

[boyst]

All for it as long as there are consequences for being under the influence.

 

Tired of smelling potheads driving around so damn much you can smell it as they drive by and it's not legal in NC. 

[DrDawkinstein]

3 minutes ago, boyst said:

All for it as long as there are consequences for being under the influence.

 

Tired of smelling potheads driving around so damn much you can smell it as they drive by and it's not legal in NC. 

 

You're like by far the youngest person in this thread, and managed the most Boomer take.

[nucci]

7 minutes ago, boyst said:

All for it as long as there are consequences for being under the influence.

 

Tired of smelling potheads driving around so damn much you can smell it as they drive by and it's not legal in NC. 

it's called a DUI. Though alcohol is much more dangerous when driving

[GoBills808]

32 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

This also opens up the potential for serious research on the positive and negative effects of cannabis. Big-pharma won't sponsor it because they can't patent a plant (although they could do like Big-ag and patent a genetic strain of a plant), and the NSF won't fund cannabis-related grants because Schedule 1 means no valid use whatsoever. What little scientific research exists is due to a handful of dedicated scientists who jumped through ridiculous hoops in order to conduct their studies.

 

Knowledge is power.

 

 

Aren't most medicines plant derivatives?

[WhoTom]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Aren't most medicines plant derivatives?

 

Yes, but they extract a chemical from the plant, mix it with other stuff that might enhance the effect, and patent the formula. If cannabis, all by itself, can serve as a treatment, then patients can simply grow their own. That's bad for business if your business is making drugs.

[GoBills808]

Just now, WhoTom said:

 

Yes, but they extract a chemical from the plant, mix it with other stuff that might enhance the effect, and patent the formula. If cannabis, all by itself, can serve as a treatment, then patients can simply grow their own. That's bad for business if your business is making drugs.

You mean the cannabis plant, all by itself? If you truly believe there's medical value in a substance, wouldn't you want the professionals doing the cultivation/production of the medicine?

[4merper4mer]

18 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You're like by far the youngest person in this thread, and managed the most Boomer take.

 

15 minutes ago, nucci said:

it's called a DUI. Though alcohol is much more dangerous when driving

Like I totally drive better when I’m stoned duuuuuuuuuuuude.

[boyst]

50 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

You're like by far the youngest person in this thread, and managed the most Boomer take.

Listen, youngster...

 

But, yeah, it's a boomer response. Otherwise legalize everything. Just make sure it's not abused and gross. 

47 minutes ago, nucci said:

it's called a DUI. Though alcohol is much more dangerous when driving

Depends on how much alcohol. Depends on how much weed. Depends on how much pickle juice.

[T&C]

A lot of boomers have smoked a lot of weed.

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 hour ago, WhoTom said:

This also opens up the potential for serious research on the positive and negative effects of cannabis. Big-pharma won't sponsor it because they can't patent a plant (although they could do like Big-ag and patent a genetic strain of a plant), and the NSF won't fund cannabis-related grants because Schedule 1 means no valid use whatsoever. What little scientific research exists is due to a handful of dedicated scientists who jumped through ridiculous hoops in order to conduct their studies.

 

Knowledge is power.

 

 

And what happens if these studies comeback negative... Like the link between schizophrenia and cannabis use with an at risk population

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32839678/

 

Not trying to be solely negative... It's just that we need to be able to handle the unintended consequences,  NOT flip the script. 

[GETTOTHE50]

If marijuana cured cancer, wouldn’t bob Marley still be alive?

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

This book really changed my mind on medical marijuana and legalization. Strong evidence linking marijuana use as causing mental health disorders. 
 

https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103663

 

2 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

And what happens if these studies comeback negative... Like the link between schizophrenia and cannabis use with an at risk population

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32839678/

 

Not trying to be solely negative... It's just that we need to be able to handle the unintended consequences,  NOT flip the script. 

Didn’t see your post here. But I agree. It is really concerning if you read the literature. Also the THQ content in marijuana Today appears to be way higher than that of the 1960s.

[Bill from NYC]

9 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

And what happens if these studies comeback negative... Like the link between schizophrenia and cannabis use with an at risk population

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32839678/

 

Not trying to be solely negative... It's just that we need to be able to handle the unintended consequences,  NOT flip the script. 

Speaking of consequences, are they using pesticides on weed? My guess is yes. If so, how will the dangers compare to those of cigarettes? 

[billsfanmiamioh]

9 hours ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

And what happens if these studies comeback negative... Like the link between schizophrenia and cannabis use with an at risk population

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32839678/

 

Not trying to be solely negative... It's just that we need to be able to handle the unintended consequences,  NOT flip the script. 

There are unintended consequences and side effects for everything that we put into our bodies, and cannabis is no different. It absolutely has therapeutic value and it absolutely has real risks. That’s why any clinician that’s worth their salt has evaluated their patient on a personal level to identify potential risks of cannabis use that would be higher for that particular person based on their health history. That study you referenced is a systematic review, which can be a powerful evaluation but for cannabis studies usually isn’t, due to the heterogeneity and limits of the included studies (crap in, crap out). There does appear to be a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia in a subset of the population with certain risk factors, but at this point most scientists would not say it’s not causal. More studies with proper designs and larger sample sizes are needed to explore this more. 

Cannabis is not an appropriate medicinal treatment for everyone. But it should be treated like any other drug where risks and benefits are discussed then the patient is monitored for changes in behavior and baseline health measures I’d argue that most RX drugs that get prescribed to people aren’t properly evaluated for use in that person because they’ve undergone extensive FDA testing and approval, so they are considered “safe”. This has been limited for cannabis drugs due to the barriers in performing research and it’s been stuck in a weird catch 22 type loop for decades And yes, most likely “highly” influenced by big pharma (pun intended).

 

Adult use (recreational) cannabis use presents different considerations. I could go on for days with this stuff but overall at this point I believe it should be treated like alcohol. And I strongly believe that it’s important for states to have both medical and adult use cannabis programs, as it’s not all the same.

 

 

[ExiledInIllinois]

12 minutes ago, billsfanmiamioh said:

There are unintended consequences and side effects for everything that we put into our bodies, and cannabis is no different. It absolutely has therapeutic value and it absolutely has real risks. That’s why any clinician that’s worth their salt has evaluated their patient on a personal level to identify potential risks of cannabis use that would be higher for that particular person based on their health history. That study you referenced is a systematic review, which can be a powerful evaluation but for cannabis studies usually isn’t, due to the heterogeneity and limits of the included studies (crap in, crap out). There does appear to be a link between cannabis use and schizophrenia in a subset of the population with certain risk factors, but at this point most scientists would not say it’s not causal. More studies with proper designs and larger sample sizes are needed to explore this more. 

Cannabis is not an appropriate medicinal treatment for everyone. But it should be treated like any other drug where risks and benefits are discussed then the patient is monitored for changes in behavior and baseline health measures I’d argue that most RX drugs that get prescribed to people aren’t properly evaluated for use in that person because they’ve undergone extensive FDA testing and approval, so they are considered “safe”. This has been limited for cannabis drugs due to the barriers in performing research and it’s been stuck in a weird catch 22 type loop for decades And yes, most likely “highly” influenced by big pharma (pun intended).

 

Adult use (recreational) cannabis use presents different considerations. I could go on for days with this stuff but overall at this point I believe it should be treated like alcohol. And I strongly believe that it’s important for states to have both medical and adult use cannabis programs, as it’s not all the same.

 

 

Yeah... But let's not just flip the script.

 

I get, people want it and should have access to it.

[billsfanmiamioh]

11 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Yeah... But let's not just flip the script.

 

I get, people want it and should have access to it.

With all due respect wtf does that mean? 😂

[billsfanmiamioh]

7 hours ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

This book really changed my mind on medical marijuana and legalization. Strong evidence linking marijuana use as causing mental health disorders. 
 

https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103663

 

Didn’t see your post here. But I agree. It is really concerning if you read the literature. Also the THQ content in marijuana Today appears to be way higher than that of the 1960s.

That’s simply not true and I’d be wary of basing opinions on cannabis off literature that cherry picks “studies”, mixes in anecdotal tales, and makes huge leaps in logic to attempt to establish some kind of causal relationship, only to sell this groundbreaking information in a book on Amazon instead of actually performing a structured systematic review or meta analysis. 

[Not at the table Karlos]

11 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

You mean the cannabis plant, all by itself? If you truly believe there's medical value in a substance, wouldn't you want the professionals doing the cultivation/production of the medicine?

In my experience the professionals get greedy and screw it up. I'd rather just go to my attic where I don't have to pay taxes.

Edited August 31, 2023 by Not at the table Karlos

[ExiledInIllinois]

27 minutes ago, billsfanmiamioh said:

With all due respect wtf does that mean? 😂

Flip the script. Just reverse what policy was but in the end it's really the same,  just a mirror image of what was previous. Repeat the same mistakes, keep the same arrogance, etc...  NOT making REAL change.

 

 

21 minutes ago, billsfanmiamioh said:

That’s simply not true and I’d be wary of basing opinions on cannabis off literature that cherry picks “studies”, mixes in anecdotal tales, and makes huge leaps in logic to attempt to establish some kind of causal relationship, only to sell this groundbreaking information in a book on Amazon instead of actually performing a structured systematic review or meta analysis. 

Just saying,  got a million different people with a million different bodies. Sure we aren't opening up Pandora's Box?

 

Are we making the same argument as say gun owners? I like them, I have a right, that's for other people to figure out how to handle it... Just don't take away my individual ability to obtain these things. 

 

I am not against... Just very cautious...

[Bill from NYC]

21 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

In my experience the professionals get greedy and screw it up. I'd rather just go to my attic where I don't have to pay taxes.

I can't say that I blame you. I doubt if you are spraying pesticides up there, and your future seeds would appear to be at least somewhat more safe than those laced with pesticides. That said, I make no claim of being an expert.

[WhoTom]

3 hours ago, billsfanmiamioh said:

That’s simply not true and I’d be wary of basing opinions on cannabis off literature that cherry picks “studies”, mixes in anecdotal tales, and makes huge leaps in logic to attempt to establish some kind of causal relationship, only to sell this groundbreaking information in a book on Amazon instead of actually performing a structured systematic review or meta analysis. 

 

Thank you. Book publishers are not peer reviewers. If they think a book will sell, they'll publish it. And controversy sells. Many years ago, my SIL convinced my in-laws to try a diet that's based on one's blood type. It was based on a book written by a medical doctor whose hypothesis was that blood types tend to be related to our places of ancestry, so our bodies are designed to eat the foods that come from those regions. A reasonable hypothesis, to be sure, and one that warranted further investigation. But he bypassed (or failed to get through) the peer review process and published the book. A couple of years later, he published another book acknowledging that it's not quite that simple, and then went into all kinds of variations on the diet, the rough equivalent of adding epicycles to the Ptolemaic (Earth-centered) model of the solar system. In physics class, we jokingly called this a fudge factor - a constant that makes the data match the hypothesis, even when it clearly doesn't.

 

Scientific research is put through a rigorous peer review process to account for research biases, and extraneous variables, and to ensure good research practices. I take no medical advice from any source - books, internet message boards, randos in parking lots - unless it's supported by peer-reviewed research.

 

 

[GoBills808]

4 hours ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

In my experience the professionals get greedy and screw it up. I'd rather just go to my attic where I don't have to pay taxes.

I've never understood that rhetoric when it comes to medicinal cannabis. I mean, nobody thinks it's hugely important we make our own aspirin or whatever

 

 

[Rico]

Legal in MD since July.

 

1 edible isn’t enough, 3 edibles are too much, 2 edibles are just right. 

[Not at the table Karlos]

23 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I've never understood that rhetoric when it comes to medicinal cannabis. I mean, nobody thinks it's hugely important we make our own aspirin or whatever

 

 

There's a big difference between watering a plant and manufacturing pills. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, Not at the table Karlos said:

There's a big difference between watering a plant and manufacturing pills. 

Sure, if you're just looking to get high and not claiming to be manufacturing medicine

 

Our local dispensaries here are subject to pretty rigorous quality standards

[Bill from NYC]

28 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I've never understood that rhetoric when it comes to medicinal cannabis. I mean, nobody thinks it's hugely important we make our own aspirin or whatever

 

 

Pesticides?

 

4 minutes ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

There's a big difference between watering a plant and manufacturing pills. 

Really, right? 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Pesticides?

 

Really, right? 

What about pesticides?

[Not at the table Karlos]

7 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Sure, if you're just looking to get high and not claiming to be manufacturing medicine

 

Our local dispensaries here are subject to pretty rigorous quality standards

Do you think there's a different process to growing weed to get high vs weed that's used medicinally? You may want more CBD so you grow a strain that has higher CBD. You're still watering and feeding it the same. The quality standards are checking for anything dangerous like chemicals or pesticides. I don't think you understand what you're talking about. 

Edited August 31, 2023 by Not at the table Karlos

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, Not at the table Karlos said:

Do you think there's a different process to growing weed to get high vs weed that's used medicinally? You may want more CBD so you grow a strain that has higher CBD. You're still watering and feeding it the same. The quality standards are checking for anything dangerous like chemicals or pesticides. 

There is absolutely a different process

 

Not just 'chemicals and pesticides' that aren't meant to be combusted and inhaled or ingested, but mildew spores like bremia that can be harmful, foreign substances like mites or aphids

 

Growing cannabis for medicine (at least in my state) and what you want to do is the difference between pickup basketball and the NBA, as it should be

 

 

[WhoTom]

38 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I've never understood that rhetoric when it comes to medicinal cannabis. I mean, nobody thinks it's hugely important we make our own aspirin or whatever

 

 

 

Aspirin is derived from the willow tree, but chewing on a willow twig won't give enough of the desired effect, so they extract the single active ingredient and mix it with others to produce aspirin.

 

If THC, CBD, or some other cannabinoid works by itself, with no extraction or additional ingredients required, then cultivating one's own might make sense. Personally, I have a medical card and I use the dispensary, but the prices - even without the recreational tax - are outrageous. I eat the cost because I don't use much and I can afford it, but many others can't afford it.

 

Now, if it's rescheduled to the point where doctors can prescribe it, then insurance will cover it and patients will only pay the co-pay, which may make home cultivation less attractive. Either way, rescheduling benefits medical users.

 

 

[Bill from NYC]

6 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

What about pesticides?

Well, farmers use them for tobacco. I am under the impression that they cause cancer. If they are used to grow tobacco, why should I believe that farmers won't use them to grow weed? I grow vegetables without them. If I was growing weed I would not spray the plants with pesticides. Now, do all weed farmers use them? I don't know. Do you?

Btw, please don't take my post as being snide. I was a cigarette smoker until 8 years ago, so my body certainly took in enough poisonous substances.

[Not at the table Karlos]

15 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

There is absolutely a different process

 

Not just 'chemicals and pesticides' that aren't meant to be combusted and inhaled or ingested, but mildew spores like bremia that can be harmful, foreign substances like mites or aphids

 

Growing cannabis for medicine (at least in my state) and what you want to do is the difference between pickup basketball and the NBA, as it should be

 

 

Lmao. What I want to do? Or what I'm paid handsomely to do. 

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, Bill from NYC said:

Well, farmers use them for tobacco. I am under the impression that they cause cancer. If they are used to grow tobacco, why should I believe that farmers won't use them to grow weed? I grow vegetables without them. If I was growing weed I would not spray the plants with pesticides. Now, do all weed farmers use them? I don't know. Do you?

Btw, please don't take my post as being snide. I was a cigarette smoker until 8 years ago, so my body certainly took in enough poisonous substances.

I do farm but not a cannabis farmer

 

There are some fairly well studied links between certain herbicides and cancers...they deal primarily w ingesting the substance. It's why one of the issues re: cannabis that's meant for smoking is tough because there isn't much literature on what happens when you burn these herbicides/pesticides and then inhale the smoke. Now you may not run into that issue but there are a lot of home gardeners who might.

 

As far as I understand it, inhaling the product of combustion of anything isn't great for your health. That goes for tobacco, cannabis, campfires, whatever. full disclosure I used to smoke cigs also and was a heavy cannabis user in my youth