Will the new President Re-Classify Cannabis

[armedoldhippy]

If Bernie wins I could picture him rescheduling it but then again politicians aren't exactly known for being truthful.

Bernie, out of everyone running, is the one person that i believe will tell the truth. if he tells you that you are going to get screwed, you probably will. if he says he will remove cannabis from the schedules completely, i am going to take him at his word. he has no history of waffling...love him or loathe him, what you see is what you get. if he does change his mind, i would expect that he had a good reason to do so.

 

[bluntmassa]

If Bernie wins I could picture him rescheduling it but then again politicians aren't exactly known for being truthful.

He don't plan to reschedule he wants to federally legalise which is the only good option if you don't work for GW Pharmaceuticals. Last thing you want is the federal government involved in medical marijuana on top of the prescription only you won't get doctors giving you a prescription for a bullshit reason like they hand out recommendations.

But federally legal will be great for the truly sick as well because people on disability can't afford dispensaries but there health insurance will buy their medication. I got this one lady on disability I pretty much give her weed and my mom could not afford weed with MS and I just give her weed.

I don't care really I'm barely even in a medical state and have been growing for years the laws won't change that but I dream of legalization I'm not even the slightest bit worried about losing business I'm about the cheapest and I can go cheaper and bigger no problem.

 

[rolandomota]

Meh

 

[stoned-trout]

he will classify it as something they can tax heavily ....booze built our country mj will save it ...at the cost of smokers of course.....yeehaw

 

[trippn]

i will never expect the FED to end the war on drugs regardless of who takes office unfortunately. they simply make too much profit from the incarceration of their citizens and the illegal drug game. true hope lies with individual states blatantly overriding federal law and doing as they please; as we have seen a few states do. the FED will fight their fascist war in all aspects until the people demand an entirely new government. hardly a more corrupt entity exists on the planet.

 

[stoned-trout]

they will over regulate it and tax it heavily ...then they can still bust those that don't follow their rules and also get you for tax evasion...yeehaw...

 

[aridbud]

If Bernie wins I could picture him rescheduling it but then again politicians aren't exactly known for being truthful.

Bernie could be on board, but you have to go through legislative entities (Senate/House) for changes...that's the stalemate. Vote THEM out!

Definitely, cannabis needs to be reclassified, but there's still much stigma, even those hundreds of studies and people's perceptions say different. Amazing how one man in the 1930's corrupted people's minds. I see it now with one of our candidates....scary!!

 

[stoned-trout]

I highly doubt its at the top of TRUMPS list...yeehaw...

 

[Boyd Crowder]

reclassifying/scheduling can be done by congress or the executive branch. a president does not need congress' approval to reschedule marijuana

 

[dddaver]

Not likely, without a lot of other folks on board besides just him. The president can force it, but there are more many administrative steps than just him. If you want to read a bunch, see below. It's from the Brookings Institute. I thought before he could himself. I was wrong.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/02/13-how-to-reschedule-marijuana-hudak-wallack

How to reschedule marijuana, and why it's unlikely anytime soon

• The Legalization of Marijuana
• U.S. Government
• U.S. Politics
• medical research

In an interview with CBS news last week, new U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy suggested marijuana can be helpful for some medical conditions, and that science should dictate the United States’ policy on the matter. However, under the current system, the Surgeon General’s wishes will largely go unfulfilled.
What stands in the way of a broad role for medical science in marijuana policy is the Controlled Substances Act. Under this law, marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance, meaning it has a high potential for abuse and no current accepted medical use. Substances classified in Schedules II-V are still subject to varying degrees of control, but have a recognized medical use and may be dispensed with a prescription under certain circumstances. They are also subject to robust research, testing, and manufacture. For marijuana to enjoy the same benefits, it would need to be rescheduled.
So, in the tradition of ‘how a bill becomes a law,’ we hope to explain how a drug becomes a legally-defined less dangerous drug.
There are two ways by which the scheduling of marijuana can be changed: congressional action and administrative action.
Congress has the power to reschedule marijuana, either through new legislation specific to marijuana or through tailored amendments to the Controlled Substances Act. The first bill that proposed to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II was introduced by Representative Stewart McKinney (R-CT) in 1981. Similar bills have been introduced perennially since then, most recently by Rep. H. Morgan Griffith [R-VA] (H.R. 4498), all of which died in committee. In 2011, Reps. Ron Paul (R-TX) and Barney Frank (D-MA) introduced a bill to remove marijuana from the schedules entirely (“de-scheduling”), which also died in committee.
President Obama has contended that rescheduling marijuana is a job for Congress, while others rightly argue the administration has the authority to do so unilaterally. It is ironic that the president, who is so often criticized for overreaching his authority, is shrinking from the administrative power that Congress has granted him.
So, how does administrative rescheduling work? It is not as easy as some in the marijuana advocacy community—and critics of the Obama administration’s position on this issue—would have you think. It is a complex process in which scientific, medical, policy and political forces have influence. Below is a flowchart that explains how rescheduling works.

In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition.
If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House—through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of information and Regulatory Affairs—determines the rule to be “significant,” it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule—a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO.
The above process and the associated flow chart simply outline the structural procedures required to reschedule marijuana, but there are other concerns that surround rescheduling and we discuss a few below.
How do state actions affect federal rescheduling, and vice versa?
As of right now, state medical and recreational legalization have no impact on federal drug control laws. Although many states have chosen to legalize medical marijuana and four have legalized recreational use, those actions still violate federal law. The Obama administration has chosen to prioritize other aspects of enforcement, and has essentially turned a blind eye to these states’ experiments, so long as the state systems meet basic guidelines.
There are other avenues Congress can take besides rescheduling marijuana, however, to ameliorate the seeming breakdown in federalism brought about by marijuana policy. Congress could pass a law that would legitimate marijuana activities, but only to the extent an individual or commercial enterprise acts within the letter of state law. This would essentially function as the codification of Deputy Attorney General James M. Cole’s memoranda regarding marijuana enforcement (the “Cole Memos”). A few versions of this concept were introduced in the 113^th Congress, including a bill introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [R-CA] (H.R. 1523), and another by Rep. Diana DeGette [D-CO] (H.R. 964). These adjustments and a variety of others, spanning topics from firearm sales to banking access, all died in committee. None of these is seen as a cure for the dissonance between state and federal law—nor, to be clear, do these proposals consider US obligations to international agreements—but instead, they are congressional efforts to deal with a clear policy problem.
About two dozen states have legalized medical marijuana in some form. How can there be no current accepted medical use?
State policies “affirming” the medical value of marijuana have no bearing on the determination of the FDA and DEA. In 2006, the FDA reaffirmed that they find “no sound scientific studies supported medical use of marijuana for treatment in the United States,” in response to a 2002 petition to reclassify marijuana as Schedule II. In July of 2011, the DEA formally denied this petition, repeating that marijuana has no accepted medical use and would therefore remain in schedule I. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for DC upheld that determination.
The catch-22 in the rescheduling debate is that keeping marijuana as a schedule I drug severely restricts the capacity for scientists to study its potential medical benefits, while the lack of scientific research on medical use is simultaneously offered as evidence for keeping marijuana in schedule I. If nothing else, the Surgeon General’s statements open up the possibility that the administration might make real moves for medical testing in this area—which in and of itself is a big step for marijuana advocates.(It’s worth noting that Marinol ® (dronabinol) is an FDA-approved synthetic cannabinoid that was placed in Schedule III under the CSA in 1999.)
Finally, it is a bit unclear what rescheduling of marijuana would mean for its production and sale and its “prescription” process in the states. Rescheduling of marijuana could actually complicate how states allow the prescription and delivery of the product, rather than, as advocates would prefer, liberate the process. If cannabis came under the control of FDA as a prescription drug (by whatever process), it would also be subject to tremendous testing and myriad regulatory requirements that are far beyond what states currently implement. That outcome may not be what legalization advocates would want in the end. (For more on other misunderstandings, complications and consequences of the rescheduling process and its relationship to pharmacology, read Kevin Sabet’s recent article on the topic.)
What about international law?
Proponents of keeping marijuana within Schedule I have often cited international drug conventions as an obstacle. But moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II (the latter being only slightly less restrictive, as described above) would arguably still fall within the realm of possible action under international law. Three international drug conventions to which the US is a signatory allow for the controlled medical use of cannabis. Therefore,federal-level cannabis rescheduling, accomplished for strictly medical purposes and accompanied by sufficient restrictions, might be accomplished in a fashion consistent with US treaty obligations. Although, The International Narcotics Control Board—the body charged with monitoring the conventions’ implementation by member states—has examined state-level medical marijuana regimes, and found their control measures lacking.
The picture is vastly more complex for recreational cannabis activities—like those contemplated by new state legal regimes for the drug’s cultivation, purchase, sale and consumption within regulated markets. The problem has many dimensions, but the most vexing is likely this: Convention signatories are required to enact and enforce criminal laws against the production, purchase, sale and possession of “drugs,” a category to which cannabis currently belongs under the conventions’ separate scheduling regime.
Until the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs (CND), which itself cannot proceed without first receiving recommendation from the World Health Organization (WHO), takes some action on cannabis, the United States will face an obligation to maintain and enforce federal criminal sanctions against most forms of recreational cannabis use, regardless of marijuana’s scheduling. Indeed, the Controlled Substances Act obligates the Attorney General to set controls on cannabis consistent with the requirements of the conventions.
The politics of rescheduling
While in an ideal world the FDA, DEA, and Attorney General would make their determinations about marijuana scheduling solely based on scientific, medical, and policy considerations, the reality is quite different. These choices are ultimately made by presidential appointees and others sensitive to political considerations. The politics surrounding administrative rescheduling are unfavorable. It is not a policy priority of the Obama administration. By all appearances, the administration believes the status quo under the Cole Memo is working. While pressure may eventually mount from a medical marijuana-friendly Surgeon General, the likely incoming Attorney General seems to have a less friendly perspective on the issue than either her predecessor or Dr. Murthy.
In addition, inaction—as well as rhetoric—from Congress suggests there is insufficient support for legislative rescheduling for marijuana. Some in Congress have been quite vocal about their opposition to administrative rescheduling. The interested actors at DOJ and HHS—as well as the White House—may be unwilling to spend political capital on this issue.
As Congress considers defunding portions of the Department of Homeland Security over the president’s immigration actions, legislators are signaling to agencies across the federal government that there can be serious repercussions for agencies that unilaterally implement policies counter to congressional interests. When Congress is willing to shut down the Department of Homeland Security over such a fight, we should expect them to be just as willing to do the same to FDA or others, and that may tell us much of what we know about the likelihood of marijuana rescheduling.

 

[rolandomota]

I will quit smoking if the federal government ever rescheduled......lamo it won't happen in my lifetime.....