5 ms·
Yes really good point. Won’t it still be up to the states to decide what the regulatory environment will look like — eg they can choose to preserve these jobs t
by kgdiem 2y ago
Yes really good point. Won’t it still be up to the states to decide what the regulatory environment will look like — eg they can choose to preserve these jobs through existing regulatory frameworks in the same way that certain goods cannot be shipped to certain states
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- alistairSH 2y agoNote, they're only planning to move it from Schedule 1 (alongside heroin) to Schedule III (alongside anabolic steroids and ketamine). So, it won't be fully legal in the same sense as alcohol. Regardless, unless Congress does something to make it legal nationally, we'll still have the state frameworks. Just hopefully avoiding the most draconian criminal charges.
- kgdiem 2y agoI read TFA after commenting. I think that is even more interesting; it’ll be very helpful for better understanding the safety profile of marijuana. Still curious to see how this may affect cannabis commerce. Will CVS have cannabis extracts behind the pharmacy counter?
- tialaramex 2y agoOne very important thing this does is get rid of a really glaring error. As a Schedule I drug, Marijuana supposedly is completely useless, its only role is as a potential danger and that's why nobody must have any - except, we've known for many years a bunch of people find it useful as a therapeutic drug, so that's clearly wrong and the Schedule I status is an error. Perhaps there shouldn't be any Schedule I drugs at all, the idea seems misconceived, but certainly if there are Schedule I drugs, Marijuana doesn't belong among them. Meanwhile in Schedule III it's a judgement call. Schedule III drugs like K or steroids are drugs we know are useful, your doctor can prescribe them, your hospital pharmacy has them, but we also know they get abused. That sounds much more like marijuana, and, to be honest, alcohol. Can we justify Schedule III for Marijuana and yet not for Alcohol? It's at least a serious question whereas the Schedule I status was just nonsense.
- alistairSH 2y agoYeah, I largely agree. Alcohol is broadly available/legal due to historical quirks, not sane regulation in relation to other similar (social impact, not chemistry) drugs. Same for tobacco to an extent.
- tialaramex 2y agoAlso booze is really easy to make. Marijuana is hardly difficult but if you ain't got any plants somebody has to smuggle them to you, whereas if you've got a bunch of say, apples, or potatoes, or berries - which are just food - the only thing that prevents you from having booze is constant oversight to ensure you don't allow the food to be converted into booze. I can see tobacco becoming effectively a Schedule III type substance, made only when it is deemed necessary for some reason and not generally available - New Zealand tried to set off on that path, the UK is attempting it now, unlike booze (or marijuana) which has a population of people who say "Hey, that's fun, don't take that away" the smoker are almost all against smoking, they see it as an unpleasant mistake they made rather than a choice they're glad to have taken.
- saalweachter 2y agoShit, you can accidentally make alcohol.