• TransplantedSconie@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    128
    ·
    1 year ago

    Some critics argue the DEA shouldn’t change course on marijuana, saying rescheduling isn’t necessary and could lead to harmful side effects.

    I wonder who those fuckheads are and how much of their portfolio is invested in for profit prisons.

      • cm0002@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Frfr, they always say harmful side effects but never mention side effects for whom lol

    • LifeOfChance@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      While I agree it should be 100% legal across the board someone made a good point. Once it’s rescheduled we could see it be classified at a medicine and ban recreational use then they’ll shoot the price through the roof re-opening the black markets. It’s worth treading carefully while we learn future plans that aren’t being spoken of loudly enough.

      • Almrond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The thing is, if it gets rescheduled it will be entirely up to the states to handle growing the plant. I fully expect places like Wyoming to continue the draconian laws (like they just did with D8, it’s a felony after June 1st, farm act be damned) but most places will just regulate based on their current laws. What worries me is the ATF being assigned as the federal regulatory body, but that would only happen with it being a taxable, saleable, product. I don’t forsee big pharma being able to do much with rescheduling, it’s too easy to grow.