US Department of Justice has officially reclassified cannabis as less dangerous

125

kkaycebasques about 3 hours ago 152 commentsRead Article on bbc.com

DE version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

75% Positive

Analyzed from 4709 words in the discussion.

Discussion (152 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

rkozik1989•about 3 hours ago

This is ultimately a good thing, but as a country we also need to talk about the effects of cannabis use on neurodivergent folks. Its not as harmful as other drugs but also isn't really a good coping mechanism. Especially if you're neurodivergent and deal with depression. What I've seen being in/out of partial hospitalization programs is that people just don't realize that heavy cannabis is actually causing/prolonging some of the problems they use cannabis to escape from.

Everyone needs to make their own health decisions for themselves but we really do need a mature conversation about cannabis.

GordonS•about 2 hours ago

Just one data point, but I'm neurodivergent, and suffered with depression from childhood.

A few years ago I was prescribed medical cannabis to treat chronic pain, and aside from being great for pain - wow, it's changed my life!

The right cannabis strains can do wonders for my mood, but it also makes me feel... less autistic, for want of a better way of putting it; suddenly I can understand why somebody said something, or how something I said could be taken the wrong way. For the first time in my life, I can really try to see things from someone else's perspective, and I'm thinking about other people far more than I ever have - I feel empathic.

Over time, cannabis has also allowed me to analyse and think on the past, which, has greatly helped me. For the first time in my life, I would no longer describe myself as having depression (it may come back if I stopped cannabis treatment, so maybe I should say I'm in remission).

Cannabis use may of course pose some risks for a small percentage of the population, but I'd wager it's in general far less dangerous than alcohol. And of course, my experience will not be universal.

acessoproibido•about 1 hour ago

Like with every drug it depends on set setting and dosage.

Personally I get very anxious if I smoke too much (and in the wrong setting); it helps me a lot with other issues if I only consume a small amount occasionally.

Also it matters a lot if I mix it with tobacco (then its a lot harder to consume responsibly).

So I think both you and GP have good points.

And yes its a million times better than alcohol, that stuff is literal poison for body and mind.

wholinator2•about 1 hour ago

Yeah, smoking week is basically guaranteed to cause anxiety for everyone if you smoke "too much". I used to hang with lots of stoners and basically everyone had stopped because while it was fun as a teenager, the anxiety slowly crept back into lower and lower dosages until the only time it was doable was if you're alone at home playing video games. Then the social circle fragments and disintegrates until everyone grows up enough to realize that that sucks and we'd like to hang outv again please. Similar cycles can be seen with friends groups based around pretty much any other drug besides coffee and cigarettes i'd assume

Aloha•about 2 hours ago

Benzos do the same thing for me, they slow the brain enough so you’re not overthinking everything.

GordonS•about 1 hour ago

I've had diazapam prescribed a few times, but it doesn't help my mind, and I don't feel like it makes me any more empathic.

throw0101d•about 1 hour ago

> The right cannabis strains can do wonders for my mood, but it also makes me feel... less autistic […]

Is it the same strain(s) for everyone, or does each person need to figure out which ones work for them?

GordonS•about 1 hour ago

It's a bit of a mix. Some strains affect most people the same way, while others don't - in particular, neurodivergent people often seem to have a different experience.

And some strains are better at different times of the day too - some can be stimulating, for example.

I'd say it's best for individuals to experiment and find what works best for them, to treat their specific symptoms.

somebehemoth•about 1 hour ago

You can get a lot of mileage out of making the indica/sativa distinction. Regardless of strain, inidca heavy tends to chill people out, while sativa heavy strands give energy and more anxiety. Everyone is different and ymmv.

wholinator2•about 1 hour ago

There's a general vibe to the strains that's the same between people but you won't know which one you like or which improves your life until you try. It's more some-sizes-fits-most but not one-size-fits-all

treis•about 1 hour ago

I am suspicious that strains are much beyond marketing terms. Both in the literal sense that people will sell the exact same crop under different brand names. Or sell different crops under the same brand.

I'm also generally dubious that you can maintain consistency in a crop across seasons and growing cycles.

It's theoretically possible that there are growers using clones and exacting greenhouse conditions to replicate the same product over and over. But it's way easier to slap a brand on something so that's what people will end up doing.

bitxbitxbitcoin•17 minutes ago

Super curious what strains do the trick for you and which ones don’t.

hereme888•about 1 hour ago

Which strains, if you don't mind me asking?

dingjgdtui•18 minutes ago

This, listen to this guy, not multiple psychiatric committals guy. But I appreciate crisis guy incorporating HN in his therapy regime, you are heard bro!

pphysch•about 1 hour ago

> Over time, cannabis has also allowed me to analyse and think on the past

There is danger in attributing something broad like this directly to drug use. Can you only reflect while high?

It may be that the initial psychedelic sessions helped break through some mental/emotional patterns you were suffering from (positive impact), but that continued regular use has an overall negative impact on mental health. That's been my experience with psychedelics and how I've seen them work on those around me, at least.

acessoproibido•about 1 hour ago

I have a very different experience with psychedelics so its very hard to make generalized statements here. Not saying your experience is not valid but these diagnoses should be done by someone who knows the person _very_ well.

GordonS•about 1 hour ago

> Can you only reflect while high?

Personally, yes; at least effectively.

> It may be that the initial psychedelic sessions

I had a few experiences with mushrooms in my youth, so I know what you mean - but cannabis isn't psychedelic.

bombcar•about 2 hours ago

There's a general and larger question than just "weed for autists" that needs to be discussed - and it touches on large amounts of the population and "freedoms".

We've seen from the gambling legalization, drug legalization, and even things like loot boxes, etc, that there is a subset of the population who just cannot handle these things at a level most people would consider "responsible". We last had this nation-wide conversation around drinking, and prohibition had its problems, but we're going to have to support this group somehow, or let them be exploited by advanced companies as if they're subhuman.

dTal•8 minutes ago

It's a good way to frame the discussion, with the caveat that for some things that subset is 5% of the population, and for other things that subset is 95%.

Is there a threshold? Can we define a principle that covers the entire range?

It seems clear that in the ideal scenario, people's freedoms should not be curtailed merely because there exist other people who would do unproductive things with that freedom. And on the other hand it seems clear that "freedom" to engage or not engage with deliberately targeted highly addictive things is not meaningful, and "individual responsibility" as an organizing principle of society only takes you so far.

bombcar•4 minutes ago

We have somewhat gravitated to be "the division is 18 years old (21 in some cases)" - but I'm not sure that's foundational. Perhaps certain "freedoms" (however you may define that word, Magna Carta or Bill of Rights or Universal Declaration of Human Rights or Bible or whatever) are only really applicable at 18 or 21, but I suspect it is much more granular than that.

And so many things now are "the freedom to sell yourself into digital slavery" in various forms, why is that a freedom we need? Not arresting Bob for a garage poker game doesn't mandate that we legalize Draftkings.

acessoproibido•about 1 hour ago

Prohibition has its problems is a big understatement.

After almost 40 years of war on drugs the problem with hard drugs is bigger than ever in the US (and other places). Meanwhile countries that have a more relaxed approach are doing much better.

I'm not saying legalize everything always but prohibition also ain't it.

CodingJeebus•about 2 hours ago

12 Step recovery and adjacent programs fill this niche quite well, and new communities are popping up all the time to deal with more modern addictions, like internet/technology addiction.

I'm sober and have been in that world for several years now, and the most important (and hardest) part of getting sober was accepting that I had a problem and needed help. Macro policy decisions can help with access to an extent, but addicts fundamentally cannot make better decisions for themselves until they first realize they have a problem. And as prohibition taught us, once the demand is there, it can't just be regulated away.

bombcar•about 1 hour ago

That's certainly part of it - but there's some distance between prohibition and infinite alcohol dispensaries in everyone's pocket (which is what gambling has become).

nekusar•about 1 hour ago

12 step recovery is just bullshit christian religionism wrapped in some psychobabble. Id much rather have a program that doesnt use "scary man in the sky" doing bad stuff to you.

Here's the steps. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve-step_program

     We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
     Came to believe that a power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
     Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God, as we understood Him
     Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
     Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
     Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
     Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
     Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
     Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
     Continued to take personal inventory, and when we were wrong, promptly admitted it.
     Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
     Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

lenerdenator•about 2 hours ago

Unfortunately, you'll never get it to where people aren't going to become addicts to these things. You can only reduce harms by regulation and social support.

Gambling is a decent example of where we've lost touch with this in the last decade. In my state, it used to be that if you wanted to play games of pure chance, you had to go to a physical casino, present an ID, and be subject to the rules and regulations of the state which were enforced by actual state LEOs who were always on-premises. If you wanted to, you could sign an affidavit that would ban you from the casino floor on the risk of a misdemeanor trespassing charge.

Now, you can open an app on your phone and place sports bets. There's no harm reduction at all. The apps are designed to be as addictive as possible, minors can sign in under their adult guardians' accounts, and there's no way to ban yourself from the apps. It's destroying people's finances from a very young age.

That's what happens when you don't regulate on the rationale that regulations keep line from going up.

dana-s•about 1 hour ago

And gambling is such a prevalent thing in my home country(brazil) that it pisses me off, my mobile phone provider sends me gambling adverts whenever I top up with some prepaid value. In Germany I also see tons of sport betting places, there's almost more than bakeries.

giantg2•about 2 hours ago

"If you wanted to, you could sign an affidavit that would ban you from the casino floor on the risk of a misdemeanor trespassing charge."

Let's help people by criminalizing them so they have a harder time getting a job and all that...

Throaway199999•about 2 hours ago

Yes, previous regulation was built on the principle that we actually did understand the risks, as rational adults, and so we would have reasonable protections but in for people around those.

Today's regulation seems to be dependent on the principle of not talking about risks at all.

chneu•about 3 hours ago

Multiple large studies and metanalysis show very little support for the notion that marijuana treats most mental health conditions, such as depression and anxiety. It's definitely not the "cure all" that a lot of folks think it is.

thinkingtoilet•about 2 hours ago

I am hippy among hippies and the only people who ever talk about it as a 'cure all' are the people really far gone. People who think crystals can cure sicknesses. Those type of people. It's literally a god send to people with stomach problems, it can help you go to sleep but I would bet everything I own it's not as deep and good a sleep as sleeping sober. I've heard people say the ointments can help with certain pains. That's about it.

hn_throwaway_99•about 2 hours ago

You say it's just people who are "really far gone", but when I look at the type of marketing at CBD stores, it's marketed for nearly everything, so I suspect a lot more people are falling for this than you might suspect. Plus, any individual doesn't have to believe it's a "cure-all" - they just have to believe it cures their specific random ailment. I've seen it marketed to help with sleep, anxiety (despite it causing anxiety in a lot of people), depression, any type of pain you can think of, nausea, hoarders of chronic conditions, etc.

I agree with the top comment - I think it's great that we're starting to deal rationally with cannabis, but we need to be realistic about. It can be beneficial but can also cause real harms, especially in children and young adults, and cannabis use disorder is a real thing.

everdrive•about 1 hour ago

I hear this kind of talk relatively frequently and do not generally have "far gone" friends.

lern_too_spel•about 3 hours ago

In a significant fraction of users, there is a risk of marijuana induced psychoses. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

R_D_Olivaw•about 2 hours ago

I think a significant portion of this has to do with the absolute insane levels of THC that is being circulated these days. ~20% minimums of THC is bonkers

everdrive•about 1 hour ago

This isn't meant a as a challenge to your point. I'd be curious for your opinion about what constitutes an excessive and a proper amount of THC in milligrams. I see the measurements on drinks and such at the gas station but I don't have any personal gauge for what would constitute a large amount.

thewoodsman•about 1 hour ago

It's heavily tolerance dependent, and tolerance grows quite quickly with any kind of regular use, so it's really hard to come up with one number.

999900000999•about 1 hour ago

No.

Let adults do what they want.

A much better argument could be made for banning corn syrup. This cheap fake sugar is behind so many health issues.

Even just a switch to real sugar would do wonders. However I don’t believe the government should ban it.

acidtechno303•about 1 hour ago

I'll bite.

Corn syrup represents a derivative of a necessity for life and is not psychoactive. Either of these is sufficient to classify it completely differently from cannabis and break your analogy.

Also, apologies for attacking your character, but it's necessary for continuing the discussion in context. Your comment is the exact brand of "immature" that they're saying is wrong. Their comment, to which you are replying, is simply a plea for exactly what your comment is not: relevant, informative, and practical discourse.

999900000999•25 minutes ago

It’s a moot point since prohibition doesn’t work regardless.

Adults are going to do what they want.

mekdoonggi•about 2 hours ago

I agree, though if the end result of this change is that people use cannabis at concerts and clubs instead of alcohol, I believe that's a harm reduction.

nozzlegear•about 1 hour ago

Not a harm reduction to the olfactory though =p

iamnothere•about 2 hours ago

Perhaps now that the government no longer claims it to be as dangerous as heroin, we can start realistic public education efforts that distinguish responsible use from abuse. Not sure we’re there yet, though.

iugtmkbdfil834•about 1 hour ago

Agreed. What was largely lost is nuanced discussion around the topic. Usually, the way it progresses, you get strong detractors and strong proponents each with wildly incompatible ideas on what it is. Proponents are ignoring the risks. Detractors are ignoring the benefits. It gets us, collectively, nowhere.

nozzlegear•about 1 hour ago

Agreed, I don't use it myself but my brother is a heavy user and it's done more harm than good for him.

jjk166•36 minutes ago

I mean the issue there is the intense need for a coping mechanism in the first place because our society is horribly set up for accommodating neurodivergent people's needs, and there is a general lack of really good, readily available options to deal with the situation.

muyuu•about 2 hours ago

this is what gives me pause about this issue

it's easy to just look at the upside of something that doesn't hurt you and you just have an extra choice, but knowing that it can and does wreck the lives of many, I feel that it's a painful thing for me to vote for, or against

pier25•about 3 hours ago

As someone who abused cannabis in my 20s and had my fair share of issues I can only agree.

nkohari•about 3 hours ago

This is absolutely true, but it's also difficult to square the legal restrictions around cannabis while alcohol is freely available (and significantly more dangerous and habit-forming), and nicotine use is on the rise again thanks to vapes and Zyn.

(To be clear, they're all drugs, and they should all be used responsibly if at all.)

kstrauser•about 2 hours ago

That’s the crux of it for me. I don’t use weed but I enjoy a small amount of alcoholic beverages, like a really good beer once a month or so. I can’t go along with any law that allows me to enjoy my intoxicant of choice but throws someone else in jail for enjoying their less dangerous one.

dmix•about 3 hours ago

Anything that impacts sleep like habitual alcohol or weed use. Nothing more important than sleep quality for health.

chucksta•about 3 hours ago

Coffee?

joemazerino•about 1 hour ago

Agreed. The same scrutiny applied to alcohol and nicotine should be applied to cannabis. A positive about this DOJ change is science labs can now legally start dissecting the plant to create CBD, CBN and/or CBG products.

david38•about 2 hours ago

You don’t have to be neurodivergent. Weed is bad. Not going to jail is one thing, actively pushing it is another

justonceokay•about 1 hour ago

Point out the neurotypical people, I’ll wait. Your brain isn’t that special.

tombert•about 2 hours ago

I've never actually touched weed, but I would see this with my friends in high school and college.

In the better case, they just become insufferable and pseudo-intellectual because they started watching Alan Watts and Carl Sagan while stoned and would become convinced that they know everything about physics and philosophy.

In a lot of cases though, and this is more obvious in hindsight, it feels like they were using weed as a means of dealing with the fact that they were deeply unhappy and depressed people. Instead of confronting their problems and seeing a therapist/psychiatrist or any of the other things that they could do to actively improve their life, they would spend their evenings and weekends getting high.

I don't inherently have an issue with people using recreational drugs; I've gotten drunk before [1], but it should be done in moderation.

[1] I never did it that much and I haven't had anything to drink at all in years.

iinnPP•about 2 hours ago

On the opposite end of that is the plethora of psychiatry/psychology professionals whom are terrible at their profession and are likely causing more harm than good.

I see it along the same lines as brands, your typical Great Value psychologist will greatly underperform the Kirkland psychologist who will greatly underperform the ... and so on.

Then there's the subset of the population whom have been abused in the most horrific ways by psychologists.

Not to counter your point, just as additional discussion.

tombert•about 1 hour ago

Sure, I've had my share of issues with therapists, but I think the solution is to fix the therapists, not to YOLO it by self-medicating with weed.

bluecheese452•about 1 hour ago

On the other hand I and a lot of my friends who were unhappy did it, grew out of it, and found some happiness.

Meanwhile I know many people who did the therapy rout and are still there decades later. Not sure their path was better.

tombert•about 1 hour ago

Just because you can name counterexamples doesn't really undermine my point. I know people who were alcoholics in college and then stopped being alcoholics later but that doesn't mean we should encourage people to be alcoholics in college.

mannyv•7 minutes ago

Stoners probably don't vote (it's too much work), but dispensary owners do. And now they can start the process for allowing dispensaries into the banking system.

How that will work will be unclear, because technically marijuana is still a controlled substance. That said, pharmacies can bank, so at some level dispensaries can bank. Maybe only medical dispensaries can bank, and the recreational ones will piggyback off of them?

ezfe•about 3 hours ago

Only cannabis that is prescribed medically or in an FDA-approved product:

> Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on Thursday changed the classifications of products containing marijuana that are covered by the Food and Drug Administration or that have received a state medical-marijuana licence. They will move from a Schedule I narcotic like heroin to a Schedule III drug - on par with Tylenol with codeine.

> He also called a hearing to consider reclassifying all marijuana.

mlinhares•about 3 hours ago

Still boggles my mind the previous administration had the power to do that and did nothing.

pelotron•about 3 hours ago

Could have had so many easy W's and just didn't.

GuB-42•less than a minute ago

Politically, it has to be a calculated move.

Some people oppose it, others support it. I think most people here are pro-cannabis and liberal, and I think most will see legalization as a "win", but politically, is it really? Will your vote change depending on the result? If you don't your voice don't matter as much.

Those who matter are at the fringe: pro-cannabis leaning conservative, anti-cannabis leaning liberals, etc... Legalizing cannabis may win the first group, but lose the second group. Timing is important too. Did a big cannabis-related news broke out lately, can it be used to divert attention from other matters, like an unpopular tax.

To me, cannabis seems to be very strategic in partisan politics. Like gender identity, sex work, etc... These are subjects where people has strong opinions and unlike other subjects like economics that are highly dependant on external factors and governments have little power in practice, these can go either way without causing too much disruption.

ApolloFortyNine•about 1 hour ago

I have trouble not believing the 'theory' that it's the carrot that gets some percentage of voters out to vote for you. Actually solving it removes the carrot.

And with most presidential elections actually being quite close, and only ~70% of the population voting at best, even getting 3-5% voters, who otherwise don't care at all about politics and wouldn't bother voting for any cadidate, to vote for you simply means you win.

soupfordummies•about 2 hours ago

for real, I was kind of thinking they would pull an October Surprise out of the hat like "Surprise, weed is federally legal!"

nekusar•about 1 hour ago

Joe Biden to rich donors: “Nothing would fundamentally change” if he’s elected

https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-no...

I had no confidence in any mealy-mouth things Biden said. And for that matter, after watching Obama make campaign promises and then completely backing out, I had no confidence for him either. (But elections arent always about voting for. Sometimes its voting against.)

Trump's worse, by a LOT. However to his credit, he did completely unban delta6, delta8, delta10, HHC, THC0, and a whole lot other THC based drugs federally. He did do a hell of a lot more than any other democrat or republican, just with a single action.

chneu•about 3 hours ago

Biden is/was extremely pro-cop. Cops love weed legislation because it's an easy way to stop citizens.

The prison system also loves weed legislation. So many folks are/were behind bars for weed.

dmix•about 3 hours ago

There has still been a major decline in federal prosecutions for marijuana in the US, something like -50% since 2020. The vast majority of weed prosecutions happen at the state level.

Biden also mass pardoned minor weed possession charges https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/biden-marijuana-simple-possess...

superxpro12•about 2 hours ago

They did. Biden did the "right" thing by starting a 4 years long re-certifying process. That's how "locked down" marijuana was... It was in the same class as heroin. You cant just "sign a piece of paper". (And its worth remembering hemp/marijuana has been locked down for literal centuries for silly reason. First because it was affecting the rope industry, and then later as a tool to suppress minorities and hippies and the counter-culture anti-vietnam movement in the 60's. Cant have black panthers running around with guns, But how can we criminalize them? Well... you make something they all do illegal.... like smoking weed. There's a reason the incarceration for weed-related offenses is VASTLY BLACK.

I mean... you can just EO this.... but there's rules you're SUPPOSED to follow. Biden did that.

This is simply Trump reaping the rewards of that effort without (of course) giving any acknowledgement to Biden.

Oh and BTW, why didn't Trump do this in his FIRST administration in 2016-2020?

Oh, and remind me which party consistently voted AGAINST rescheduling over the past 30 years?

The private prison industry is affected by this HARD. When you deregulate, all those marijuana criminals (who are mostly black btw) go away. Thats less heads in jail, which is less money to the private prison corporations. My guess is now that this current administration is sending immigrants and americans to immigrant concentration camps, their headcount will be a wash when the marijuana convictions fade away.

And guess which party the private prison industry donates to?

Ruling by executive order is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

panja•about 2 hours ago

I don't think this is a completely fair characterization:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_policy_of_the_Biden_a...

DoneWithAllThat•about 2 hours ago

Your link does nothing to address OP’s claim. Reclassifying marijuana requires only the stroke of the president’s pen. Biden chose not to do that.

lenerdenator•about 2 hours ago

That's not true. Biden started this process, and it has continued into the Trump administration.

mminer237•about 1 hour ago

Biden did start the process, but Trump actually just cancelled that process and started a totally different process.

periodjet•about 2 hours ago

Is it less dangerous though? I was a heavy user for a year and it thoroughly destabilized my life and really negatively impacted my mental health. The funny thing is recalling how much of a cannabis advocate I was at the time, too.

hx8•about 2 hours ago

Cannabis did not belong in Schedule 1. Yes Cannabis use comes with risk, but compare it to Fentanyl which is Schedule 2.

kingnothing•about 1 hour ago

Cocaine and crack are also Schedule 2.

jayGlow•33 minutes ago

I believe cocaine is schedule 2 due to it having some limited medical uses.

atonse•about 1 hour ago

Honestly, I have zero issues with legalizing marijuana (I'm not an expert on the effects), but I just don't like how the smell really travels and overwhelms local areas nowadays. Fair or not, I think it smells stronger than cigarette smoke (which smells more like a neutral smoke maybe?) so has a higher annoyance factor.

So over time, I've gotten more in the camp of "completely ok with the gummies being legal, not so sure about the smoking part anymore" - anyone else feel that way?

piperswe•about 1 hour ago

I fully agree. I personally think it should be at least socially unacceptable, or potentially ticketable, to smoke/vape anything in such a way that it someone that doesn't want to smell it can smell it. If someone wants to smoke on their land in the middle of nowhere I don't care, but if you live in society you can get your marijuana/nicotine fix without bothering everyone in your vicinity.

giantg2•about 2 hours ago

I see a lot of people pushing weed as being safer than alcohol. There's a huge difference in the available data for both of these, not to mention the risk gradient of each based on dose and frequency. There are more known risks with alcohol, but it's not an apples to apples comparison based on the data. The final verdict is that neither is a "safe" choice based on the data, even if the risks differ somewhat between them.

nemomarx•about 1 hour ago

Alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs on most scales, so it's kind of a low bar?

The drug to beat would be safer than nicotine probably.

giantg2•about 1 hour ago

"Alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs on most scales"

Can you provide those scales?

guzfip•about 1 hour ago

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:HarmCausedByDrugsTab...

thelastgallon•about 1 hour ago

And this is how you win the mid-term!

oompydoompy74•about 3 hours ago

Regulating human consumption of anything that grows from the ground is absolutely ridiculous. It’s an affront to the natural order. At the minimum, nobody should have the ability to tell me I can’t buy seeds and grow a plant for my own personal consumption.

stronglikedan•about 2 hours ago

> Regulating human consumption of anything that grows from the ground is absolutely ridiculous.

As always, it depends. While I agree wrt marijuana, everyone would be an opiate addict if poppy wasn't regulated - it's just that good.

hrimfaxi•about 2 hours ago

> While I agree wrt marijuana, everyone would be an opiate addict if poppy wasn't regulated - it's just that good.

That doesn't match my experience at all.

computerphage•about 1 hour ago

It didn't used to be regulated. How do you explain the fact that not everyone used to be an opiate addict?

HaloZero•about 1 hour ago

Because we regulated it when it got bad. Other countries have had opioid epidemics and they’ve had to intervene. China is a very famous example because the British didn’t like the crackdown as it affected other trade

manugo4•about 1 hour ago

History disagrees

whalesalad•about 1 hour ago

if opium was treated like every other plant we wouldn't have the fentanyl crisis. opium has been used for millennia.

tengbretson•about 1 hour ago

The asbestos lobby is really getting creative here.

cucumber3732842•about 1 hour ago

>The asbestos lobby is really getting creative here.

You could get pulled over with a brick of asbestos in your trunk in all 50 states and not have problems. And this was true 20yr ago as well. The regulations around asbestos are/were primarily restrict commercial manufacture, processing and interacting with it so I suppose they could contrive to get you for "processing" if you consumed it.

tengbretson•about 1 hour ago

A whole brick of asbestos? Buddy, we've got you for intention to sell. Why don't you step out of the vehicle.

something765478•about 2 hours ago

> At the minimum, nobody should have the ability to tell me I can’t buy seeds and grow a plant for my own personal consumption.

There should be some exceptions, like banning invasive species, but in general, you're absolutely right.

muyuu•about 2 hours ago

what is the logic behind that anything that can be homegrown should be legal? it makes enforcement harder, but it doesn't make any potential damages any better or worse

everdrive•about 1 hour ago

Try not to think about poppy flowers I guess.

whalesalad•about 1 hour ago

I don't know how anyone could disagree with this.

jdrormdj•about 2 hours ago

Human consumption of potatos is also strongly regulated. You can not just grow and eat potatoes, without paying taxes!

Throaway199999•about 2 hours ago

Is there a potato-eating-tax I didn't know about? I better call my accountant...

jdrormdj•about 2 hours ago

It produces CO2. We cull millions of cows for this reason!

kube-system•about 2 hours ago

No, they are loosely regulated.

josefritzishere•about 1 hour ago

Wouldn't it be more meaningful if the DEA officially reclassified it? They set up the drug schedules.

Simulacra•about 1 hour ago

I wish he had gone further! I am also deeply frustrated with past President's who alluded to legalization but never delivered anything, except empty promises at election time.

Marijuana is one of those political dog whistles they only talk about at elections, which funny enough we're nearing, but at least finally someone did something instead of just saying they would...

bakies•about 2 hours ago

Now the next Democrat presidential candidate can't run on "legalize it." Might have to develop real strategy.

nerevarthelame•about 1 hour ago

It was Biden who initially ordered the reclassification of marijuana to schedule III in 2024: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/08/29/2024-19...

Trump is basically just pushing that order across the finish line.

stonogo•about 2 hours ago

Which prospective candidates were you expecting to run on "legalize it"?

recursivegirth•about 2 hours ago

If the Democrats run on legalization they have already lost. Quite no one literally gives a shit about this besides the marginalized people it's going to affect negatively the most.

Can we move on to more important and substantive topics? Something something files.

hx8•about 2 hours ago

I think "legalize it" in the platform is more likely to help a democratic presidential candidate than hurt one. Specifically, I think it might attract more liberal voters to the polls in swing states with illegal weed such as GA, NC, and WI.

I agree that I would expect a serious candidate to come with much bolder ideas, but it can fit into a platform in the same way "no tax on tips" fit into the 2024 election. One of many good ideas that will motivate a certain niche of voters.

guzfip•about 1 hour ago

> Can we move on to more important and substantive topics? Something something files.

Oh no too many of the powerful establishment democrats are friendly with the esteemed bakers, politicians and business leaders in those files.

setgree•about 2 hours ago

Every so often the Trump administration seems like they might actually care about getting my vote. A recent executive order making it easier to do research on psychedelic therapy is another example [0]. A policy shift to reform IRB review for social and behavioral science [1] would be really targeted at me.

I know politics is hard to talk about, but I generally think that we underappreciate the importance of being agentic in politics. Obviously I prefer that our government follow the law and uphold the constitution. But the many ways in which the current administration got things done by being quick, by "flooding the zone" [2], and by using tactics that apparently no one noticed before [3-4] are worthy of study and emulation.

I know the obvious response to this is to note that a lot of what they're doing is illegal, and again, I think that's bad. But they really make the current Democratic leadership seem out of touch and old [5] by comparison. Combined with policy positions that are far from the median voter's [6], it doesn't make for a winning look/platform.

[0] https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/04/acce...

[1] https://www.cspicenter.com/p/its-time-to-review-the-institut...

[2] https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2025/02/tr...

[3] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/10/27/russell-vought...

[4] https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/03/16/the-unmaking-o...

[5] https://www.nationalreview.com/the-morning-jolt/the-democrat...

[6] https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-median-voter-is-a-50-someth...

Throaway199999•about 2 hours ago

I agree as a political science grad. In hindsight, the only surprising thing about Trump's rise to power was that WE were surprised. Trump was doing the #1 thing politicians are supposed to do; tell the people what they want to hear. Our establishment is just so out-of-touch with reality and in love with the status quo that they can't change.

rurp•about 2 hours ago

While I agree that Dems have a long history of being dithering and feckless, and I like the cannabis and psychedelic changes, those wins just seem so incredibly small compared to the insane amount of corruption, incompetence, and maliciousness from this administration.

The spiteful killing of so much research funding alone dwarfs all of their minor wins. Wrecking clean energy projects are total self sabotage for the country. The utter lack of pollution enforcement will cause untold cases of cancer and other disease in Americans. Trump's family has stolen billions for themselves while destroying hundreds of billions of dollars in value with this idiotic Iran war they can't even articulate a plan or theory of victory for.

This is far from an exhaustive list. Trump is good at making minor high profile moves seem like a big deal, but it can really distract from the orders of magnitude worse decisions he's making elsewhere.

lenerdenator•about 2 hours ago

"Trump administration finishes Biden administration effort to reclassify cannabis as less dangerous" would be a more accurate headline.