Back to News
Advertisement
Advertisement

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

74% Positive

Analyzed from 1416 words in the discussion.

Trending Topics

#more#cannabis#marijuana#https#administration#schedule#www#trump#should#agree

Discussion (142 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

rkozik1989about 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.

nkohariabout 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.)

ezfeabout 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.

mlinharesabout 3 hours ago
Still boggles my mind the previous administration had the power to do that and did nothing.
periodjetabout 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.
hx8about 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.
kingnothingabout 1 hour ago
Cocaine and crack are also Schedule 2.
jayGlow32 minutes ago
I believe cocaine is schedule 2 due to it having some limited medical uses.
atonseabout 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?

pipersweabout 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.
thelastgallonabout 1 hour ago
And this is how you win the mid-term!
giantg2about 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.
nemomarxabout 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.

giantg2about 1 hour ago
"Alcohol is one of the more dangerous drugs on most scales"

Can you provide those scales?

oompydoompy74about 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.
stronglikedanabout 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.

hrimfaxiabout 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.

computerphageabout 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?
HaloZeroabout 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
manugo4about 1 hour ago
History disagrees
whalesaladabout 1 hour ago
if opium was treated like every other plant we wouldn't have the fentanyl crisis. opium has been used for millennia.
tengbretsonabout 1 hour ago
The asbestos lobby is really getting creative here.
cucumber3732842about 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.

tengbretsonabout 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.
something765478about 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.

muyuuabout 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
everdriveabout 1 hour ago
Try not to think about poppy flowers I guess.
whalesaladabout 1 hour ago
I don't know how anyone could disagree with this.
jdrormdjabout 2 hours ago
Human consumption of potatos is also strongly regulated. You can not just grow and eat potatoes, without paying taxes!
Throaway199999about 2 hours ago
Is there a potato-eating-tax I didn't know about? I better call my accountant...
jdrormdjabout 2 hours ago
It produces CO2. We cull millions of cows for this reason!
kube-systemabout 2 hours ago
No, they are loosely regulated.
josefritzishereabout 1 hour ago
Wouldn't it be more meaningful if the DEA officially reclassified it? They set up the drug schedules.
Simulacraabout 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...

bakiesabout 2 hours ago
Now the next Democrat presidential candidate can't run on "legalize it." Might have to develop real strategy.
nerevarthelameabout 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.

stonogoabout 2 hours ago
Which prospective candidates were you expecting to run on "legalize it"?
recursivegirthabout 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.

hx8about 1 hour 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.

guzfipabout 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.

setgreeabout 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...

Throaway199999about 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.
rurpabout 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.

Advertisement
lenerdenatorabout 2 hours ago
"Trump administration finishes Biden administration effort to reclassify cannabis as less dangerous" would be a more accurate headline.