Cannabis News
The Other Side of the Schedule 3 Story
The other side of the story: Schedule III from a former DEA official
Readers know I’ve mostly argued hard against rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III instead of fully descheduling. I’ve seen it as a sneaky way to keep prohibition harms to benefit pharma profits over public health. But keeping an open, ethical perspective means questioning your own assumptions. However convincing we sound to ourselves, truth comes from good faith back-and-forth, not ignoring folks who disagree.
So when a former DEA lawyer recently argued Schedule III could ease some restrictions without kicking off more enforcement, the nuance demanded attention. My gut still recoils at frames accepting arbitrary federal controls over safer stuff than legal alcohol. And the money conflicts letting suffering go on require no debate here.
However, progress lies not in louder fist pounding from trenches but building understanding bridges spanning divides. If rescheduling aspects could concretely better real lives for the unjustly jailed while avoiding extra opioid-style fallout, it merits consideration. The people deserve relief by any ethical means necessary.
Thus today we’ll explore in depth this different view on possible cannabis scheduling shifts, weighing claims around lower risks and symbolic wins against lingering worries like fairness and access. I stay skeptical, but open to where facts and reason lead. The issues matter more than ideology or identity.
By shining light from all angles to catch blind spots, perhaps some agreement emerges on acceptable middle stages between descheduling fully and endless Schedule I misery. My aim is neither slamming other views nor boosting any one stance, but clarifying whatever enables living freely as responsible adults. If that demands updating assumptions, so much the better to lose outdated dogmas.
So let’s dive in openly and see where nuanced thinking guides us. The truth hides from no honest perspective genuinely seeking to end needless suffering. Where facts and compassion meet, locked doors open. I welcome being proven wrong in the service of right.
NOTE: I have taken the same questions from the original POLITICO article, and summarized the points and added my own thoughts.
According to former DEA official Howard Sklamberg, the cannabis rescheduling process involves multiple government agencies before final determination. First, the FDA conducts a scientific and medical evaluation, then provides a scheduling recommendation to Health and Human Services (HHS). If HHS agrees, they pass the suggestion to the DEA, which makes the ultimate scheduling decision under authority of the Controlled Substances Act.
Sklamberg explains that once the DEA gets the rescheduling recommendation, they undertake an administrative process allowing for public hearings and comments. By statute, the DEA must defer to the FDA and HHS’s scientific and medical determinations. However, they may consider other factors in their final policy decision beyondphysical and mental health effects.
From the perspective of this commentator, the convoluted bureaucracy described elicits skepticism. Relegating decision-making to unelected agency technocrats contradicts principles of democratic accountability. And opportunities for industry lobbying look rife within opaque machinations happening almost entirely behind closed doors on such a culturally-charged issue. It appears a formula enabling institutional inertia serving elite special interests rather than voters.
I question the wisdom of granting overriding deference to agencies like the DEA regarding a substance less harmful than alcohol, as policies enacted through this anti-democratic process led us to the disastrous status quo in the first place. Such a framework cannot inspire public confidence in equitable outcomes, only procedural theater ignoring common sense and popular will.
When asked whether the DEA must accept HHS’s scientific recommendation or could diverge, Sklamberg clarifies some nuance. While the DEA cannot override or ignore the medical and scientific rationale behind rescheduling, they may consider additional factors beyond health in their policy decision-making. So if HHS provides documentation that cannabis no longer meets Schedule I criteria per relevant research, the DEA cannot claim contrary scientific opinions but could cite other concerns leading them to alternative actions.
Sklamberg notes the DEA has never rejected an HHS scheduling suggestion historically. He considers it unlikely now but admits anything remains possible. This supposedly strict deference sounds proper in theory for impartiality.
However, from this commentator’s lens, additional loopholes and ambiguity in processes (like unspecified “other factors” the DEA may invoke to ignore science-based recommendations) reinforce perceptions of an institutional captured environment biased toward prohibition. What constitutes legitimate rationale beyond medical science gets decided behind the pine curtain rather than democratically.
Bureaucratic discretion creates one-way ratchets upholding status quos against change. And vague decision criteria north of transparent invite more capriciousness retaining reactionary policies despite facts. Such frameworks offer staging rather than solutions to long broken systems. The people deserve better.
When asked about fears of increased enforcement crackdowns on state cannabis programs if marijuana gets moved to Schedule III, Sklamberg dismisses the concerns as “particularly illogical.” He argues rescheduling to recognize reduced health risks would not spur sudden policy reversals toward aggressive policing of existing industries previously tolerated.
However, history shows assuming government agencies consistently act logically rather than under shifting political incentives risks naivety. IRS tax policies and reporting rules offered tools taking down Capone after other charges failed. And the federal Controlled Substances Act itself emerged in reactionary political moments, not as scientifically objective solutions.
Regulatory policies frequently get weaponized for unrelated aims when incentives align. And vague technical compliance matters routinely enable targeting disfavored groups when enforcers cannot directly attack them otherwise. So while rescheduling itself may not automatically modify the enforcement calculus, it could still provide tools indirectly achieving similar agendas if certain factions wished it.
This is not to claim some conspiracy orchestrating cannabis crackdowns. But citizens have seen segmentation of markets to protect establishment interests when disruptive innovations appear. It seems reasonable guarding against more subtle maneuvers indirectly attacking legalization’s gains to favor special interests, even if not through direct DEA raids. A new positive sounding step could still hide mechanics carrying unintended consequences absent equal application of laws. Cynicism remains warranted.
When asked about worries over the FDA regulating state cannabis programs more under Schedule III, Sklamberg admits the technical power already exists but questions why rushing to use it would happen without past action, regardless of schedule. He also cites limited resources preventing huge federal enforcement beyond symbolic slaps.
But this Commentator considers those assumptions around steady priorities and funding only apply in stable times. Today’s social and political mood feels anything but predictable, with radical views gaining ground and economic instability challenging budgets. What seems farfetched now could reshape fast under populism or more reefer madness.
Remember sudden federal finance moves weaponizing banks and IRS against gun owners and others. Official powers often expand quickly post-crisis to consolidate power and distract citizens from failures of leadership causing turmoil in first place. Assuming best case stability and enforcement logic feels naive given past pretext switcheroos.
While FDA takeovers of existing cannabis infrastructure stay unlikely, rule churns and selectively targeting certain producers to complicate operations can’t get ignored. Complication tripping up less sophisticated players advantages corporate interests, which is sometimes the underlying tactical goal beyond just direct control through blanket burdensome policies doomed in court. Impartiality stays dream despite best intentions.
When asked about worries over Big Pharma co-opting cannabis after potential rescheduling, Sklamberg doubts major takeovers of existing operators, though acknowledges clinical trials and FDA approvals could develop for targeted medications. However the time and costs likely limit sweeping change. He believes the current landscape would persist alongside prescription cannabis drugs covered by insurance if economically viable.
This commentator agrees major disruption seems unrealistic given the wide array of recreational goods, the entrenched industry and continuing non-medical demand. However, Pharma influence on regulators and lawmakers still poses concerns if it translates into rule changes disadvantaging small providers to inflate corporate strongholds.
Past registration expenses or restrictions on treats like edibles could hit smaller entities lacking armies of lawyers and lobbyists to contest barriers or pay tolls. So while full scale takeovers appear unlikely, backdoor efforts cementing moneyed establishment factions above home grower markets warrants vigilance. Segmentation serves corporate appetites.
Frankly the plant’s very nature resists complete usurping into top-down monopolies, and citizens tend embracing traditional use rights if pushed excessively by officious commercial or regulatory interests. But decentralized markets thrive on freedom from meddling overseers, so scrutiny endures over ongoing independence versus consolidated creep post-rescheduling. Big pharma may enhance lives through medicine, yet must be barred from definitional limiting access from less toxic non-medical applications.
When asked whether Schedule III status would ease research roadblocks, Sklamberg acknowledges some hurdles lowered but maintains significant time and monetary barriers regardless. On benefits for the cannabis industry, he highlights pivotal tax code changes enabling normal business expense deductions previously blocked under Schedule I. Beyond finances, he considers rescheduling largely symbolic however.
This commentator concurs that the tax implications could provide substantial relief on burdensome policies that intrude on enterprise viability. And even symbolic wins matter to broader public acceptance. However, the lingering reality of operating within a federally prohibited environment means fundamental instability and hardship continue haunting businesses compared to fully legalized goods.
Rescheduling can’t conjure the banking accessibility, investment opportunities and transparency available even in “vice” industries like alcohol or tobacco. And the technical illegality sticks firms in limbo between worlds, meaning hassles and stigma persist. So whileSchedule III brings selective progress, it seems a band-aid on the inherent unworkability of trying to scale obstructed, banned-yet-tolerated markets. It puts lipstick on a pig yet leaves the underlying absurdities.
True normalization likely requires Congress passing comprehensive laws around cannabis rather than technocratic agency maneuvering. But tax relief does assist provided the incremental change prefigures more transformational freedom down road.
When asked whether moving cannabis to Schedule III affects criminal penalties around federal marijuana enforcement, Sklamberg indicates distribution remains illegal akin to Schedule I, while noting federal action stays rare compared to state and local policing.
This commentator agrees clear prosecutorial changes seem unlikely given existing rarity of federal charges for simple possession absent broader trafficking concerns. However, the question of equity persists around leaving small operators under intensified scrutiny unable to navigate complex compliance burdens like taxes, regulations and corporate competition barriers.
While rescheduling offers no direct sentencing relief, the shift from illegality frames could trickle down discouraging local charging for minor offenses currently considered moral indicators of degradation. Then again perhaps removal from DEA’s exclusive “no medical value” Schedule I classification cuts arguments against state social justice efforts like convictions expungement, reentry programming or community reinvestment.
The devil lurks in details left unaddressed. But optics guide outcomes, so watching messaging around enforcement intents and demographic consequences matters greatly. Schedule III walks a tightrope between signaling tolerant evolution and reaping lopsided advantages to establishment factions at the roots. The now unmentionable C-word – corporate cannabis – lingers chiefly as priority, not populace. Tensions surely mount on greed vectors.
When asked about fully descheduling cannabis through rescheduling procedures, Sklamberg considers it highly unlikely given restrictions around approving substances with any abuse potential under the CSA. Regarding timelines, he guesses Schedule III action may arrive mid-2023 based on past patterns of election-year politics influencing policy moves.
This commentator remains less confident on precise timetables given fractious politics and conflicting state/federal motions. But the desire for pre-election wins aligned to public opinion makes 2023 plausible if bureaucratic entities coordinate efficiently.
However, the considerable red tape detailed seems purpose-built to undermine rapid shifts against engrained interests. And the administration appeared caught flat-footed by initial descheduling media leaks, suggesting low eagerness for action. Descheduling always faced longer odds for threatening too many pillars of the prohibition-industrial complex; half-measures like Schedule III divert just enough pressure to sport progress.
Cynics expect more paralysis by analysis with weighty declarations awaiting endless further research. That pattern looks all too familiar after decades of bad faith arguments by agencies benefiting mightily from inertia. Perhaps political and economic instability forces hands toward less authoritarian leverage over free markets and free people making autonomous choices conflicting with technocratic worldviews. But given past behaviors, this Commentator braces for stonewalling despite any facade agreements on need for change.
It’s important to learn from others. I think that Sklamberg hit many things right on the nose, and others I believe his lifelong affiliations with the system blinds him from the bad faith and corruption that lingers at the top.
One thing is certain, the writing is on the walls. Cannabis is here to stay, but how that will look is anyone’s guess. If there’s one thing I learned is that these days making predictions about things is a fools game. I personally sit back and just watch the game unfold, and at the end of the day, I just play my own game.
What’s your thoughts on it all?
SCHEDULE 3 WINNERS AND LOSERS, READ ON…
Cannabis News
US Court Rules Delta-8 THC Derived from Hemp is 100% Legal, Slamming the DEA in Embarrassing Court Case
In a groundbreaking decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) derived from legal hemp sources is not classified as a controlled substance under federal law, directly contradicting the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) position that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, fall under Schedule I controlled substances. This landmark ruling emerged from a case brought forward by several key players in the hemp industry who challenged the DEA’s interpretation of the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives. The court’s decision not only rejects the DEA’s restrictive stance but also provides much-needed clarity regarding the legal status of Delta-8 THC, allowing for its continued production and sale from legally sourced hemp. This ruling is significant as it has the potential to reshape the regulatory landscape for cannabinoids, encouraging further exploration and commercialization of hemp-derived products while also highlighting the ongoing tensions between federal regulations and the rapidly evolving hemp industry.
Delta-8 THC: A Naturally Occurring Cannabinoid
Delta-8 tetrahydrocannabinol (Delta-8 THC) is a naturally occurring cannabinoid found in trace amounts in hemp and cannabis plants that shares a similar molecular structure to Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana, but is known to produce significantly milder intoxicating effects; the 2018 Farm Bill’s legalization of hemp and its derivatives containing no more than 0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry weight basis created a legal gray area for Delta-8 THC, which has proliferated in the form of various products derived from legal hemp sources and sold in a largely unregulated market, as they are not explicitly classified as controlled substances by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) despite the agency’s stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols should be treated as Schedule I drugs regardless of their origin or potency, a position that has been challenged by hemp industry players arguing that Delta-8 THC from legal hemp should be exempt from the same restrictions as Delta-9 THC.
The DEA’s Stance and Industry Challenges
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has taken a firm stance that all synthetically derived tetrahydrocannabinols, including Delta-8 THC, are classified as Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), regardless of their source or concentration. This position has faced considerable resistance from various stakeholders within the hemp industry, who argue that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp should not be subjected to the same stringent restrictions as Delta-9 THC, the primary psychoactive compound in marijuana. Proponents contend that the 2018 Farm Bill, which legalized hemp and its derivatives, should extend to include Delta-8 THC, allowing it to be treated as a legal product when sourced from hemp that contains less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC. They emphasize that while Delta-8 THC may occur naturally in small amounts in hemp, the majority of Delta-8 products on the market are produced through a chemical conversion process from CBD, which the DEA argues renders them synthetic and thus illegal. This conflict has led to ongoing legal challenges, with some courts ruling in favor of the hemp industry, asserting that Delta-8 THC should not be classified as a controlled substance when derived from legal hemp. As the debate continues, the tension between the DEA’s regulatory framework and the evolving hemp market raises critical questions about the future of cannabinoid regulation in the United States.
The Court’s Ruling and Its Implications
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that Delta-8 THC derived from legal hemp sources is not controlled substance.
-
The court found the DEA’s interpretation of the law was “arbitrary and capricious” and lacked a reasoned explanation.
-
This ruling effectively removes Delta-8 THC from the DEA’s list of controlled substances, provided it is derived from hemp containing less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC.
-
The decision provides legal protection for businesses and consumers involved in Delta-8 THC products derived from legal hemp sources.
Opportunities for the Hemp and Cannabis Industries
The recent court ruling represents a significant victory for the hemp and cannabis industries, paving the way for new possibilities in product development and research.
-
Therapeutic Potential: Delta-8 THC has been recognized for its potential therapeutic benefits, which could attract more consumers seeking alternative treatments.
-
Increased Investment: The legalization of Delta-8 THC may lead to heightened investment and innovation within the sector, encouraging the development of new products and formulations.
-
Regulatory Concerns: Despite the positive implications, the ruling also raises important concerns regarding the regulation and quality control of Delta-8 THC products, necessitating careful oversight.
-
Need for Standards: As the market for Delta-8 THC expands, there will be a pressing need for clear guidelines and standards to ensure consumer safety and product consistency, helping to build trust in these emerging products.
Broader Implications for Cannabis Legalization
The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives.
-
Increasing State Legalization: As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify.
-
Step Forward for Delta-8 THC: The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization, yet significant challenges remain.
-
Path to Comprehensive Legalization: There is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.
Conclusion
The court’s ruling underscores the ongoing conflict between federal and state laws concerning the regulation of cannabis and its derivatives. As more states advance toward the legalization of both recreational and medical marijuana, the pressure on the federal government to revise its policies and align them with shifting public opinion is likely to intensify. The ruling regarding Delta-8 THC may be viewed as a positive development in the broader context of cannabis legalization; however, significant challenges remain, and there is still a considerable distance to cover before achieving comprehensive federal legalization of cannabis, highlighting the complexities of navigating cannabis policy in the United States.
DELTA-8 THC IS LEGAL, READ MORE…
Metabolic syndrome is an umbrella term referring to several conditions that negatively impact how the body metabolizes carbohydrates, fats, and proteins.
It occurs when there are unusual, abnormal chemical processes in the body which affect otherwise healthy metabolic functions. The primary symptoms of metabolic syndrome include abdominal fat, high blood pressure, high blood sugar, high triglycerides, and low levels of LDL (good) cholesterol. These conditions all greatly increase the risk of stroke, coronary heart disease, diabetes, and other severe health issues that are difficult or near impossible to reverse.
The most telling symptom, though, is a large waist circumference – and you don’t need to take any kind of medical test to tell you this because it’s completely visible.
That’s why prevention is key when it comes to metabolic syndrome. However, the choices you make on a daily basis in your lifestyle can determine your risk for metabolic syndrome of not. We know that an unhealthy diet that is high in sugar, salt, and processed food can contribute to the symptoms of metabolic syndrome. A sedentary lifestyle, obesity, poor sleep hygiene, and exposure to chronic stress can also make the risk much worse. Smoking tobacco and alcohol are even worse – don’t even think about it.
But cannabis? That can actually help!
What Studies Say
A recent study that was published in the American Journal of Open Medicine found that young adults with a habit of consuming cannabis had a significantly lower prevalence of metabolic syndrome. For the study, investigators from the University of Miami analyzed a cohort of almost 4,000 individuals whose ages ranged from 18 to 25. They specifically zoned in on the young adults’ cannabis use.
They found that current cannabis users were 42% less likely to have metabolic syndrome. They also found that Non-Hispanic Blacks, who were consuming more weed than the other subjects, were found to be the least likely of all to have metabolic syndrome. “Current cannabis users had a lower prevalence of MetS, predominantly noted among NHB (non-Hispanic Blacks], the group with the highest prevalence of current cannabis use,” said the study’s authors. “Future prospective studies are warranted to examine the role of specific cannabinoids on MetS by race/ethnicity,” they said.
A Smaller Waist Circumference: Why You Should Pay Attention, And How Weed Can Help
Having a large waist circumference or a visibly fatty belly has been associated with numerous health conditions. Of course, this includes a heightened risk of metabolic disease. It also increases the risk of inflammation, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease incidence, and cancer among others.
That is why it’s critical to pay attention to the size of your stomach. A smaller waist means you have a smaller amount of visceral fat, which is necessary for better health and an improved quality of life.
There are many steps you can take to reduce your visceral fat. These include:
-
Sticking to a low carbohydrate and low sugar diet
-
Having a diet high in good protein sources
-
Reduce consumption of trans fat and saturated fats
-
Engage in strength training and cardiovascular exercises
-
Manage stress effectively
Last but not the least: did you know that consuming cannabis has been shown to be associated with smaller waistlines and a reduced risk for obesity?
In 2020, a study out of Quebec in Canada revealed that cannabis consumption was linked to a smaller waist and reduced triglyceride levels. For this study, the investigator in Canada analyzed subjects who either never consumed marijuana in the past, used it sometime in the past but had no recent use, had some infrequent use, or consume it infrequently. They specifically measured the participants’ waist circumference and triglycerides.
They found out that the subjects who consumed certain marijuana strains for metabolic syndrome for at least 4 days per week were found to have smaller waistlines as well as less triglycerides compared to the other participants in the study.
Another study from 2015, also out of Quebec, was conducted by researchers from the Conference of Quebec University Health Centers. They analyzed cannabis consumption patterns of 786 Arctic aboriginal adults, the Inuits. The investigators also analyzed their body mass index to search for any links between cannabis use and BMI.
They found that study participants who consumed marijuana within the last year were more likely to have a lower body mass index, as well as reduced fasting insulin and better insulin resistance (using the HOMA-IR indicator) compared to those who did not.
“In this large cross-sectional adult survey with high prevalence of both substance use and obesity, cannabis use in the past year was associated with lower BMI, lower percentage fat mass, lower fasting insulin, and HOMA-IR,” said the researchers. In other words, they observed a relationship between cannabis use and BMI that led them to conclude that cannabis and cannabinoid use can help consumers reduce the likelihood of obesity and diabetes.
Meanwhile, an older study from 2013 also had similar results. Research data from The American Journal of Medicine taken from more than 4,600 patients yielded interesting findings. Almost 45% of patients never consumed marijuana in their lives, while 43% of them smoked in the past though no longer do currently. And 12% of them were regular cannabis users.
Researchers discovered that cannabis users who consumed marijuana within the past month had 16% less fasting insulin levels compared to those who never consumed weed. In addition, they even add reduced HOMA-IR levels and higher high-density lipoprotein. Furthermore, the investigators found that regular cannabis users who usually consume more calories, they also had lower BMI’s.
Conclusion
Staying fit and healthy is much more than vanity: science and medical research makes it clear that there is a strong link between obesity and body mass index, to overall health and wellness. Metabolic syndrome further emphasizes the importance of keeping one’s BMI normal, and based on these studies, that’s something cannabis can help with. Integrating responsible cannabis use into your lifestyle is one tool out of many that can help you stay healthy and reduce the risks of developing metabolic syndrome.
MORE ON METABOLIC SYNDROME AND WEED, READ ON…
Tips For Guys To Get A Dating App Response
A Fun Habit Can Help Calm Anxiety
Trying to expand a cannabis business, surrounded by moratoriums
Ousted Shannon O’Brien vows legal battle over pot board firing
Good Grades: 3 things I can’t smoke without
Cannabis Control Commission to Host Public Comment Period, Hybrid Hearing on Amendments to Microbusinesses, Delivery, Telehealth Regulations
‘I visited Snoop Dogg’s new pungent European cannabis café tucked down an unlikely street’
New York City-Based Dispensary Wants to Buy back Your Illegal Weed
Buying Cannabis Without Identification – GanjaVacations Jamaica
A Green Solution for Our Environment and Industries
Distressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
United States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
What you Need to Know
Drug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
Cannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
NCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
It has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
City Of Oakland Issues RFP For Employee Training Programs
A new April 20 cannabis contest includes a $40,000 purse
Your Go-To Source for Cannabis Logos and Designs
-
Cannabis News1 year agoDistressed Cannabis Business Takeaways – Canna Law Blog™
-
One-Hit Wonders1 year agoUnited States: Alex Malyshev And Melinda Fellner Discuss The Intersection Of Tax And Cannabis In New Video Series – Part VI: Licensing (Video)
-
Cannabis 1012 years agoWhat you Need to Know
-
drug testing9 months agoDrug Testing for Marijuana – The Joint Blog
-
Marijuana Business Daily1 year agoCannabis, alcohol firm SNDL loses CA$372.4 million in 2022
-
Education2 years agoNCIA Write About Their Equity Scholarship Program
-
Cannabis1 year agoIt has been a wild news week – here’s how CBD and weed can help you relax
-
Education1 year agoCity Of Oakland Issues RFP For Employee Training Programs