Cannabis.net covered how voters are looking at marijuana legalization as a key element of who they vote for in a story titled, “I Vote with My Bong“. Data shows voters are more interested in marijuana politics than party lines when it comes the great green plant. Both policitcal parties are starting to take notice as poll numbers tighten up heaading into November.

Senate Democrats have reintroduced expansive legislation aimed at legalizing cannabis at the federal level. This marks a significant policy departure, backed by broad public support. However, this year’s passage seems improbable given the upcoming November elections and the current state of divided government.

The Democratic platform for federal cannabis laws is fully represented by the proposed bill. By removing marijuana from the list of banned substances, where it is now ranked as one of the most dangerous and addictive drugs, its main goal is to end the federal restriction on the drug.

The legislation’s main features include creating a new legal framework for cannabis, imposing taxes on the expanding cannabis business, expunging certain federal marijuana-related offenses from people’s criminal histories, increasing research on the health effects of marijuana, and allocating federal funds to support people and communities harmed by the war on drugs.

Senate Democrats Reintroduce Expansive Cannabis Legalization Bill

The initiative, initially introduced in 2022, was spearheaded by Senators Chuck Schumer of New York, serving as the majority leader; Ron Wyden of Oregon, chairing the Finance Committee; and Cory Booker of New Jersey. Additionally, fifteen other Senate Democrats have lent their support as co-sponsors.

“On Wednesday, while addressing the Senate floor, Mr Schumer, the first majority leader to advocate for federal legalization, emphasized the detrimental impact of the nation’s failed war on drugs, particularly on communities of color. He underscored the necessity of replacing this failed approach with a more equitable, sensible, and responsible cannabis regulation framework,” the text reads.

The reintroduction of the bill occurred just a day after the Justice Department proposed relaxing restrictions on cannabis and downgrading its classification on the controlled substances list. While this move did not meet the demands of some advocates and numerous Democrats, it indicated a significant shift in the Biden administration’s stance toward marijuana policy liberalization.

“Reclassification of cannabis is undoubtedly overdue, yet it represents only a partial solution,” remarked Mr Schumer. “Congress must acknowledge the evolving landscape and heed the call of the majority of Americans for cannabis reform. It’s time for legislative action to align with public sentiment and scientific evidence.”

Despite the backing from prominent Democrats, the likelihood of the legislation advancing in Congress during an election year remains slim. With Republicans, many of whom oppose federal cannabis legalization, controlling the House and none endorsing the bill, its prospects are further dimmed. Congressional functions have been hindered by deep internal divisions within the Republican majority in the House. With few imperative bills remaining, proponents find limited opportunities to incorporate them into broader legislative agendas.

Opposition Voices Concerns Over Potential Commercialization of Legalized Marijuana

Former Obama, Bush, and Clinton administration drug policy advisor Kevin Sabet issued a warning about the dangers of legalization. He contended that the legalization of marijuana will cause the sector to become more commercialized, drawing comparisons to the rise of “Big Tobacco 2.0.”

As the current president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an anti-legalization advocacy group, Sabet urged against the commercialization of marijuana in the name of social justice. While acknowledging certain positive aspects of the bill, such as the expungement of criminal records and the removal of penalties for marijuana use, he stressed that legalization would essentially amplify the presence of a commercial industry.

“We must carefully consider the ramifications, especially in light of our detrimental experience with Big Tobacco,” he remarked. “We need to question whether this would truly be beneficial for our society.”

However, despite opposition from figures like Sabet, the legislation mirrors a growing trend of support among Democrats and across the nation, transcending political divides in both Republican and Democratic-leaning states. This support for legalizing access to marijuana holds significant political value, particularly in anticipation of an expected election rematch between President Biden and former President Donald J. Trump.

There is broad support across the country for legalizing in one way or another; according to a January Pew Research Center study, 88% of Americans think marijuana should be allowed for either medicinal or recreational use. At the moment, adult recreational use of small amounts of marijuana is permitted in 24 states, while 38 states have approved its use for medical purposes. Furthermore, legalization of marijuana has often garnered broad support on state ballots whenever it has been advocated, frequently outperforming the popularity of politicians from either party.

Proponents of legalization have stressed the significance of the issue as a political one and asked policymakers to consider it.

“Political dynamics are such that politicians are finding it more and more difficult to obstruct cannabis policy reform,” stated Morgan Fox, political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. “This issue serves as a rallying point for those advocating cannabis policy reform.”

Political Dynamics Surrounding Cannabis Legalization in the Biden Administration

The Biden administration has been pushed to completely embrace legalization and include it more prominently into President Biden’s reelection campaign by Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, a well-known proponent of cannabis legalization inside Congress. According to Blumenauer, the president should be able to better connect with young people on this topic. Although their support has been erratic, they could be crucial to the outcome in November.

The president’s shifting position on cannabis is reflected in the Biden administration’s decision to reduce it on the list of prohibited narcotics. Thousands of people convicted of minor drug charges have received pardons from President Biden as part of his attempts to remedy racial imbalances in the criminal justice system. President Biden’s position has been reiterated by White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who has stated that she is certain that no one should be imprisoned or prosecuted for the simple reason of consuming or having marijuana.

Former President Trump’s position on legalization is more nuanced. In 2018, his administration authorized prosecutors to rigorously enforce federal marijuana restrictions in states that had relaxed their prohibitions. However, Trump later hinted at support for legislative proposals delegating legalization decisions to individual states, and he granted pardons to several nonviolent drug offenders.

Morgan Fox noted, “The topic of cannabis hasn’t been a prominent feature in conversations, rallies, or media appearances. It remains uncertain how a potential future Trump administration would approach cannabis policy.”

Congress is currently deliberating on more incremental measures aimed at loosening restrictions on marijuana, such as granting legal cannabis businesses access to financial services. While some of these bills enjoy bipartisan support, the majority are unlikely to progress in the current Congress due to opposition from Republicans.

Bottom Line

While Senate Democrats push forward with a comprehensive federal cannabis legalization bill, political hurdles loom large, particularly in a divided Congress and with opposition from Republicans. Despite growing public support and shifting stances within the Biden administration, the path to nationwide cannabis reform remains uncertain amidst ongoing debates and the upcoming November elections.

IS WEED A VOTING ISSUE, READ ON…

VOTING ON MARIJUANA POLICY AND NOT PARTY LINES SAY VOTERS!

The debate surrounding the legal status of cannabis has been ongoing for decades, with proponents advocating for its rescheduling or complete legalization. Currently, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug, implying that it has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. However, this classification is set to change, with discussions about moving cannabis to Schedule III or even fully legalizing it. This shift in policy is driven by the growing body of evidence that highlights the numerous medical benefits of cannabis, which directly contradicts its current Schedule I status.

Despite the impending changes in cannabis regulation, some articles, such as the one published by WebMD, claim that “Easing Marijuana Laws doesn’t mean that the drug is safer.” This statement seems to suggest that the reduction in scheduling or legalization of cannabis does not inherently make the drug safer for consumption. However, I disagree with this notion and argue that relaxing marijuana laws does, in fact, contribute to making cannabis safer. Throughout the rest of this article, I will explain the reasons behind my perspective, addressing the various factors that come into play when considering the safety of cannabis in the context of its legal status.

Here’s the following summary of the most salient points of the WebMD article. Note, this is their opinion on the subject matter and I am only stating what they said. Afterwords, I’ll explain why they are wrong!

• Experts caution that the recent announcement about reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III should not lead to major conclusions about its safety.

• The reclassification is expected to make it easier for scientists to study questions about marijuana’s safety and efficacy as a medical treatment.

• If marijuana is rescheduled, patients in states with medical marijuana laws who possess marijuana prescribed by their physician will no longer be guilty of a federal crime.

• The intention behind reclassifying marijuana is not to send a message that it is safe to use, and people should not misinterpret or over-interpret the implications of the change in schedule.

• Marijuana today is up to 20 times more potent than marijuana commonly used from the 1960s through the 1980s, and addiction rates have increased from around 10% to up to 30% of users.

• Known risks of marijuana use include addiction, serious mental illnesses, accidents while driving under the influence, heart and lung problems, and impacts on brain development.

• The commercialization of marijuana, similar to alcohol and tobacco, raises concerns about its impact on human health.

As you can see, these talking points are the same ones we’ve heard since the inception of prohibition. Therefore, not too difficult to debunk. Let’s begin:

1. The so-called “experts” cautioning against interpreting the rescheduling of cannabis as a sign of its safety are essentially clinging to the outdated and erroneous belief that cannabis is as dangerous as heroin. By suggesting that people should still view cannabis as a Schedule I drug despite its reclassification, these experts are displaying a flawed logic. The very act of rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III is an acknowledgment that the drug is, in fact, safer than previously claimed. It’s time for these experts to update their understanding and stop perpetuating the false equivalence between cannabis and highly addictive and dangerous substances like heroin.

2. While the reclassification of cannabis to Schedule III will make it easier for researchers to study the plant, it also opens the door for pharmaceutical companies to exert their influence over the cannabis market. With the FDA’s regulatory framework, which is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, the commercialization of cannabis could become subject to the whims and demands of big pharma. This raises concerns about the accessibility and affordability of cannabis for those who rely on it for medicinal purposes.

3. The rescheduling of cannabis is not intended to send a message about its safety, but rather to give pharmaceutical companies more control over the market. However, the fact that cannabis is being reclassified is a clear indication that the government’s long-standing claims about its dangers were exaggerated and based on flawed science. This revelation undermines the credibility of the so-called experts and institutions that perpetuated these false narratives for decades, eroding public trust in their judgment and motivations.

4. While it is true that marijuana today is more potent than it was in the past, this fact alone does not justify the alarmist rhetoric surrounding its use. Cannabis consumers, like myself, have adapted their consumption habits to accommodate the increased potency. With experience and self-awareness, people learn to modulate their behavior and avoid the unpleasant side effects of overconsumption. The focus should be on promoting responsible use and education rather than fearmongering based on potency alone.

5. The risks associated with cannabis use are not unique and are comparable to the risks associated with many other legal substances and activities. Just as alcohol and driving carry inherent risks, so does cannabis use. However, the existence of these risks does not justify prohibition. Instead, we should focus on harm reduction strategies, education, and responsible regulation to mitigate these risks while respecting individual autonomy and freedom of choice.

6. The commercialization of cannabis has not led to the public health concerns that WebMD and other critics suggest. In fact, legalization and regulation have been associated with decreased opioid deaths, increased tax revenue, and job creation. Youth consumption has not increased as a result of legalization, contrary to the fearmongering narratives. WebMD’s stance on this issue appears to be more aligned with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry than with the well-being of the public. It’s time for a more balanced and evidence-based approach to discussing the impacts of cannabis legalization.

WebMD’s position on the rescheduling of cannabis is misguided and fails to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence supporting the relative safety of the drug. By claiming that easing marijuana laws doesn’t mean the drug is safer, WebMD is perpetuating outdated and inaccurate stereotypes about cannabis. The “experts” cited in the article seem to be echoing the sentiments of the pharmaceutical industry, which has a vested interest in maintaining control over the medical cannabis market. It’s important to recognize that many of these experts have been trained using materials and resources funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which may bias their perspectives.

The fact remains that cannabis is significantly safer than heroin, and this is not a matter of opinion but a well-established scientific fact. Moreover, cannabis is arguably safer than any of the drugs currently listed under Schedule III, based on every relevant metric, including addiction potential, overdose risk, and overall impact on public health. The reluctance to acknowledge this reality stems from decades of misinformation and propaganda, which have been used to justify the criminalization and stigmatization of cannabis users.

It’s becoming increasingly apparent that the current discussions surrounding the rescheduling of cannabis are more about political maneuvering than genuine concern for public health. The timing of these conversations, coinciding with the lead-up to the presidential election, suggests that the Biden administration may be using the issue to garner support and boost their chances of reelection. However, it is crucial that the American people see beyond these political games and demand evidence-based policies that prioritize public health and individual liberty over the interests of the pharmaceutical industry and political opportunism.

SAFER OPTIONS, READ ON…

WHICH IS SAFER FOR DEPRESSION, WEED OR AYAHUASCA?

Pharma wins in Schedule III – De-scheduling is the only way for true Equity!

The Biden Administration has been loudly touting diversity, equity and inclusion as top priorities since taking office, particularly when it comes to cannabis policy reform. However, their recent proposal to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance reveals that promoting true equity is far from their primary concern.

For decades, Joe Biden has been cozy with Big Pharma, accepting millions in campaign contributions from drug companies over his long political career. It’s no secret that the pharmaceutical industry vehemently opposes cannabis legalization, as legal weed represents a major threat to their profits from opiate painkillers and other drugs. Pharma much prefers that cannabis remain illegal, or barring that, placed into a restrictive category like Schedule III that they can control and corner the market on.

Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would allow the drug to be legally prescribed, but with strict controls and oversight from the FDA. This plays right into the hands of major drug companies, who have the resources to navigate the complicated federal approval process and bring cannabis-derived pharmaceuticals to market. Smaller entrepreneurs, especially minorities who have been disproportionately impacted by the War on Drugs, would be largely shut out from participating in the industry.

If the Biden administration truly cared about diversity, equity and inclusion in cannabis, they would push to completely deschedule the plant, rather than shifting it to Schedule III. Descheduling would open up opportunities for a much wider range of individuals and small businesses to enter the legal industry. It would begin to repair the harms of the drug war and create more equitable access.

But Biden has never been a real ally to cannabis reform or racial justice. His proposed rescheduling is a pharma market grab disguised as incremental progress. Allowing a corporate oligopoly to further enrich itself will do nothing to help the marginalized communities who have suffered the most under prohibition. Only full descheduling can pave the way for true equity in the cannabis space. The administration’s “diversity and inclusion” rhetoric around this issue rings completely hollow.

Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would place it under the strict purview of the FDA, subjecting the industry to onerous regulations and compliance burdens that disadvantage minority small business owners. The costs of operating a Schedule III business are prohibitively high for most entrepreneurs. Companies must navigate an arduous FDA approval process for each cannabis-derived product, which can take years and cost millions of dollars in research and legal fees.

According to a 2017 survey, only 4% of cannabis businesses are owned by African Americans, and less than 2% by Latinos. These numbers are unlikely to improve under a Schedule III system that favors deep-pocketed corporations. Existing minority-owned cannabis businesses, already facing capital access challenges, would struggle immensely to shoulder the regulatory costs of FDA compliance, likely driving many out of business entirely.

Businesses would have to implement robust quality control systems, conduct expensive clinical trials, and maintain meticulous production records to meet FDA standards. The agency’s Good Manufacturing Practices are notoriously difficult to comply with, requiring significant investments in specialized facilities and equipment. Companies would also face extensive labeling and marketing restrictions, with the FDA tightly controlling allowable claims and product information.

While Schedule III substances can be legally prescribed and sold, they are still considered illegal outside of FDA-approved channels. Cannabis would remain a federally illegal substance, with businesses still facing the threat of raids and asset forfeiture. This “Regulatory Prohibition” would likely be weaponized against minority operators, as the drug war has been for decades. Those without the means to fight regulators could find themselves criminalized under the new system.

The pharmaceutical industry, through lobbying and campaign contributions, would inevitably seek to shape the FDA’s cannabis regulations in their favor. This could lead to policies like dosage limits and bans on whole-plant products that benefit patented drugs while hindering small producers. Pharma’s influence would further tilt the playing field against minority owners.

For minority entrepreneurs, the costs of entry and compliance under Schedule III would be backbreaking. Without serious equity initiatives to provide resources and technical assistance, a Schedule III industry would be dominated by Big Pharma and exclude people of color, doing little to repair the injustices of the drug war.

As we debate the future of cannabis policy in America, we must first ask ourselves: why are we even considering legalization in the first place? The answer is clear – it is the will of the people. For over a decade, a steadily growing majority of U.S. citizens have believed that cannabis should be legal. A recent poll found that a staggering 91% of Americans support legalizing medical marijuana, and 7 out of 10 are in favor of recreational legalization as well. The public has spoken, and they have resoundingly rejected the failed policies of prohibition.

So why, then, are we wasting time debating incremental “rescheduling” measures like moving cannabis to Schedule III? The only rational discussion to be having at this point is how to deschedule marijuana entirely and implement full legalization nationwide. Anything less is a slap in the face to the supermajority of Americans who want the freedom to consume cannabis without fear of arrest or stigma.

Activists like RAW Josh on X (formerly Twitter) are absolutely right to be outraged at the suggestion of Schedule III as some kind of victory.

It is not a win for the cannabis community, who have fought for decades to end prohibition entirely. It is not a win for those who have had their lives ruined by the cruel excesses of the Drug War, disproportionately people of color. It is not a win for medical patients, who would still face significant federal restrictions on their medicine. And it is certainly not a win for entrepreneurs and small businesses, who would be steamrolled by the pharmaceutical industry under a Schedule III paradigm.

What Schedule III represents is the iron grip of corporate pharma influence on our political system. It is a calculated maneuver to co-opt the legalization movement and steer the industry into the waiting hands of a few powerful drug companies. Roughly half of the funding of the FDA comes from Pharmaceutical companies through a scheme called “User Fees”.  Since Pharma loses roughly $10 billion annually in a region where Medical Cannabis is legal…what do you think happens to these “fees” that the FDA receive.

By maintaining strict federal control over cannabis, the government can pick and choose winners in the market, and rest assured those winners will not be mom-and-pop pot shops or minority-owned startups. They will be the multinational corporations with the lobbying power to write the regulations in their favor.

We cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow the will of the people to be subverted by special interests yet again. The cannabis community must stand firm and demand nothing less than full descheduling and an end to federal prohibition once and for all. We must reject half-measures like Schedule III that are designed to fail us while enriching a corrupt pharmaceutical industry.

If that means we have to completely overhaul the DEA, or dismantle the incentive structures that allow corporations to buy off politicians, so be it. The war on drugs has been one of the most destructive and wasteful policy failures in American history, and it will not end until we take bold, uncompromising action. The people are ready for change, and we will continue to fight for it, against all odds and all opposition, until our work is finished. Descheduling is the path to justice, to equity, to individual liberty. We cannot settle for anything less.

When it comes to cannabis policy, the sticky bottom line is this: Schedule III is not what activists and advocates have been fighting for all these years. It is a far cry from the full legalization and normalization we seek. As citizens, it is imperative that we make our voices heard on this issue, not just in who we elect as president, but perhaps more importantly, in who we choose to represent us in Congress.

The unfortunate reality is that many of our current elected officials are political dinosaurs, beholden to special interests like Big Pharma who line their campaign coffers with cash. They are out of touch with the will of the people and more concerned with serving their corporate masters than doing what’s right. It is time we vote these compromised individuals out of office and replace them with representatives who will stand up to the pharmaceutical lobby and fight for true cannabis freedom.

What we demand is nothing less than complete descheduling of this miraculous plant. Because that’s what cannabis is at the end of the day – a plant. It is a seed that we can sow into the earth, a gift from nature that grows abundantly without human intervention. For centuries, humans have cultivated cannabis for food, fiber, medicine and spiritual purposes. Who are we to criminalize a plant that has served us so well?

The right to grow our own sustenance and healing herbs is fundamental to our autonomy as free people. Without that right, can we truly call ourselves free? Or are we merely slaves, dependent on the permission of corporations and governments to access the necessities of life? That is the question each of us must ask ourselves as we contemplate the future of cannabis in America.

In the end, the sticky bottom line is a matter of principle. Will we stand up for what we believe in, even in the face of powerful opposition? Will we fight for our sovereignty and self-determination, no matter how long it takes? Or will we compromise our values for the sake of political expediency and allow ourselves to be subjugated by those who seek to control us? The choice is ours to make, and the consequences will be ours to bear. Let us choose wisely, and let us never give up until the battle is won.

MORE ON SCHEDULE 3, READ ON…

THE WINNERS AND LOSERS FROM SCHEDULE 3 CANNABIS!