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!

Minnesota cannabis producers have raised concerns over the availability of products when the legal market finally opens. In response, the Minnesota legislature has acted quickly to allow an avenue for early cultivation providing key guidance for the forthcoming Minnesota legal cannabis market. Noting these concerns, industry participants have asked the Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) and their local legislators to consider opening cultivation and production of cannabis products early, in order to supply retailers with legal products to sell once licenses are awarded and retailers open for business.

The OCM’s problematic decision not to endorse or seek immediate changes for Minnesota cannabis production

The OCM issued a statement recently indicating it will not ask for changes to the current laws that would allow some cannabis cultivators to start growing plants early as a way to have products available and ready for retail when stores open sometime in early spring of 2025. The OCM notes that they remain receptive to proposals that could pave the way for early production, but are not seeking immediate action at this time. This recent decision highlights the issues and complexities of introducing a new legal cannabis market into an already existing marketplace. The main issue surrounds how legal retailers could open for business if they do not have any legal cannabis products to sell.

The OCM suggests additional delays could occur

One option would be to rely on existing medical cannabis rules for early cultivation. However, concerns that issuing producer licenses contemporaneously with retail licenses would cause unnecessary delays, are met with concerns over unnecessary delays from the OCM. The OCM notes that reliance on the existing medical cannabis rules presents inherent flaws, particularly in accommodating outdoor farms and ensuring equitable opportunities for social equity applicants. Allowing for early cultivation under the existing medical cannabis requirements only exacerbates challenges faced by social equity applicants and would place legal producers outside of the existing medical regulatory framework at a disadvantage.

Despite concerns legislators took action and have provided a proposal for early cultivation

Senator Lindsey Port spearheaded amendments, which culminated in floor debate lasting over six hours. In response to the challenges facing producer and retail licenses, as well as accommodating outdoor farms, ensuring equal access for social equity applicants, or allowing early cultivation under the existing medical cannabis regulatory framework, legislators are took up the issue and provided additional proposals. The amendments were aimed at facilitating early cultivation, an essential step towards nurturing a robust and inclusive cannabis market. These amendments seek to grant permission for early production to social equity producers, addressing the imperative of equitable participation in the anticipated Minnesota legal cannabis industry. By integrating the existing medical cannabis regulations with newly proposed social equity pre-approved licenses, Senator Port’s amendments offer a pragmatic framework for expediting cultivation timelines while safeguarding the interests of diverse stakeholders.

Early cultivation is key to a strong launch

The significance of early cultivation cannot be overstated in the context of Minnesota’s nascent legal cannabis market. Not only will Minnesota’s legal cannabis market be forced to compete with the existing illegal market, the same as every other state, but the new legal market will also be competing with the existing THC beverage and lower-potency hemp edible markets. Early cultivation holds the key to undermining the influence of illicit markets and channeling demand towards legal and regulated avenues, but only if the legal cannabis market can get a strong launch. Moreover, early cultivation will serve as a lifeline for small businesses and social equity applicants, affording them a crucial head start and robust launch in an industry characterized by fierce competition and evolving regulatory dynamics.

Licensing and lottery system concerns for Minnesota cannabis producers

Understanding the nuances of licensing is integral to navigating Minnesota’s cannabis marketplace. Although licenses will not be issued until early 2025 at the earliest, and the full regulatory framework has not been finalized, producers and cultivators will have access to three distinct production license categories – bulk cultivators, mezzo licenses, and micro licenses. Each category carries with it separate requirements and allowances regarding canopy space, facility size, quality control requirements, staffing protocols, and more. Notably, lower-potency hemp cultivation and sale remain exempt from canopy caps, presenting another wrinkle or opportunity within the overall regulatory framework.

Although the outline has been set regarding cultivation, mezzo and micro licenses, uncertainty remains regarding the license lottery system. This uncertainty was also exacerbated by the issues surrounding whether, and how, Minnesota would allow early cultivation. Some cultivators raised concerns over what might happen if they are able to begin early cultivation but then lose out on the later license lottery. Others worried that if they do not begin cultivating early, they could forfeit additional points that could have secured them a license. Disruptions to the point-based allocation mechanism also raise pertinent questions regarding fairness and transparency through the licensing process. Addressing apprehensions surrounding straw applicants and ownership transparency is paramount to fostering trust and accountability within the OCM and its regulatory framework. It’s promising to see Minnesota legislators and regulatory agencies working in conjunction to address these issues early in hopes of fostering a robust market.

Leadership is critical for Minnesota cannabis program success

Establishing a flourishing cannabis market will require a form of early cultivation and production to ensure retailers are stocked with products to sell at launch and both the Legislature and the OCM are aware of that fact and working towards addressing these issues. The OCM’s leadership and decision-making on these issues have the potential to reshape and drive the trajectory of Minnesota’s legal cannabis market as we approach the much-anticipated retail launch in early spring of 2025. As Minnesota moves towards that launch, the discourse surrounding early cultivation serves as a litmus test for regulatory agility and stakeholder collaboration. By navigating the complexities of licensing, and regulatory concerns, and addressing the imperative early cultivation period, Minnesota is poised to address many tough questions and policy dilemmas before a single seed is sown or a single flower is sold under the new legal cannabis market.