this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2023
350 points (97.6% liked)

politics

19144 readers
3414 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Biden administration’s Department of Health and Human Services is recommending that the Drug Enforcement Agency significantly loosen federal restrictions on marijuana but stopped short of advising that it should be entirely removed from the Controlled Substances Act.

The health agency wants the drug moved from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA, potentially the biggest change in federal drug policy in decades.

HHS Assistant Secretary of Health Rachel Levine wrote in a Tuesday letter to the DEA, first reported by Bloomberg News, that the recommendation was based on a review conducted by the Food and Drug Administration.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] BertramDitore 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I’ll believe it when I see it. The DEA ultimately gets to make the call. A change like this would probably mean they’d lose some funding, so I bet they’ll be against it. They’d also have to come up with new and creative ways to “legally” harass and incarcerate black people, though I imagine that might be a tempting prospect for them…

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It wouldn’t stop any arrests, it basically only opens up the stock market for the companies.

[–] thisisawayoflife 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Not just the stock market but banking* in general. Ever paid attention to the types of crimes associated with dispensaries?

Edit: changed banning to banking. Mobile is lovely.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (3 children)

In my state (and probably all states), the rec dispensaries are all cash-only businesses. Apparently because they cannot do business with any banks under federal law.

They have ATMs and they can usually run a debit card as an ATM transaction (which charges an ATM fee, and they have to round up to $5 and give you back the difference cash).

Literally the only place I use my debit card (bank reimburses the fees).

But this means a lot of risk…they have to deal with transport/deposits, and having a large amount of cash in hand in the shop. Granted, at least in my state, every store has a mantrap where your ID gets scanned before you can go to into the shop, but that’s still pretty scary. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if the mantrap is really only necessary to protect the workers and the cash on-hand.

And there’s also the issue of payroll, since as an otherwise above-board business, they can’t be paying their employees in cash. But they also can’t work with the banks. This adds a lot of complexity and usually results in workers all being contractors for some other entity entirely, which really sounds a bit shady and probably pretty easy to screw up come tax time.

They really need to be allowed to work with the banks.

[–] thisisawayoflife 3 points 1 year ago

Yep. Allowing them to use banks could mostly eliminate cash purchases, it at the very least, they could be using secure cash drops like convenience stores and having transfer agencies handle moving the cash. It would further shine a light on the businesses and possibly help move cartels out of the growth-to-user pipeline.

[–] CheezyWeezle 2 points 1 year ago

What makes you say that dispensaries can't pay their employees in cash? That's a total legal and fine thing to do... why wouldn't it be? A business cant pay their employees in money? I know plenty of people who are paid in cash, including a few dispensary workers...

[–] Kage520 1 points 1 year ago

If it became a schedule 3 drug, would it require the doctor to specifically give amounts in a prescription and a pharmacist to dispense it?

[–] K1nsey6 3 points 1 year ago

“legally” harass and incarcerate black people

They are working on the with funding cop cities everywhere