Will the U.S. government still be able to go after users who own or purchase firearms when it is rescheduled?


US poised to ease restrictions on marijuana in historic shift, but it’ll remain controlled substance

https://apnews.com/article/mar...b31a8658a5d65832a3b8

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration will move to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, The Associated Press has learned, a historic shift to generations of American drug policy that could have wide ripple effects across the country.

The proposal, which still must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, would recognize the medical uses of cannabis and acknowledge it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. However, it would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use.

The agency’s move, confirmed to the AP on Tuesday by five people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the sensitive regulatory review, clears the last significant regulatory hurdle before the agency’s biggest policy change in more than 50 years can take effect.

Once OMB signs off, the DEA will take public comment on the plan to move marijuana from its current classification as a Schedule I drug, alongside heroin and LSD. It moves pot to Schedule III, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids, following a recommendation from the federal Health and Human Services Department. After the public comment period and a review by an administrative judge, the agency would eventually publish the final rule.

“Today, the Attorney General circulated a proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III,” Justice Department director of public affairs Xochitl Hinojosa said in a statement. “Once published by the Federal Register, it will initiate a formal rulemaking process as prescribed by Congress in the Controlled Substances Act.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s signature throws the full weight of the Justice Department behind the move and appears to signal its importance to the Biden administration.

It comes after President Joe Biden called for a review of federal marijuana law in October 2022 and moved to pardon thousands of Americans convicted federally of simple possession of the drug. He has also called on governors and local leaders to take similar steps to erase marijuana convictions.

“Criminal records for marijuana use and possession have imposed needless barriers to employment, housing, and educational opportunities,” Biden said in December. “Too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana. It’s time that we right these wrongs.”

The election year announcement could help Biden, a Democrat, boost flagging support, particularly among younger voters.

Biden and a growing number of lawmakers from both major political parties have been pushing for the DEA decision as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted, particularly by younger people. A Gallup poll last fall found 70% of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly 30% who backed it in 2000.

The DEA didn’t respond to repeated requests for comment.

Schedule III drugs are still controlled substances and subject to rules and regulations, and people who traffic in them without permission could still face federal criminal prosecution.

Some critics argue the DEA shouldn’t change course on marijuana, saying rescheduling isn’t necessary and could lead to harmful side effects.

Jack Riley, a former deputy administrator of the DEA, said he had concerns about the proposed change because he thinks marijuana remains a possible “gateway drug,” one that may lead to the use of other drugs.

“But in terms of us getting clear to use our resources to combat other major drugs, that’s a positive,” Riley said, noting that fentanyl alone accounts for more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. a year.

On the other end of the spectrum, others argue marijuana should be treated the way alcohol is.

Last week, 21 Democrats led by Senate Majority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York sent a letter to Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram arguing marijuana should be dropped from the controlled substances list and instead regulated like alcohol.

“It is time for the DEA to act,” the lawmakers wrote. “Right now, the Administration has the opportunity to resolve more than 50 years of failed, racially discriminatory marijuana policy.”

Federal drug policy has lagged behind many states in recent years, with 38 having already legalized medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use.

That’s helped fuel fast growth in the marijuana industry, with an estimated worth of nearly $30 billion. Easing federal regulations could reduce the tax burden that can be 70% or more for businesses, according to industry groups. It could also make it easier to research marijuana, since it’s very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies on Schedule I substances.

The immediate effect of rescheduling on the nation’s criminal justice system would likely be more muted, since federal prosecutions for simple possession have been fairly rare in recent years.

But loosening restrictions could carry a host of unintended consequences in the drug war and beyond.

Critics point out that as a Schedule III drug, marijuana would remain regulated by the DEA. That means the roughly 15,000 cannabis dispensaries in the U.S. would have to register with the DEA like regular pharmacies and fulfill strict reporting requirements, something that they are loath to do and that the DEA is ill equipped to handle.

Then there’s the United States’ international treaty obligations, chief among them the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, which requires the criminalization of cannabis. In 2016, during the Obama administration, the DEA cited the U.S.’ international obligations and the findings of a federal court of appeals in Washington in denying a similar request to reschedule marijuana.

Doesn’t surprise me. Police here just arrest, fingerprint, give a court date and let them go unless there is a substantial quantity involved.Do the same with shoplifters under a certain amount.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucnik:
Doesn’t surprise me. Police here just arrest, fingerprint, give a court date and let them go unless there is a substantial quantity involved.Do the same with shoplifters under a certain amount.

This is may be different. It's at the Federal level. A few more ramifications may be as a result of this.

Way past overdue. Along with this needs to go away anything to do with cannabis possession or use impacting 2A rights. The 4473 question needs to have "marijuana" dropped. It shouldn't legally be a binary choice between occasionally smoking a bowl on your back porch or keeping a firearm to protect your home.

I doubt this is a step towards legalization at the federal level. It’s a way for the pharmaceutical companies that own the government to get in on distributing and push out all the shops that currently exist.

Users in states that have made it legal would no longer be considered unlawful users. So would this remove the federal prohibition on purchasing or possessing a firearm in these states with the reclassification?

People who lawfully use pain pills are not prohibited.

^^^^. Not if you want to get a CCW in Colorado. The county here still follows the Federal rule of law regardingmarijuana. The question was on the for when I reapplied last week.

quote:

Originally posted by ugeesta:
^^^^. Not if you want to get a CCW in Colorado. The county here still follows the Federal rule of law regardingmarijuana. The question was on the for when I reapplied last week.

It has not been rescheduled yet. The question I asked is referring to when it is rescheduled.

Moving it from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 doesn't make this a legal in any state, at least not on a federal level.

Schedule 3 drugs still require a 'script and common Schedule 3 drugs include Ketamine and anabolic steroids. From today's news, I didn't read anything that said the DEA was going to allow doctors to write 'scripts.

Moving it from a Schedule 1 to 3 doesn't mean more 'scripts. There's no money to be made from legal MJ by big pharma.

What distinguishes Schedule 1 drugs from the others, is that Schedule 1 drugs have no therapeutic or beneficial uses but this move to 3 suggests there is federal recognition of beneficial use.

MJ won't be legalized on a federal level anytime soon.

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Moving it from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 doesn't make this a legal in any state, at least not on a federal level.

Schedule 3 drugs still require a 'script and common Schedule 3 drugs include Ketamine and anabolic steroids. From today's news, I didn't read anything that said the DEA was going to allow doctors to write 'scripts.

Moving it from a Schedule 1 to 3 doesn't mean more 'scripts. There's no money to be made from legal MJ by big pharma.

What distinguishes Schedule 1 drugs from the others, is that Schedule 1 drugs have no therapeutic or beneficial uses but this move to 3 suggests there is federal recognition of beneficial use.

MJ won't be legalized on a federal level anytime soon.

But medical weed is legal in many states with a prescription already. Federal law did not recognize that because of the schedule 1 designation. Will a schedule 3 change that?

No matter how many states make it legal to buy MJ either recreational or medicinal it's still illegal as far as federal law is concerned.

Odd too because the tax revenue implications for the Feds is huge, they could really rake in money.

I'd prefer they do a national legalization, when states do recreational all the problem pot people move in, aka Colorado.

So those state laws simply mean that the state you are in allows it to be sold, smoked, eaten, rubbed on, and the state won't do anything to you, but fed wise, it's illegal in any state, regardless of how the state allows it...

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:

quote:

Originally posted by Flashlightboy:
Moving it from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 doesn't make this a legal in any state, at least not on a federal level.

Schedule 3 drugs still require a 'script and common Schedule 3 drugs include Ketamine and anabolic steroids. From today's news, I didn't read anything that said the DEA was going to allow doctors to write 'scripts.

Moving it from a Schedule 1 to 3 doesn't mean more 'scripts. There's no money to be made from legal MJ by big pharma.

What distinguishes Schedule 1 drugs from the others, is that Schedule 1 drugs have no therapeutic or beneficial uses but this move to 3 suggests there is federal recognition of beneficial use.

MJ won't be legalized on a federal level anytime soon.

But medical weed is legal in many states with a prescription already. Federal law did not recognize that because of the schedule 1 designation. Will a schedule 3 change that?

The ability of a physician to write a prescription rests solely with the DEA, which is why their DEA number is on each 'script.

Moving this to Schedule 3 still requires a 'script, like other Schedule 3 drugs, so I'm not sure this will turn up the spigot and have more MJ 'scripts.

My read of the current relationship between federal and state MJ law is that the feds will defer to the states on recreational and medicinal use, while the feds will crack down on trafficking and drug distribution networks.

In CA, doctors can't write an MJ 'script because the DEA doesn't allow it however the doctors will write in their reports, "My patient expresses his belief that medicinal use of MJ gives him relief of his symptoms and affords him comfort. I believe that he benefits from the use and I encourage him to find treatments and modalities that will help with his recovery."

I doubt you'll see many 'scripts for it because MJ from a state authorized dealer is very expensive compared to the same or similar purchased on the street.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Will the U.S. government still be able to go after users who own or purchase firearms when it is rescheduled?

The short answer is YES.

A schedule III drug still requires a prescription from a medical provider, and purchase from a source operating under the CSA.

Possession absent a prescription or sale if you are not operating under the CSA means you are violating federal law.

Thus, while this rescheduling might extend to medical cannabis, it does nothing for the recreational cannabis market.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:
No matter how many states make it legal to buy MJ either recreational or medicinal it's still illegal as far as federal law is concerned.

So those state laws simply mean that the state you are in allows it to be sold, smoked, eaten, rubbed on, and the state won't do anything to you, but fed wise, it's illegal in any state, regardless of how the state allows it...

Yeah... it's a huge disconnect between the states and the feds.

I'm of mixed opinion on this...
On the one hand, I don't think it should be illegal...
But on the other hand, we are going to vastly increase usage in this country which I think is going to create a lot of problems down the road.

https://twitter.com/RepAndyHar.../1785369036374569453

Theoretically, if it’s a schedule 3 drug with a scrip, gun ownership shouldn’t be an issue. I’dsiggest folk wait to read the government’s fine print before rushing out to get any documentation that could damage your rights. My assumption has always been that the fed would keep it schedule 1 along with decriminalizing it in hopes of screwing over as many people as they could telling the truth on their form 4473 that didn’t realize “decriminalize” doesn’t equal “legalize”. Democrats want the guns; they’re obviously capable of playing dirty to get them.

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Theoretically, if it’s a schedule 3 drug with a scrip, gun ownership shouldn’t be an issue. I’dsiggest folk wait to read the government’s fine print before rushing out to get any documentation that could damage your rights. My assumption has always been that the fed would keep it schedule 1 along with decriminalizing it in hopes of screwing over as many people as they could telling the truth on their form 4473 that didn’t realize “decriminalize” doesn’t equal “legalize”. Democrats want the guns; they’re obviously capable of playing dirty to get them.

Figure that could be part of it, surprised CA/NY/IL isn't comparing Medical MJ card holder data with CWP in the state in order to take permits from MMJ card holders, since it's illegal to buy/own a firearm and use MJ maybe even get the ATF involved in requiring LGS to provide the 4473 for whatever gun you have registered for your permit.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
Theoretically, if it’s a schedule 3 drug with a scrip, gun ownership shouldn’t be an issue. I’dsiggest folk wait to read the government’s fine print before rushing out to get any documentation that could damage your rights. My assumption has always been that the fed would keep it schedule 1 along with decriminalizing it in hopes of screwing over as many people as they could telling the truth on their form 4473 that didn’t realize “decriminalize” doesn’t equal “legalize”. Democrats want the guns; they’re obviously capable of playing dirty to get them.

Figure that could be part of it, surprised CA/NY/IL isn't comparing Medical MJ card holder data with CWP in the state in order to take permits from MMJ card holders, since it's illegal to buy/own a firearm and use MJ maybe even get the ATF involved in requiring LGS to provide the 4473 for whatever gun you have registered for your permit.

I believe California law prohibits the state from doing this.

Hawaii did do it.

I imagine they’re trying to figure out a way they can leverage it so they can tap into that massive tax revenue stream they’re missing out on while still screwing over gun owners. They’ve kind of painted themselves into a corner on this issue, and anything that’s going to change is going to happen by degrees like the whole “gay marriage” thing did with Obama being”against it before he was before it.” They can’t just come out and say “look, we’re pandering to Group A because fuck Group B,” or ever any flavor of “we were wrong,” so it has to look like a gradual softening of their stance. Thus, “we’re considering rescheduling it from 1 to 3.”

In another decade, I’ll be astonished if it’s not legal on the federal level - they want the money too badly, it’s just down to how the various bureaucrats can justify a budget out of it. This is the states dragging the fed kicking and screaming.

quote:

Originally posted by P220 Smudge:
I imagine they’re trying to figure out a way they can leverage it so they can tap into that massive tax revenue stream they’re missing out on while still screwing over gun owners. They’ve kind of painted themselves into a corner on this issue, and anything that’s going to change is going to happen by degrees like the whole “gay marriage” thing did with Obama being”against it before he was before it.” They can’t just come out and say “look, we’re pandering to Group A because fuck Group B,” or ever any flavor of “we were wrong,” so it has to look like a gradual softening of their stance. Thus, “we’re considering rescheduling it from 1 to 3.”

In another decade, I’ll be astonished if it’s not legal on the federal level - they want the money too badly, it’s just down to how the various bureaucrats can justify a budget out of it. This is the states dragging the fed kicking and screaming.

The view that the feds/states want to make MJ legal for revenue purposes is not going to happen.

CA tried that after they approved MJ use. They had state approved sellers, business licenses, inspections, fees, taxes and everything else a big government loves. Except it had the opposite effect.

In retail shop if you want to purchase recreational MJ you can at a very high price but if you come in with your medical MJ card, you pay, for exact same product, a very low price. No one wants to pay high prices and so people came in with medical MJ cards.

If that wasn't bad enough, consumers liked the easy access but the prices at the state approved places couldn't compete with the street dealers for the same product.

Retailers closed and the state, with their finite wisdom, never contemplated that people wouldn't happily buy from them and pay high prices for weed.

Bloomberg had a nice article about how messed up CA dealt with this. Legal sellers can't come up with a sustainable business model to compete with illegal sales and consumers want the cheap stuff every time.

quote:

CA tried that after they approved MJ use. They had state approved sellers, business licenses, inspections, fees, taxes and everything else a big government loves. Except it had the opposite effect.
Legal sellers can't come up with a sustainable business model to compete with illegal sales and consumers want the cheap stuff every time.

Missouri now has a similar model... but probably not taxed as high as CA or IL, for that matter.

It doesn't stop the black market trade. If you "knew a guy" who could get it for you before you aren't going to stop using that guy for your purchases.

But, unfortunately, it vastly increases the number of users. So the dispensaries have a new market, which I suspect will gradually lose customers as new people shift to the black market where it's cheaper.