A coalition of 22 state attorneys general is calling on Congress to address “the glaring vagueness” that has led to legal cannabis products being sold over the counter across the country …

A coalition of 22 state attorneys general is calling on Congress to address “the glaring vagueness” that has led to legal cannabis products being sold over the counter across the country — including sometimes from vending machines or online.

A letter dated March 20 addresses the consequences of Republican lawmakers’ choice to legalize hemp production in the 2018 omnibus Farm Bill — a decision that perhaps inadvertently led to a multibillion-dollar market in intoxicating cannabis products that are arguably federally legal.

Now, the attorneys general want Congress to shutter the market it helped create. In the new Farm Bill, they want the legislature to enshrine in statute the idea that intoxicating cannabis is not federally legal — contrary to what the law currently states.

  • @[email protected]
    9•9 months ago

    No, you very much don’t understand how the government works.
    Federal agencies operate with the force of law because they were given regulatory power derived from Congress. The ability for the DEA to manage drug scheduling is derived from it’s congressional creation. They can’t execute the process as they wish, but have to follow the rules created by Congress for them to change the scheduling.

    https://mainelaw.maine.edu/faculty/can-the-president-reschedule-or-deschedule-marijuana/

    There’s a law professor explaining it in nice short form.

    https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655

    A more in depth analysis from the congressional research service.

    Tldr: you are mistaken as to how it works.

    • @givesomefucksEnglish
      -13•9 months ago

      Thanks!

      We also argue that the CSA’s scheduling procedure may allow the President to remove marijuana from the CSA’s ambit entirely. This proposition, we acknowledge, is much more uncertain. It would hinge on a reinterpretation of some of the CSA’s key terms, a generous construction of a CSA provision that deals with treaty obligations, and a modicum of deference to the administrative agencies on judicial review.

      Right there, by a source you just vouched for.

      It’s been a busy morning, so I really appreciate you taking the time to link that for me

      • gregorumEnglish
        6•9 months ago

        What, exactly, do you think that says? Because I’m pretty sure you just read that as, “The President can tell the DEA to reschedule cannabis,” and that’s not at all what it says.

        • Promethiel
          4•9 months ago

          Warning! Entering ecological nuance dead zone, are you sure what you are doing is worth it?

      • @[email protected]
        5•9 months ago

        Taken out of context, that sentence loses significant meaning.

        We argue that this procedure gives the President—acting through the FDA and DEA—power to reschedule marijuana to a less restrictive schedule (as the Biden Administration is currently trying to do). Those administrative agencies can conclude that marijuana has an accepted medical use and a relatively low potential for abuse—characteristics that align with placement on Schedule III, IV, or V.

        That’s the part you skipped, which indicates that the president has the power to direct the agencies to reevaluate and reschedule. They further contend that this process could be used to entirely unschedule the drug.

        The question being answered in the portion you cherry picked is not if the president has unilateral authority, but rather what the extent of the administrative process they must follow actually is.

        An even more direct segment from the CRS report:

        If the President sought to act in the area of controlled substances regulation, he would likely do so by executive order. However, the Supreme Court has held that the President has the power to issue an executive order only if authorized by “an act of Congress or . . . the Constitution itself.” The CSA does not provide a direct role for the President in the classification of controlled substances, nor does Article II of the Constitution grant the President power in this area (federal controlled substances law is an exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce). Thus, it does not appear that the President could directly deschedule or reschedule marijuana by executive order. Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.

        • @givesomefucksEnglish
          -8•9 months ago

          Man, I thought you understood…

          It’s easier for Biden to deschedule, than it is to reschedule. They’re two different procedures.

          He can deschedule right now. Instead he wants to reschedule, which doesn’t really do much and still keeps it federally illegal, along with defacto illegal in lots of states. And is much harder to accomplish.

          I’m sorry I can’t explain it to you in a way you can understand. But since your own source can’t either, I won’t take it personally

          • @[email protected]
            3•9 months ago

            You aren’t even reading things are you?
            It’s a report direct from the congressional research service saying “no, the president can’t unilaterally reschedule or deschedule”, and you take that as agreeing with your assertion that he can.

            You must be trolling.

      • @dogslayeggs
        3•9 months ago

        That paragraph you just quoted said it MAY be possible… but only if you completely reinterpret one law, use a wide interpretation of how we deal with treaties, and also just ignore other laws in deference to the President.

        So basically it is only possible if we ignore the law.