←back to thread

US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana

(apnews.com)
662 points JacobHenner | 3 comments | 30 Apr 24 17:32 UTC | HN request time: 0.503s | source
Show context
tensility ◴[30 Apr 24 23:24 UTC] No.40217689[source]▶
This is not good enough, in my opinion. It's hard to treat the justice system seriously because of bullshit restrictions on victimless "crimes" like this. I'll only be okay with this if alcohol gets reclassified as Schedule III.
replies(1): >>40218564 #
Nuzzerino ◴[01 May 24 01:35 UTC] No.40218564[source]▶
It's not really victimless when you have cases of psychosis and other health issues that negatively affect people around them, and put strain on taxpayers and the health system. This is Should be strictly prescription-only, and not with the rubber stamp model that "medical" marijuana clinics use. But that isn't politically correct so it's better to ignore the science and just drug the masses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2424288/ https://treatmentmagazine.com/cannabis-2020-this-isnt-your-d...

replies(1): >>40220109 #
1. djur ◴[01 May 24 06:15 UTC] No.40220109[source]▶
The evidence that exists suggests that heavy cannabis usage _at an early age_ is associated with the development of psychotic disorders. No state that has legalized cannabis has permitted minors to purchase it. No evidence exists that cannabis usage later in life causes psychosis. There is also a lack of population evidence that increased cannabis usage among the public results in increased rates of diagnosis of psychotic disorders. And nobody is "drugging the masses" here. The government authorizing a product for sale doesn't force you to consume it.
replies(2): >>40221030 #>>40232838 #
2. yurishimo ◴[01 May 24 09:06 UTC] No.40221030[source]▶
To be fair, if it is legalized, that makes it easier to get for minors. Look at how many high schoolers smoke/vape even though you're supposed to be 18. I still don't think it's worth keeping it as a schedule I drug, but this is a possible externality that we need to account for as a society.
3. Nuzzerino ◴[02 May 24 04:56 UTC] No.40232838[source]▶
You're 100% incorrect. It took me 15 seconds to find this page from Yale which suggests up to age 35 as a possibility, and recommends not using before the age of 25.

https://medicine.yale.edu/psychiatry/step/early-intervention...

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38909735

> The government authorizing a product for sale doesn't force you to consume it.

And you missed the point entirely. The government doesn't need to force when it can seduce, and it doesn't need to lie (except by omission) when it has liberal surrogates spreading misinformation like what you just did. It's convenient for them when majority opinion always works out that way. Where do you think those opinions come from? The same concept works in reverse when you have relatively safe drugs banned solely because of sensationalist headlines resulting from one or two edge cases.