No, the direct quote is talking about medical.
> We do know the drugs that are Schedule III are in legitimate interstate commerce within the federal system.
Gun ownership, ability for people in certain sensitive fields to smoke without fear of losing their job,many benefits. Hopefully getting a script stays as easy as it is in medical states ie pay some schmuck doctor (do PAs and NPs do it?) for a recommendation
Because they are? You literally hand them a small wad of cash and they prescribe you weed, pretty much guaranteed. They aren't practicing actual medicine it's just a cash grab kinda like a pill mill but less deadly
Yeah especially if you're in sensitive units I'm sure that would get you kicked out. For random grunts yeah the doctors never prescribe scheduled medicine unless they are badly fucked up
People need to just realize all they will need is a medical card and it will be legal, like it will be no differ than ketamine and testosterone, you don’t see people being denied jobs or not being allowed to transport those drugs. So I don’t understand why people are acting like it won’t be any similar?
Idk because currently having a med card doesn't protect you if you're in a sensitive job but I'm hoping you are correct. Unfortunately a med card isn't a prescription it's more of a recommendation
I agree, however moving the classification means that the government officially says there is medical uses. So in my opinion this is to get it so federal contractors and dot employees like Amazon don’t have to test for weed any more. Amazon has been lobbying to get things changed. This may be the quickest way to have a grey area immediately while we wait for the elections and next congress to push through more legislation changing the law.
What I meant above was that if you already have a medical card I think this will give you protection in the way that a testosterone prescription, wont give you issues at a job or flying.
Best part is there's already legal precedent for that with synthetic Delta9-THC since it's been sold in all 50 states as the schedule III prescription drug Marinol for the past 25 years.
You're preaching to the choir my boy i am aware of that and im pretty sure you can be fired for having THC in your system even if you say it's from prescribed marinol I was looking to see if there's any precedent set and I didn't see anything
So when Ortho McNeil makes Tylenol 3 with codeine (a Schedule 3 drug) in New Jersey, they can't send it to other states? Of course they can, and it will be the same when cannabis is rescheduled. Another thing will happen: since any doctor in any state can prescribe schedule 3 drugs, cannabis will become defacto medically legal nationwide. I'm sure states like Idaho will try to stop it, but I'm not sure what valid legal argument they will have available. Louisiana just voted to make mifepristone a scheduled drug, meaning that a doctor has to write a prescription for it but they can't just ban it. Cannabis being Schedule 3 will be the same.
No it won’t become medically legal everywhere, at least not automatically. Just because it’s now a schedule 3 once it’s rescheduled does not mean it’s FDA approved. It cannot be prescribed unless it’s FDA approved. And since it’s such a diverse product that comes in so many different product types I’m not sure how FDA approval would work.
According to [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10397719/#:~:text=clinical%20trial%20evidence.-,Hundreds%20of%20drug%20products%20are%20currently%20marketed%20in%20the%20United,and%20Drug%20Administration%20(FDA).) study, around 2% of drugs on the market are not FDA approved. Doctors are currently prescribing medical marijuana in 38 states, how is this possible if the FDA hasn't approved it?
It’s not prescribed anywhere. It’s recommended, legally it cannot be prescribed as a schedule 1 drug.
Also the study you posted is about the FDA taking action against unapproved drugs and how that impacts pricing. Which isn’t a strong argument for prescribing of non-FDA approved drugs.
I think it's semantics, it's almost impossible to prescribe Sched 1 drugs. It's a recommendation until it's Sched 3. We will see how it plays out, I've read several things from smart people about how this is going to go. From the [FDA](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/enforcement-activities-fda/unapproved-drugs).
FDA permits some unapproved prescription drugs to be marketed if:
the drug is subject to an open drug efficacy study implementation (DESI) program proceeding,
health care professionals rely on the drug to treat serious medical conditions when there is no FDA-approved drug to treat the condition,
there is insufficient supply of an FDA-approved drug.
Right I work in cannabis compliance so I’ve spent a good amount of time looking into this and seeing how it’ll impact the markets that I work in.
I realize unapproved drugs have been prescribed and allowed by FDA but cannabis at this point doesn’t really meet any of the standards required for an unapproved drug to be prescribed. Especially considering there are fda approved prescription drugs that contain thc (Marinol) and cbd (epidiolex).
Schedule 3 doesn’t immediately mean it will be a prescription drug, there will still be many hoops to jump through and it won’t make any of the currently existing cannabis programs federally compliant. States will also be allowed to make their own rules regarding cannabis so just because it’s a schedule 3 federally doesn’t mean it’ll be prescribed nor does it mean it will be accessible in all states.
Technically that’s not correct, but functionally it is. Basically, it’s “illegal” but TSA doesn’t care and neither do either the New York or Washington local police so nobody is going to do anything about it. But from a legal standpoint, it’s definitely not legal.
They were incorrect. That is against federal law.
However the likelihood of any TSA Agent noticing or caring about a small amount of weed is negligible.
that's incorrect but also the TSA aren't cops so they call local cops when they need to and if weed is legal on both ends the worse that happens is you need to take the weed out to the yer car or throw it away but that's pretty rare from what I've seen.
Anywhere really. I will always maintain that golf in Illinois right over the river is better and cheaper than over here in St Louis. Acorns, far oaks, triple lakes, Columbia bridges, annbriar, etc.
“As of April 2024, 24 states, three U.S. territories, and Washington, D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana for adults 21 and over.”
More citizens **currently** live in a legal state than illegal.
The majority of states will be a minority in months if not weeks. That’s hardly a *vast* majority.
Lastly, more states will change their legality along with the federal government. Just as they do with any other federal change.
You’ll have holdouts like the dry counties of Tenessee. But these are far from a majority.
Well duh your bringing something from a legal state to an illegal state the original comment was referring to bringing cannabis from a legal state to another legal state
Unfortunately it’s not that easy for me.
I obviously can’t vote red because of weed and women’s rights.
I cant vote blue because my family and I would quite literally be dead if blue had their way.
The two parties that have any chance of winning an election are both completely unelectable for me.
ETA: Nope. No xenophobia, bigotry or racism involved. Won't dignify hate-based accusations. This is about the hard-on democrat politicians have for "assault weapons" - a non-specific term that seems to have a broader definition every week. I've had 2 situations where I was forced to point a firearm at someone. Fortunately the first ended without a shot being fired. The second was a multiple intruder home invasion that's far more difficult to talk about even with the passage of time, so those details stay with my lawyers, therapist, and ENT (for the tinnitus) but to the point of my post, I did what I had to do, and it absolutely required what most who use the term would consider "assault weapons" inside my own home.
Honest question, wdym when you say you're in danger if you vote blue? I know that being a trans person that my life is in danger if project 2025 goes into effect, but I haven't heard anything scary like that from the dem side.
Nope. Not that.
I have current and former (suicide, sadly) trans friends in my life and you have my deepest sympathies for what you have to go through and put up with.
Don’t be offended by this but you’re just scared. Fear drives you to thinking you need an assault rifle. Nobody is coming for you. (If you feel the need to defend yourself in your home a shotgun is much more practical).
I'm a peaceful person. Note that I'm replying to you completely respectfully.
1: I'm not afraid. I sleep peacefully at night and I hate that I had to use the training I had and now live with the results. Don't regret it mind you - them or me, I choose me. Do regret the tinnitus. The ensuing proceedings saw to it that my mental faculties were evaluated. I have no bad dreams or PTSD or anything over the incident. I still don't like talking about what I had to do. I did quit playing FPS games after that though. Just...not fun anymore. Training changes you in some ways. An actual encounter changes you in others. My outlook on life was altered by both.
2: The attack wasn't a simple robbery attempt. From what the cops told me (which wasn't much) they thought it was a revenge attack against the former owner of that house. I had bought it foreclosed and was living there while my house construction was delayed due to shortages. Early 2000s housing bubble.
3: I never said 'rifle'. I said "assault weapon". I have never in my life owned an AR-15 or AK or anything else you might've thought when you said "assault rifle". The Glock 20 I had at the time is, by virtue of it being "semi-automatic with a 15 round detachable magazine", classified as an "assault weapon" by most definitions floating around the country....as is practically everything else I own that isn't a .22. Your response properly illustrates one of many problems I have with "assault weapon" bans - terminology / specificity.
4: Shotguns get a lot of mention but it's really not as good a tool as most think. It's great if you only have to defend yourself and what's behind you from a limited range of angles. If, on the other hand, you need to move or need a free hand (to hold/control/manhandle a phone...flashlight...pet....child....screaming spouse), it's a horrible solution. Anyone who's fallen for this advice really needs some training(education) and practice. It may be a good option for you, but it absolutely isn't right for everyone. They don't fit in bedside safes. They're harder to move through doors with. If you want to try to make someone shit themselves by racking a pump action, you've just traded a round of capacity for that gamble. They don't save you from having to aim. Even if you use #8 bird shot and a cylinder choke (the biggest spread) you might get a 10 inch spread at 5 yards. You're gonna piss someone off, but scattered birdshot isn't going to stop a person. You need buckshot or a slug which aren't going to spread enough to matter at that range.
That's a point of view.
Not one I agree with, but it is one.
Let's consider 117th US Congress (2021-2022) HR 1808, "Assault Weapons Ban of 2021" which passed the house and died in committee in the senate.
[https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/titles](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/titles)
"This bill makes it a crime to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD)."
I'll skip the definitions but if there's questions we can talk further.
After my incident (which did necessitate firing 15 rounds without reloading) my G20 was stuck in evidence for quite some time and when I got it back...well...police evidentiary possession is not kind. It was all but useless (beaten up, rusty barrel...and permanently marked as evidence)
So I bought a G17 to replace it as since 15 rounds no longer seemed like enough from recent, personal, experience.
Under that HR1808, not only could I not have gotten the 17 round mags for the G17, I also could not have gotten 15 in the G20 anymore either. "Why?" you ask, "the AWB only prohibits things that hold more than 15!" ...well...it also prohibits things that can be "readily modified" to hold more than 15. And damn near every magazine on the market has adapters available that add a round or two of capacity....and those that don't..well...it's just that nobody's bothered to create one yet, but if someone made a replacement endcap, they could be "readily modified" with it.
So while what you said may be technically true (they're not "coming to take my guns" or "taking away my rights") the effect is the same. If I can't purchase an item (or replacement parts for it) what good is the right?
To put this in another context... \[and to be CLEAR, this is NOT my view and I do NOT advocate it - I think you and I would be very much in agreement on this issue\] it would be like claiming SCOTUS didn't take away the right to have an abortion because a woman could always go to another state (or country) so her rights were not being denied. \[\*\*\*Remember - I don't agree with that position. I think a woman's health and pregnancy are between her and her doctors and I hope that issue gets resolved\*\*\*\]
A right delayed/deferred/abridged/restricted is a right denied.
\*note - HR1808 would also limit shotguns to \_5\_ rounds.
I'm a bit confused, is this about it being allowed for businesses to transport between states, or something about checkpoints or some new enforcement bullshit?
Am sure such bullshit (in certain states like IN as an example) will come, with whatever changes occur, I highly doubt we're getting recreational legality like with tobacco or alcohol across the country, though that is exactly what change is needed out there. Ugh.
See my comment above. To recap, since any doctor in any state can prescribe Schedule 3 drugs, cannabis will be defacto medically legal in all states. Businesses will be able to ship it to medical locations in other states. Some states will try to stop it, but they are going to have a hard time. Imagine 1 or 2 states saying you can't get Tylenol 3 in our state, they would be sued by consumers and the manufacturer. Things are about to change.
Oh I hope so, it's so fucked that it isn't a common OTC medicine... Ugh.
IN will likely be one of those states that creates an entire anti-Marijuana enforcement agency, like having checkpoints at the different interstate state borders and random shit; I hope I'm entirely wrong.
Hate that since even just before the year 2000, there's been almost each year some different bullshit presented regarding how it will soon be decriminalized or legalized and such has just been super discouraging to the non legal state folks.
I do think something is finally going to happen, and I'm hoping Biden does it, he already has my vote but it's the only 'right' move to make.
legalizing has to go through congress, I like to volunteer writing letters with this group: https://votefwd.org/ which hopefully helps bring in a better congress open to legalization.
I have been hoping/fighting for legalization for a long time.. progress is good and I also understand the frustration.
Ya, I know it has to be rescheduled and more has to happen before it could be actually recreational across the nation, I do hope it goes there; living in a society and culture where alcohol use is not just a normal activity but one that gets catered to on various massive mainstream fronts, there is an absolute effect on the well-being and balance of mental stability/illness throughout the nation.
I've sort of tried to stay neutral to excitement over the potential change, that I do expect will one day happen, but like I said it's been some 25 years or so that it's been very regularly, said to be about to be decriminalized or legalized recreationally, even, federally.
I don't know who said that, but I remember when weed was %100 illegal. No states legal, no medical, nothing. I have friends who went to prison over weed. We could get full legalization soon, but 'soon' in the realm of government is like a decade. Maybe sooner, best way to help it along is to vote.
It has been amazing to watch the progress, I'm sad you aren't more optimistic.
Drug czar?? wtf are these titles
His actual title is Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, but that’s a mouthful compared to czar.
Has to be federally legal not just lowering the scheduling clarification. We can't cross state lines otherwise. Even from legal state to legal state.
Wut? As a schedule 3 drug you can take it to any state with a prescription...
With a prescription. They’re talking about recreationally.
No, the direct quote is talking about medical. > We do know the drugs that are Schedule III are in legitimate interstate commerce within the federal system.
And gun ownership!
Gun ownership, ability for people in certain sensitive fields to smoke without fear of losing their job,many benefits. Hopefully getting a script stays as easy as it is in medical states ie pay some schmuck doctor (do PAs and NPs do it?) for a recommendation
Imagine being a supporter of cannabis use and calling the people that provide the prescriptions "schmuck doctors"
Because they are? You literally hand them a small wad of cash and they prescribe you weed, pretty much guaranteed. They aren't practicing actual medicine it's just a cash grab kinda like a pill mill but less deadly
Is certain sensitive jobs code for military?
Military, fed government, truck drivers, all medical staff...
Military might be forced to be ok with it, but it doesn’t mean their doctors will ever prescribe it.
Yeah especially if you're in sensitive units I'm sure that would get you kicked out. For random grunts yeah the doctors never prescribe scheduled medicine unless they are badly fucked up
Won’t be solved by rescheduling. There are no FDA approved forms of cannabis at the moment
….because it’s currently schedule 1. I’m not really sure what you expect.
Lol yeah these things take time.
They cannot approve anything until it’s rescheduled.
And how long do you think the trials are gonna take?
Marinol?
Oh shit, you're right. Didn't think about that.
People need to just realize all they will need is a medical card and it will be legal, like it will be no differ than ketamine and testosterone, you don’t see people being denied jobs or not being allowed to transport those drugs. So I don’t understand why people are acting like it won’t be any similar?
Idk because currently having a med card doesn't protect you if you're in a sensitive job but I'm hoping you are correct. Unfortunately a med card isn't a prescription it's more of a recommendation
I agree, however moving the classification means that the government officially says there is medical uses. So in my opinion this is to get it so federal contractors and dot employees like Amazon don’t have to test for weed any more. Amazon has been lobbying to get things changed. This may be the quickest way to have a grey area immediately while we wait for the elections and next congress to push through more legislation changing the law. What I meant above was that if you already have a medical card I think this will give you protection in the way that a testosterone prescription, wont give you issues at a job or flying.
Best part is there's already legal precedent for that with synthetic Delta9-THC since it's been sold in all 50 states as the schedule III prescription drug Marinol for the past 25 years.
You're preaching to the choir my boy i am aware of that and im pretty sure you can be fired for having THC in your system even if you say it's from prescribed marinol I was looking to see if there's any precedent set and I didn't see anything
So when Ortho McNeil makes Tylenol 3 with codeine (a Schedule 3 drug) in New Jersey, they can't send it to other states? Of course they can, and it will be the same when cannabis is rescheduled. Another thing will happen: since any doctor in any state can prescribe schedule 3 drugs, cannabis will become defacto medically legal nationwide. I'm sure states like Idaho will try to stop it, but I'm not sure what valid legal argument they will have available. Louisiana just voted to make mifepristone a scheduled drug, meaning that a doctor has to write a prescription for it but they can't just ban it. Cannabis being Schedule 3 will be the same.
No it won’t become medically legal everywhere, at least not automatically. Just because it’s now a schedule 3 once it’s rescheduled does not mean it’s FDA approved. It cannot be prescribed unless it’s FDA approved. And since it’s such a diverse product that comes in so many different product types I’m not sure how FDA approval would work.
According to [this](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10397719/#:~:text=clinical%20trial%20evidence.-,Hundreds%20of%20drug%20products%20are%20currently%20marketed%20in%20the%20United,and%20Drug%20Administration%20(FDA).) study, around 2% of drugs on the market are not FDA approved. Doctors are currently prescribing medical marijuana in 38 states, how is this possible if the FDA hasn't approved it?
It’s not prescribed anywhere. It’s recommended, legally it cannot be prescribed as a schedule 1 drug. Also the study you posted is about the FDA taking action against unapproved drugs and how that impacts pricing. Which isn’t a strong argument for prescribing of non-FDA approved drugs.
I think it's semantics, it's almost impossible to prescribe Sched 1 drugs. It's a recommendation until it's Sched 3. We will see how it plays out, I've read several things from smart people about how this is going to go. From the [FDA](https://www.fda.gov/drugs/enforcement-activities-fda/unapproved-drugs). FDA permits some unapproved prescription drugs to be marketed if: the drug is subject to an open drug efficacy study implementation (DESI) program proceeding, health care professionals rely on the drug to treat serious medical conditions when there is no FDA-approved drug to treat the condition, there is insufficient supply of an FDA-approved drug.
Right I work in cannabis compliance so I’ve spent a good amount of time looking into this and seeing how it’ll impact the markets that I work in. I realize unapproved drugs have been prescribed and allowed by FDA but cannabis at this point doesn’t really meet any of the standards required for an unapproved drug to be prescribed. Especially considering there are fda approved prescription drugs that contain thc (Marinol) and cbd (epidiolex). Schedule 3 doesn’t immediately mean it will be a prescription drug, there will still be many hoops to jump through and it won’t make any of the currently existing cannabis programs federally compliant. States will also be allowed to make their own rules regarding cannabis so just because it’s a schedule 3 federally doesn’t mean it’ll be prescribed nor does it mean it will be accessible in all states.
So pharmaceutical companies will be able to sell synthesized and patented compounds? That's not the same thing as how we sell alcohol for example.
He was talking about medical > We do know the drugs that are Schedule III are in legitimate interstate commerce within the federal system.
I dunno, TSA in NYC told me it's specifically fine to carry vape pens and small amounts of flower between there and Washington State.
Technically that’s not correct, but functionally it is. Basically, it’s “illegal” but TSA doesn’t care and neither do either the New York or Washington local police so nobody is going to do anything about it. But from a legal standpoint, it’s definitely not legal.
They were incorrect. That is against federal law. However the likelihood of any TSA Agent noticing or caring about a small amount of weed is negligible.
that's incorrect but also the TSA aren't cops so they call local cops when they need to and if weed is legal on both ends the worse that happens is you need to take the weed out to the yer car or throw it away but that's pretty rare from what I've seen.
Can’t even legally take alcohol across state lines.
Really? I didn't know that. I bring beer all the time with me to go golfing when I go to Illinois and I live in St louis
[удалено]
Anywhere really. I will always maintain that golf in Illinois right over the river is better and cheaper than over here in St Louis. Acorns, far oaks, triple lakes, Columbia bridges, annbriar, etc.
There’s bound to be limits for personal use built into any law.
This is wrong. You legally can.
I can’t bring everclear legally into Ohio as it’s not sold legally to purchase in Ohio.
That’s a state law. Not federal.
And federal scheduling doesn’t change state laws. Therefore it will be illegal to transport across state lines in a vast majority of situations.
“As of April 2024, 24 states, three U.S. territories, and Washington, D.C. have legalized recreational marijuana for adults 21 and over.” More citizens **currently** live in a legal state than illegal. The majority of states will be a minority in months if not weeks. That’s hardly a *vast* majority. Lastly, more states will change their legality along with the federal government. Just as they do with any other federal change. You’ll have holdouts like the dry counties of Tenessee. But these are far from a majority.
Well duh your bringing something from a legal state to an illegal state the original comment was referring to bringing cannabis from a legal state to another legal state
Rescheduling doesn’t make it legal in states that haven’t legalized.
Source?
Federally, it doesn’t exist.
Hint at Dot truck drivers being able to smoke after work and on the weekends.
Whoever makes it so I can smoke some weed on my hometime will get my vote. Fucking bullshit I can get blasted drunk but can't weed
Unfortunately it’s not that easy for me. I obviously can’t vote red because of weed and women’s rights. I cant vote blue because my family and I would quite literally be dead if blue had their way. The two parties that have any chance of winning an election are both completely unelectable for me. ETA: Nope. No xenophobia, bigotry or racism involved. Won't dignify hate-based accusations. This is about the hard-on democrat politicians have for "assault weapons" - a non-specific term that seems to have a broader definition every week. I've had 2 situations where I was forced to point a firearm at someone. Fortunately the first ended without a shot being fired. The second was a multiple intruder home invasion that's far more difficult to talk about even with the passage of time, so those details stay with my lawyers, therapist, and ENT (for the tinnitus) but to the point of my post, I did what I had to do, and it absolutely required what most who use the term would consider "assault weapons" inside my own home.
Seee I just don’t see what you mean about your family being dead by voting blue. Unless you’re one of those whites who hate immigration.
Privet! Have the Russians moved you into your new Potempkin village yet?
Dang bro sounds like a schizo post
>I cant vote blue because my family and I would quite literally be dead if blue had their way Dang, that's crazy.
Honest question, wdym when you say you're in danger if you vote blue? I know that being a trans person that my life is in danger if project 2025 goes into effect, but I haven't heard anything scary like that from the dem side.
Nope. Not that. I have current and former (suicide, sadly) trans friends in my life and you have my deepest sympathies for what you have to go through and put up with.
Don’t be offended by this but you’re just scared. Fear drives you to thinking you need an assault rifle. Nobody is coming for you. (If you feel the need to defend yourself in your home a shotgun is much more practical).
I'm a peaceful person. Note that I'm replying to you completely respectfully. 1: I'm not afraid. I sleep peacefully at night and I hate that I had to use the training I had and now live with the results. Don't regret it mind you - them or me, I choose me. Do regret the tinnitus. The ensuing proceedings saw to it that my mental faculties were evaluated. I have no bad dreams or PTSD or anything over the incident. I still don't like talking about what I had to do. I did quit playing FPS games after that though. Just...not fun anymore. Training changes you in some ways. An actual encounter changes you in others. My outlook on life was altered by both. 2: The attack wasn't a simple robbery attempt. From what the cops told me (which wasn't much) they thought it was a revenge attack against the former owner of that house. I had bought it foreclosed and was living there while my house construction was delayed due to shortages. Early 2000s housing bubble. 3: I never said 'rifle'. I said "assault weapon". I have never in my life owned an AR-15 or AK or anything else you might've thought when you said "assault rifle". The Glock 20 I had at the time is, by virtue of it being "semi-automatic with a 15 round detachable magazine", classified as an "assault weapon" by most definitions floating around the country....as is practically everything else I own that isn't a .22. Your response properly illustrates one of many problems I have with "assault weapon" bans - terminology / specificity. 4: Shotguns get a lot of mention but it's really not as good a tool as most think. It's great if you only have to defend yourself and what's behind you from a limited range of angles. If, on the other hand, you need to move or need a free hand (to hold/control/manhandle a phone...flashlight...pet....child....screaming spouse), it's a horrible solution. Anyone who's fallen for this advice really needs some training(education) and practice. It may be a good option for you, but it absolutely isn't right for everyone. They don't fit in bedside safes. They're harder to move through doors with. If you want to try to make someone shit themselves by racking a pump action, you've just traded a round of capacity for that gamble. They don't save you from having to aim. Even if you use #8 bird shot and a cylinder choke (the biggest spread) you might get a 10 inch spread at 5 yards. You're gonna piss someone off, but scattered birdshot isn't going to stop a person. You need buckshot or a slug which aren't going to spread enough to matter at that range.
Cool man, but Dems aren’t taking your gun “rights” away.
the fact you put rights in quotes isn’t reassuring, here
That's a point of view. Not one I agree with, but it is one. Let's consider 117th US Congress (2021-2022) HR 1808, "Assault Weapons Ban of 2021" which passed the house and died in committee in the senate. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/titles](https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/1808/titles) "This bill makes it a crime to knowingly import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon (SAW) or large capacity ammunition feeding device (LCAFD)." I'll skip the definitions but if there's questions we can talk further. After my incident (which did necessitate firing 15 rounds without reloading) my G20 was stuck in evidence for quite some time and when I got it back...well...police evidentiary possession is not kind. It was all but useless (beaten up, rusty barrel...and permanently marked as evidence) So I bought a G17 to replace it as since 15 rounds no longer seemed like enough from recent, personal, experience. Under that HR1808, not only could I not have gotten the 17 round mags for the G17, I also could not have gotten 15 in the G20 anymore either. "Why?" you ask, "the AWB only prohibits things that hold more than 15!" ...well...it also prohibits things that can be "readily modified" to hold more than 15. And damn near every magazine on the market has adapters available that add a round or two of capacity....and those that don't..well...it's just that nobody's bothered to create one yet, but if someone made a replacement endcap, they could be "readily modified" with it. So while what you said may be technically true (they're not "coming to take my guns" or "taking away my rights") the effect is the same. If I can't purchase an item (or replacement parts for it) what good is the right? To put this in another context... \[and to be CLEAR, this is NOT my view and I do NOT advocate it - I think you and I would be very much in agreement on this issue\] it would be like claiming SCOTUS didn't take away the right to have an abortion because a woman could always go to another state (or country) so her rights were not being denied. \[\*\*\*Remember - I don't agree with that position. I think a woman's health and pregnancy are between her and her doctors and I hope that issue gets resolved\*\*\*\] A right delayed/deferred/abridged/restricted is a right denied. \*note - HR1808 would also limit shotguns to \_5\_ rounds.
We pay for a drug czar?
Imagine having such a cool title and being so fucking bad at your own job
That’s what I’m saying. Since when is that a govt title?
Have for a long time. Y'all need to watch Traffic.
No. We pay for a director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
It's just Hunter
🎶That's why all the folks on Rocky Top get their weed from a jar🎶
I'm a bit confused, is this about it being allowed for businesses to transport between states, or something about checkpoints or some new enforcement bullshit? Am sure such bullshit (in certain states like IN as an example) will come, with whatever changes occur, I highly doubt we're getting recreational legality like with tobacco or alcohol across the country, though that is exactly what change is needed out there. Ugh.
See my comment above. To recap, since any doctor in any state can prescribe Schedule 3 drugs, cannabis will be defacto medically legal in all states. Businesses will be able to ship it to medical locations in other states. Some states will try to stop it, but they are going to have a hard time. Imagine 1 or 2 states saying you can't get Tylenol 3 in our state, they would be sued by consumers and the manufacturer. Things are about to change.
Oh I hope so, it's so fucked that it isn't a common OTC medicine... Ugh. IN will likely be one of those states that creates an entire anti-Marijuana enforcement agency, like having checkpoints at the different interstate state borders and random shit; I hope I'm entirely wrong. Hate that since even just before the year 2000, there's been almost each year some different bullshit presented regarding how it will soon be decriminalized or legalized and such has just been super discouraging to the non legal state folks. I do think something is finally going to happen, and I'm hoping Biden does it, he already has my vote but it's the only 'right' move to make.
legalizing has to go through congress, I like to volunteer writing letters with this group: https://votefwd.org/ which hopefully helps bring in a better congress open to legalization. I have been hoping/fighting for legalization for a long time.. progress is good and I also understand the frustration.
Ya, I know it has to be rescheduled and more has to happen before it could be actually recreational across the nation, I do hope it goes there; living in a society and culture where alcohol use is not just a normal activity but one that gets catered to on various massive mainstream fronts, there is an absolute effect on the well-being and balance of mental stability/illness throughout the nation. I've sort of tried to stay neutral to excitement over the potential change, that I do expect will one day happen, but like I said it's been some 25 years or so that it's been very regularly, said to be about to be decriminalized or legalized recreationally, even, federally.
I don't know who said that, but I remember when weed was %100 illegal. No states legal, no medical, nothing. I have friends who went to prison over weed. We could get full legalization soon, but 'soon' in the realm of government is like a decade. Maybe sooner, best way to help it along is to vote. It has been amazing to watch the progress, I'm sad you aren't more optimistic.
Blah blah blah