this post was submitted on 30 Sep 2024
1049 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2583 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 21 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Rescheduling is a lot more complicated than that. The president can not just wave a wand and make it legal. Congress could pass a law doing so, but they are not going to do that. The other way is via the Controlled Substances Act which is, to put it mildly, is a cluster fuck.

In a nutshell, administrative rescheduling begins when an actor—the Secretary of Health and Human Services or an outside interested party—files a petition with the Attorney General or he initiates the process himself. The Attorney General forwards the request to the HHS Secretary asking for a scientific and medical evaluation and recommendation, as specified by 23 USC 811(b-c). HHS, via the Food and Drug Administration conducts an assessment and returns a recommendation to the Attorney General “in a timely manner.” The Attorney General, often through the Drug Enforcement Administration, conducts its own concurrent and independent review of the evidence in order to determine whether a drug should be scheduled, rescheduled, or removed from control entirely—depending on the initial request in the petition.

If the Attorney General finds sufficient evidence that a change in scheduling is warranted he then initiates the first stages of a standard rulemaking process, consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act. During rulemaking and consistent with Executive Order 12866, if the White House—through the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of information and Regulatory Affairs—determines the rule to be “significant,” it will conduct a regulatory review of the proposed rule—a very likely outcome given the criteria in the EO.

FYI, Biden already initiated this process to reschedule marijuana in 2022. At this point, it has been reviewed and the Attorney General has submitted a rule change to the DEA. They will have a public comment period which they will no doubt drag out as long as possible. If approved, marijuana will be reclassified at the same level as steroids (schedule III). It is disappointing that Biden only requested changing the schedule rather than descheduling it all together. Not ideal, but a hell of a lot better than now.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

So technically, the president could order the people he is in charge of to deschedule the drug and to do it immediately by everyone agreeing that the change is not significant.

If they refuse he could just keep firing people until someone agrees.

[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

The law requires certain time frames for comment periods and he cannot just ignore those. He also cannot just fire anyone he wants. That is one of the things Project 2025 includes. Giving the president to fire any federal employee at will is a bad idea.

The only immediate thing he might do is issue an executive order making Marijuana a very low priority offense and telling DoJ to direct limited enforcement and prosecution resources elswhere.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Well I’m sure the persons in question will be highly motivated to follow through and expedite the process with seal team six accompanying them to work every day

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Nope, the president doesn't have the legal authority to give that order. He has the legal authority to order them to consider the question, which is the process that's going on.

[–] DancingBear@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago

Right but he he has the power to fire them, or order someone else to fire them.