I know this is just rescheduling to schedule 3, and that legalization would be preferred. But this is still huge. Millions of people have in their renting lease that they can't consume schedule 1 drugs inside of their home, and that includes people in legal states. This would allow millions of people to consume weed in their homes without fear of eviction. I was almost evicted once because of my consumption in a medical state, this decision would have saved me so much stress. This is progress, and shows that we can keep pushing towards legalization and that it will impact things even if it takes a little time.
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
130 points (99.2% liked)
Trees
6626 readers
2 users here now
A community centered around cannabis.
In the spirit of making Trees a welcoming and uplifting place for everyone, please follow our Commandments.
- Be Cool.
- I'm not kidding. Be nice to each other.
- Avoid low-effort posts
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Agree completely. This will have huge rippling effects throughout a lot of industries. For example, anyone who has used pot in the last year is automatically banned from obtaining a security clearance, even if it was in a legal state or prescription. This change will allow medical pot users to obtain and maintain a clearance.
Not enough but still a few huge steps in the right direction.
Should help Biden out as well.
Not as good as full legalization, but hey, you take what you can get, right? And then you push it for more later. Once people see that the sky will not fall.
The biggest change this will create, it is illegal for someone taking schedule 1 drugs to own or possess a firearm. Even if you get a medical card, or it is legal for recreational use, it would still be a felony to have a gun.
Now, guns and drugs are a bad combination. But there are a lot of people who would rather keep their guns than try marijuana even if prescribed by a doctor.
That is not the case. Cannabis would still be a federally illegal drug (controlled substances act) and thereby users are prohibitited from owning firearms. This includes all Schedule 1-5 drugs.
see:
21 U.S.C. § 802
and
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)
Under schedule 3, legal prescriptions would not be considered unlawful use.
Besides, I've learned since writing my previous comment that the SCOTUS has invalidated laws prohibiting gun ownership based on previous drug use. So I was wrong from the jump, but for different reasons.
Under schedule 3, legal prescriptions would not be considered unlawful use.
Prescriptions are a tiny fraction of cannabis use, but that would still be a major positive change.
I've learned since writing my previous comment that the SCOTUS has invalidated laws prohibiting gun ownership based on previous drug use.
... citation needed. U.S. v. Daniels was the 5th Circuit (and not applicable to most of the country,) it was not SCOTUS. After Bruen, many consider such likely to be struck down if it reaches SCOTUS, but that has not happened (nor has it even been granted cert, afaik.)
What SCOTUS did hear this term was US v Rahimi, which deals with an adjacent topic, but the prohibited person in that case was subject to a domestic restraining order.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me, especially citing the statutes. I only know it's been a big deal in Pennsylvania, with the conservatives threatening to go after the guns of people who get prescription cards. It's prescription only here.
No guns... waaaa
Reclassify meaning "still protected, we just don't consider it the literal antichrist anymore"
Pretty underwhelming but I guess it's better than nothing.