Not quite. Legalized for medical use, and when we say medical use, we don't mean like California where getting your other green card is a breeze. They're planning to be real tight on it.
Not quite. Legalized for medical use, and when we say medical use, we don't mean like California where getting your other green card is a breeze. They're planning to be real tight on it.
Wow it's classified as an S9 meaning everyone that handles the drug has to be licensed from manufacturer to delivery guy, warehouse and then the doctors (not a shitty GP).
After it becomes a bit more accepted it will likely settle down to S8 status (still quite high, where opiates and slightly more abusable drugs reside).
In short, it doesn't require an act of Congress because the law explicitly gives the Attorney General the power to reschedule controlled substances, on the basis of medical and scientific evaluation according to the schedule criteria.
There should be. It's not cool for the executive branch to be able to ignore the laws Congress makes, but right now the only method of doing that (that I'm aware of) is impeachment and no one cares that much.
Except that in this instance it's the executive branch using a power explicitly granted in that same law.
Bingo. Congressional law gave them the power to do it in the first place.
There are many complaints about the powers of the Executive branch bypassing Congress, but acts of Congress often create those very same Executive powers. That's how it works.
This is how most actual, practical legislation is done. Congress gives a body control over something, but also gives them constraints on how far that power goes.
It doesn't make sense to have Congress vote every time a simple regulation related to, say, food safety, needs to be changed. So the FDA or whoever is granted the power to "just decide" within certain bounds. Congress only needs to step in if they don't like what that body did in a particular case, or if the body actually oversteps its (sometimes vague) bounds.
It seems extra stupid to have Congress determine what specific substances present what particular levels of danger: that's a decision to be left to experts with the powers granted by congress.
Marijuana is one of the drugs diectly shceduled in the Controlled Substances Act of 1971. I thought that DEAs discression did not expand into altering US Code.
The executive branch cannot change the US Code, but it can change the Code of Federal Regulations.
The CFR drug schedules override the US Code drug schedules because the Controlled Substances Act itself says that they do.
If you're going to bring up the Controlled Substances Act, why not glance through it:
Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended (FOOTNOTE 1) pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated: (FOOTNOTE 1) Revised schedules are published in the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 1308 of Title 21, Food and Drugs.
EDIT: Reading the ruling itself, the law is sound, it's the news outlets that are twisting the ruling to be in defiance of the CSA rather than enforcement of the relevant appropriations bill.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruling has some profound (and unpleasant) State v. Federal rights and federal law enforcement issues that will expand beyond drug enforcement.
The Ninth Circuit Court ruling has some profound (and unpleasant) State v. Federal rights and federal law enforcement issues that will expand beyond drug enforcement.
That was my reaction to the headline and the news coverage, but the ruling wasn't based in States rights. The ruling is actually based in a portion of an appropriations bill from 2015 that was renewed to cover funds through September 30 2016. The bill stated
None of the funds made available in this Act to the Department of Justice may be used, with respect to the States [that have enacted Medical Marijuana laws] to prevent such States from implementing their own State laws that authorize the use, distribution, possession, or cultivation of medical marijuana
The weird part about the appropriations bill is that it doesn't say "all states with medical marijuana" because under Federal Law that's none of them, so instead they had to list all the states, meaning that if one of the other 25 states legalizes medical marijuana they won't have this immunity. Furthermore, the exemption does not cover recreational marijuana, so Colorado and the like are not completely protected from DoJ.
Comments
After it becomes a bit more accepted it will likely settle down to S8 status (still quite high, where opiates and slightly more abusable drugs reside).
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2015/02/13-how-to-reschedule-marijuana-hudak-wallack
In short, it doesn't require an act of Congress because the law explicitly gives the Attorney General the power to reschedule controlled substances, on the basis of medical and scientific evaluation according to the schedule criteria.
There are many complaints about the powers of the Executive branch bypassing Congress, but acts of Congress often create those very same Executive powers. That's how it works.
It doesn't make sense to have Congress vote every time a simple regulation related to, say, food safety, needs to be changed. So the FDA or whoever is granted the power to "just decide" within certain bounds. Congress only needs to step in if they don't like what that body did in a particular case, or if the body actually oversteps its (sometimes vague) bounds.
It seems extra stupid to have Congress determine what specific substances present what particular levels of danger: that's a decision to be left to experts with the powers granted by congress.
The CFR drug schedules override the US Code drug schedules because the Controlled Substances Act itself says that they do.
If you're going to bring up the Controlled Substances Act, why not glance through it:
EDIT: Reading the ruling itself, the law is sound, it's the news outlets that are twisting the ruling to be in defiance of the CSA rather than enforcement of the relevant appropriations bill.
Also their website is laughably atrocious. Like D-tier bad.