CSA

manualCAD

I think a lot of the "freaking out" about hemp loophole closing is that millions of people actually don't know that cannabis is still a schedule 1 drug on the CSA. There are likely some bad faith arguments being made where the person does know that cannabis is S1, but most normies don't know that. The state of the legal cannabis market is so widespread with medical and recreational sales that it defies logic that cannabis is still S1.l at a federal level. This is the fault of the US government and Congress' incompetence to do ANYTHING that relates to the American people.

manualCAD

THC hemp drinks will be stocked at YMCA and municipal library vending machines before cannabis is removed from the CSA

theduderino38

Yep I’d say 98% of the population doesn’t understand the CSA and what the difference between legalize, reschedule , etc is. I only do because I’ve been here for a while haha

Shit-throwing-monkey

Right. I don't know what Canadian rules are, but he may need to do a filing with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA)

Draphippo

1. What Schedule III Reclassification Actually Does If cannabis moves from Schedule I → Schedule III, it means: • The U.S. government formally recognizes medical use. • Cannabis is no longer in the same class as heroin or LSD, but with drugs like Tylenol with codeine, testosterone, and ketamine. • The DEA and FDA can regulate it as a controlled, but prescribable substance. That change has massive secondary effects on financial and regulatory systems — especially custody and uplisting. ⸻ 💰 2. Why Cannabis Stocks Are Currently Locked Out of Major Exchanges Right now, U.S. cannabis companies like Trulieve (TCNNF) and Green Thumb (GTBIF) can’t list on the NYSE or NASDAQ because: • Those exchanges are regulated by the SEC and must comply with federal law. • Since cannabis is federally illegal (Schedule I), listing them would mean a federal crime is being facilitated (distribution of a controlled substance). • Similarly, U.S. banks and custodians (like JPMorgan or Goldman) can’t hold or clear trades in cannabis-touching companies, since that’s aiding an illegal enterprise under federal law. That’s why U.S. multi-state operators (MSOs) trade only on Canadian exchanges (CSE) or OTC markets under “F” tickers — and that’s why liquidity is so poor. ⸻ 🏛️ 3. How Schedule III Fixes That Problem If cannabis becomes Schedule III, then: • It is no longer federally illegal for companies to manufacture, distribute, or sell it under DEA/FDA oversight. • The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would no longer prohibit these companies’ core business. • Therefore, U.S. cannabis companies would no longer be “trafficking in a Schedule I substance.” That legal distinction allows: • NYSE and NASDAQ to legally uplist U.S. cannabis stocks (since their business is no longer federally illegal). • Prime brokers, custodians, and clearing firms (like Pershing, Fidelity, JPMorgan) to hold, clear, and custody cannabis securities safely. • Institutional investors (mutual funds, ETFs, pensions) to finally participate. Essentially, the federal legal barrier disappears. ⸻ 📈 4. Key Consequences Once That Happens If Schedule III becomes official: 1. MSOs can uplist — TCNNF → TLVF (or similar) on NASDAQ. 2. Custody opens up — brokers like Fidelity or TD can hold shares directly rather than via foreign intermediaries. 3. Liquidity soars — volume increases, bid/ask spreads tighten. 4. Institutional money enters — funds and ETFs that currently can’t touch these names flood in. 5. Valuations normalize — MSOs rerate closer to mainstream consumer/healthcare stocks (think 5–10× EBITDA instead of 3×). ⸻ ⚠️ 5. Important Caveats • Schedule III doesn’t automatically mean dispensaries can sell Schedule III products overnight — DEA and FDA will set frameworks. • Adult-use (recreational) cannabis may still operate in a gray zone until Congress or DOJ guidance clarifies it. • Uplisting won’t happen immediately — exchanges will likely wait for formal DEA final rule + DOJ guidance confirming that cannabis businesses are federally compliant. • The SAFE Banking Act could still accelerate financial normalization in the meantime.

manualCAD

Sure. But there is literally no incentive for the government to do anything at all. Weed is already fully legal for adults in 20+ states. If the feds aren't going to do anything about it, then what does it matter (outside of 280e) that it's still a schedule 1 drug?! No one cares, so why should the DEA/Congress waste any time discussing anything related to the CSA?

manualCAD

Weedstreet420's date pick of Nov 28th makes more sense than any other date pick from this sub. His account is locked down, so I can't link the post. >280e will apply to the entire fiscal year 2025 if cannabis is not removed from the CSA before the end of the year. >It takes 30 days after the final rule before 280e is removed, according to Shane. >Nov 28 is the last work day, and I don't expect a final rule on a weekend.

Ok-Replacement9595

Is it just me, or do all of these decisions listed in various district erode the commerce clause argument of keeping weed on the CSA at all. There have been a lot of decisions reaffirming states ability to regulate weed on their own. Isn't there briefs due in December before a SCOTUS case? I think that mat be some momentum or at least stop the hemorrhaging while inaction consumes the Whitehouse.

Ok-Replacement9595

The real question is what would a hemp based policy look like for the GOP? Especially embracing intoxicating hemp derivatives. Is there an undermining of the medical/rec models states are implementing? Will it enhance them? What do they do with scheduling? The plant itself it illegal under the CSA. It doesn't make sense and they are clearly being tight lipped about their policy plans. I wish we could get some reporting on what policies these hemp lobbyists are advocating for.

manualCAD

Elon posted the joint on Mars because he knows Mars will be colonized before US politicians remove cannabis off the CSA.

UsedState7381

They don't have to do that, hemp products are not scheduled under the CSA. This being said, there is a hearing about Chinese illegal MJ grows tomorrow, there might be some more breadcrumbs to look forward to.

hemmingwayshotgun

Who buys their meat in styrofoam lol? Poor people?!? You guys don’t have a butcher or meat CSA?!? LOL

manualCAD

Okay? And Schumer is still the Senate minority/majority leader since his original post I linked. You know, the group of people who are in charge of changing the laws (the CSA is a law).

BenjaminHamnett

Even if no heads roll, just from exposure Hopefully this is the last generation of government by blackmail controlled by a hundred pedos. On the other hand, these social media platforms have allows CSA porn to circulate for a decade by people who naively thought they were anonymous. So now they and their AI will have thousands of these pawns to control. I honestly don’t know if it’ll be any better. I think you used to have to be compromised to reach the top levels, soon you may need to be compromised just to get a job in DC or half of tech

wentzco

Here's a chronological table of key events based on the current case: October 2022 - President Biden directs HHS and DEA to review marijuana's scheduling under the CSA. August 2023 - HHS recommends rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III based on its evaluation. April 2024 - DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel affirms HHS's test for determining medical use. May 2024 - DEA publishes NPRM proposing rescheduling to Schedule III and opens public comments. July 2024 - Public comment period ends, with over 42,000 submissions and hearing requests received. August 2024 - DEA announces an administrative hearing to begin December 2, 2024. October 2024 - DEA selects ALJ and 25 participants for the hearing. November 2024 - Motion to disqualify DEA as proponent is filed and denied. December 2024 - Preliminary hearing held; full hearings scheduled for January 21, 2025, through early March. January 2025 - Hearing stayed pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal on DEA's role; parties ordered to provide status updates every 90 days. March 2025 - Process remains on hold due to the appeal. April 2025 - DEA confirms the rescheduling process is still pending. July 2025 - Status update provided; next due in October 2025. August 2025 - No new updates after 180 days; President Trump indicates a decision on rescheduling is forthcoming in the "next few weeks." If finalized, rescheduling would not legalize cannabis federally but would ease research, taxation, and medical access while keeping it regulated. The ongoing delays highlight how legal challenges and political shifts (e.g., administration changes) can prolong the process indefinitely.

wentzco

So saying many cannabis investors here are impatient would be a massive understatement. Everyday there are numerous discussions about when rescheduling will take effect. Even when Trump announces he wants to reschedule cannabis... it doesn't take immediate effect. My "guess it will be an additional 6-12 months. So I asked SuperGrok the following question - "What would cannabis rescheduling look like process-wise and time-wise?" The process for rescheduling cannabis (or any controlled substance) under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is a formal rulemaking procedure overseen primarily by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), with significant input from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It can be initiated by a petition, DEA action, HHS request, or presidential directive. The steps are as follows: 1. Initiation: The process begins with a trigger, such as a formal petition to the DEA or a directive from higher authorities (e.g., the president directing HHS and DEA to review a substance's status). 2. HHS Scientific and Medical Evaluation: HHS reviews the substance using an eight-factor analysis, assessing aspects like abuse potential, pharmacological effects, scientific knowledge, abuse history, public health risks, dependence liability, and whether it's a precursor to another controlled substance. This results in a recommendation to the DEA, which is binding on scientific and medical findings for Schedules I and II but advisory for lower schedules. 3. DEA Review: The DEA evaluates the HHS recommendation alongside additional factors, including law enforcement data, public safety, and international treaty obligations. 4. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): If the DEA decides to proceed, it publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register outlining the change (e.g., moving cannabis from Schedule I to III). 5. Public Comment Period: Stakeholders submit comments, typically over 30-60 days (sometimes extended). 6. Administrative Hearing (if Requested): If parties request it, the DEA may convene a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to gather evidence and testimony. This can involve pre-hearing motions, participant selection, and potential appeals, which may delay proceedings. 7. Final Rule Publication: The DEA analyzes all input, including hearing outcomes, and issues a final rule in the Federal Register. The change usually takes effect 30 days later, though it can be longer. 8. Potential Judicial Review: Affected parties can challenge the final rule in court, potentially extending the timeline. This process ensures thorough scientific, medical, and regulatory scrutiny but can face delays from high volumes of comments, hearings, or legal challenges. Time-wise, rescheduling typically takes 1-3 years from initiation to final rule, though controversial substances like cannabis can take longer due to public interest, hearings, and politics. For non-controversial changes, it might wrap up in 6-18 months (e.g., HHS review: 6-12 months; DEA proposal: 3-6 months; post-proposal: 6-12 months). Hearings alone can add 6-24 months if complex. For cannabis specifically (proposed move from Schedule I to III), the process began in 2022 and remains ongoing as of August 2025, illustrating how delays can extend it beyond typical timelines.

GeoLogic23

What does "full regulation" entail, that is different from creating "statues and frameworks" and placing a federal tax on the product? But I'm going off topic now, because you are **completely backwards** on the CSA. Having medical value isn't what makes a substance fit into the CSA. There are a million different things that have medical value that aren't on the CSA. And there are things on the CSA that explicitly do not have medical value aka Schedule 1 drugs. It's whether or not there is potential for abuse, a public safety danger, etc.. that makes something "fit" onto the CSA. If it has medical value, it just gets placed lower on the CSA. But the reason it fits into the CSA in the first place are the dangers. **Therefore alcohol actually fits way better** onto the CSA than cannabis, because there is a far greater safety risk and far greater abuse potential. It actually fits perfectly into the CSA, because it should probably be Schedule 1 or 2.

randomusername0000

Full legalization = Full regulation. S3 will defeat 280E filings. That will leave a revenue gap for the fed. The fed doesn't like revenue gaps so they will pass legislation that allows them to tax it similarly to booze, while still being schedule 3. The oddity with alcohol, and this could be argued, is that it doesn't have medicinal value and so doesn't really fit into the CSA. Cannabis on the other hand does have medicinal value, and does fit into the CSA, but on the other hand has bi-partisan support in both the populace and also somewhat in congress to an extent. Cannabis is also a good time, worthy of a sin tax in the tax mans eyes.

randomusername0000

No, it would not require full legalization to impose and enforce an excise tax. They could do it under S3, but it would require statutes and framework to be created. The impetus for undergoing actual work in congress is tax revenue. The darker side of that impetus happens behind closed doors with lobbyists. There is an unfortunate precedent for this, that is congress carving out entirely new framework prior to the CSA. The Marihuana Tax Act (1937). That's not a good thing, and that precedent is ancient. Money talks, eventually. It's a reasonable take that full legalization, and an easier road to tax revenue could be on the roadmap, whether it's formally codified now or in the future, but we have to assume this will be iterative, and will require old/new legislation to get there, which is one of the reasons we aren't there already.

GeoLogic23

Democrats have previously passed the MORE Act through the House which would've removed cannabis from the CSA. Kamala Harris was the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2227/all-info

manualCAD

Just rip the band-aid off and remove from the CSA (legalize). We're just going to be talking about all of this in a few tears again after it's federally rescheduled and then TX, PA, and FL develop state recreational programs and there isn't a single state left without a med program. Every state with a rec program can be considered to have legalized cannabis.... we're just paying for extra regulatory BS on top of cannabis products.

theduderino38

Big thanks to my wife for patiently listening to me fret and banter about CSA nuance, German 2 tier model, ALJ hearings, 280e, Canadian excise taxes, hemp loophole , OTC and naked shorts for the past 5 years, as our kids Uni fund went to shit… She has won a lifetime supply of free Os courtesy of me. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

Ok-Replacement9595

Would be interesting to find out why, if Trump will do it. I understand that the substances on the CSA can be rescheduled both ways, but either should be sufficient. Something tells me that GOP senators won't really like having to defend their position on weed before the election, especially after Trump aired an opinion of sorts.

phatbob198

From a **C**ongressional **R**esearch **S**ervice Report: >**Considerations for Congress** >...There are several reasons why Congress might decide to schedule or reschedule substances via legislation. For instance, compared to administrative scheduling, legislative scheduling may offer greater speed and flexibility. Administrative scheduling under the CSA proceeds via formal rulemaking, which generally takes months or years to complete. In making scheduling decisions, DEA is required by statute to make certain findings with respect to each substance's potential for abuse and accepted medical use. DEA scheduling orders (other than temporary scheduling orders) are subject to judicial review, including consideration of whether the agency properly applied the relevant statutory standards. >By contrast, Congress is not bound by the CSA's substantive or procedural requirements. This means that it can schedule a substance immediately, regardless of whether the substance meets the statutory criteria. While scheduling legislation may also be challenged in court, the scope of judicial review of legislation is typically more limited than judicial review of regulations. Legislative scheduling may be the only way to permanently schedule large classes of substances, such as FRS, where it is not feasible for DEA to conduct the required statutory analysis for all substances in the class. Congress might also schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a substance via legislation if it disagreed with DEA's evaluation of the substance. >Relatedly, the CSA provides DEA with limited options for regulating controlled substances. The CSA established Schedules I through V, with each schedule carrying a defined set of regulatory controls and penalties for unauthorized activities. If DEA decides to control a substance under the CSA, it must place the substance in one of the existing schedules. The agency has asserted some authority to tailor controls to specific substances, but it cannot create new schedules or implement regulations or exceptions from control that are not authorized under the CSA. If Congress wishes to regulate a controlled substance in a way that does not fit within the existing CSA framework, or allow DEA to do so, it must enact legislation. >The CSA also directs DEA to control substances as required pursuant to the United States' international treaty obligations. While those obligations may limit DEA's discretion to relax controls over certain substances, U.S. treaty commitments do not prevent Congress from exercising its constitutional authority to enact new laws, even when doing so might cause the United States to violate its treaty obligations. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12709

UsedState7381

Nope. Still a federally illegal substance under the CSA. But the way the government officially treats it will change, because now it sees the plant as having medicinal value.

manualCAD

Every time I read the definitions of each level of the CSA, it annoys me even more. The level of harm, or harm in general, isn't even considered. It's just yes/no on medical use and yes/no on potential for addiction. Blatantly obvious it's not about protecting any one person from drugs...just control. The majority of America is addicted to sugar. Alcohol meets the criteria for schedule 1. Just all around trash metrics for "measuring" drugs.

manualCAD

Reminder that S.A.M. is posting on social media like a mf today. They're scared! Have they ever said what their SMART approach is? SAM is now saying Big Pharma and Big Alcohol benefit from rescheduling. If that's true, would the SMART approach be to remove cannabis from the CSA entirely and regulate it like alcohol and nicotine? Maybe... https://x.com/KevinSabet/status/1955021329847005569?t=WkYbZDBtAhI1jzl_74IQdA&s=19

volckerwasright

"A powerful Senate committee has approved a spending bill and attached report that express concern about barriers to research for Schedule I drugs like marijuana, promote increased research into psychedelics and preclude federal health agencies from endorsing the legalization of controlled substances. On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the spending legislation covering Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LaborHHS), teeing it up for floor action. While the bill itself again includes a section preventing the relevant agencies from using their funds to promote “the legalization of any drug or other substance included in Schedule I” of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), language in the attached report is critical of the research implications of putting drugs in that restrictive category, where marijuana and psychedelics are current placed." Just posted on M*r*j**n*Moment

Competitive-Ant2876

Under 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1), the AG can unilaterally reschedule marijuana to better align U.S. drug policy with its international treaty obligations—specifically, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Single Convention). This isn’t legal speculation; it’s written into the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) itself. “ No congress is needed.

AntoniaFauci

The Democrats have waste now NINE straight months of the 24 month election cycle. They have no leader and no message. Their approval rating just set ANOTHER all time low. The only handful of Dems getting attention are people like Bernie and AOC, who are nice but not going to win the essential “undecideds”, “centrists”, “moderates”, “swing voters” or whatever term wants to be used. The other Dems with a spotlight are problematic, like Mamdani, or uselessly superficial like Booker and Jeffries and about 100 more. Severe undermining comes from the tragically disappointing Obamas. While the rest of us are watching our country and democracy burn, they’re sending the million watt signals that actually nothing is wrong. Can’t be nothing wrong if Barack is fixated on basketball and Spotify lists, right? Trump can’t be too bad if Barack is hanging and laughing with him. Then there’s Michelle, who has spent the last 4 years doing an endless parade of messaging about how shitty her husband is, how hard it is being married to him. That may or may not be true, but it’s supremely selfish and ignorant to be donating tankerloads of fuel to right wingers who just use her indignation as proof of Obama Bad and add it to their fraudulent dogma of Democrats-always-Cover-up. Maybe she could find something else to podcast about or sell books about or do tv series about or do 500 interviews about besides “hey MAGA, you were right not to trust him!” Then there’s Hunter Biden, even an more selfish junkie doing the same. Then there’s the media, led by the excremental Jake Tapper. The party of domestic terror and CSA and corruption and incompetence and bigotry is hanging easy wins to the Democrats, and somehow they’re finding ways to blow it.

GeoLogic23

Just like with CBD, i expect them to remove "hemp" products from the CSA while leaving "cannabis" a scheduled drug. That would allow big corporations to get in on the THC sector, while still putting restrictions on high dose smelly flower. I don't think it's a coincidence the primary complaints from the GOP are high potency and smell. It's already setting up a justification for why hemp products should be legal but cannabis products not.

manualCAD

Removing cannabis from the CSA and allowing states/FDA to regulate will actually be remembered for generations similar to ending alcohol prohibition.

ApostleThirteen

SCOTUS would immediately point to the CSA, as well as international treaties (Article Six of the Constitution), and be forced to say that hemp and marijuana products are both illegal in entirety, and then stop and leave it to States' rights, or order US Marshalls to close every dispo and their production.

areyouhighson

> Absent from that list was reviewing where the DEA stands on a proposed rule to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), something Cole said would be “one of my first priorities” during his Senate confirmation hearing in April

kaityl3

They said something along the lines of, they can't release the stuff concerning trump because it has CSA *content* in it, which seemed to imply images to me

manualCAD

If the 50ish people who have actual power in Washington want something done, it gets done. The paperwork and legalese is figured out afterwards. That's the main issue here....none of the politicians or DEA or DoJ really want to address the cannabis issue because they were all alive when the CSA was implemented. Every single one of them have had their brains cooked by Big Pharma propaganda that "drugs are bad, prescriptions are good." That's literally it. The only reason cannabis is even close to being mentioned at a federal level is because it has become an actual driver of votes....and that's literally all that matters to these dinosaurs.

UsedState7381

There is also zero indication that his stance on marijuana matters anything here, because, once again: 1) S3 isn't legalization, the plant remains under the CSA. 2) If the head's stance was any relevant to any of this, Derek Maltz would have found a way to simply kill off S3 because he was very specifically saying how Biden's DOJ was crooked for undermining the DEA's authority when they signed off the S3. And finally, some of us are still buying, the cost X reward here is insane if we get a final rule this year.

DowntownWpg

Theory: Trump can issue an executive order today ordering Pam Bondi to reschedule Cannabis. He is scheduled to sign orders in a televised event at 4PM ET today. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a recommendation on August 29, 2023, to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This recommendation was based on a scientific and medical evaluation conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under HHS, concluding that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use. Thus we have the scientific evidence. The authority to reschedule cannabis lies with the U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi. Under 21 U.S.C. § 811(a), the Attorney General has the power to "schedule, reschedule, or decontrol drugs" under the Controlled Substances Act. This authority has traditionally been delegated to the DEA since 1973, but the AG retains the power to exercise this authority directly. AG has the full power to act unilaterally with evidence in hand. Just a theory, but it could happen.

UsedState7381

>Specifically, the bill would block the Justice Department from using its funds to reschedule or deschedule marijuana. Under the Biden administration, DOJ recommended moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), but that process has been delayed for months amid challenges from witnesses in the administrative hearings. >Here’s the text of the provision:  >“SEC. 607. None of the funds appropriated or other wise made available by this Act may be used to reschedule marijuana (as such term is defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or to remove marijuana from the schedules established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).” In other words, the same as always, this is the GOP getting their bed ready for the congressional reviews against S3. This needs to pass the house, the Senate and be signed off by the president, so I don't see it happening, at least not until a final rule by the DEA of S3 is made.

Rogan_Eizur

[Russia casts its eye on … Alaska?](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4434869-russia-casts-its-eye-on-alaska/) [Newspaper headlines: 'Putin's nuke threat' and 'Farmageddon!'](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg0z89vwq1o) [Putin issues warning to United States with new nuclear doctrine | Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-issues-warning-us-with-new-nuclear-doctrine-2024-11-19/) [Russian State TV Says Nuclear Strike Would Turn US Into 'Waterworld' - Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-says-nuclear-strike-would-turn-us-waterworld-2067134) [Russian Media Monitor - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor) (watch all of those!!!!) [Russia Lawmaker Makes Nuclear Threat Against UK, Germany on State TV - Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-lawmaker-makes-nuclear-threat-against-uk-germany-state-tv-2022-9) [Trump administration retreats in fight against Russian cyber threats | US national security | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-russia-hacking-cyber-security) [Cyberwarfare by Russia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia) [CSA-Russian-Military-Cyber-Target-US-Global-CI.PDF](https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/05/2003537870/-1/-1/0/CSA-Russian-Military-Cyber-Target-US-Global-CI.PDF) [US suspends offensive cyber operations against Russia, senior US official says | CNN Politics](https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/02/politics/us-cyber-operations-russia-suspend) (surrender) [Russia’s Shadow War Against the West](https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west) [NATO Review - Russia’s hybrid war against the West](https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html) not conclusive...

greytoc

While I'm less familiar with Canadian securities law, it is very similar to how it works in the US. For example - there are accredited investor rules in Canada just like in the US. This means that a company raising capital is typically only allowed to raise money from someone that is not considered an accredited investor. Is your friend an accredited investor? In Canada - an accredited investor is: * An individual whose net income before taxes exceeded $200,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years or whose net income before taxes combined with that of a spouse exceeded $300,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years and who, in either case, reasonably expects to exceed that net income level in the current calendar year. * An individual who beneficially owns financial assets having an aggregate realizable value that, before taxes but net of any related liabilities, exceeds $5,000,000. See here - [https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-570-0153?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true](https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-570-0153?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true) Also - in Canada - depending on the amount being raised - the offering must be filed with the CSA (Canadian Securities Administers) - this usually can be looked up. Even if all this is done - it doesn't mean that it is not a scam. But these are some of the minimal things to check. The company you mentioned appears to also not be registered in Canada - so it's a foreign entity. And regardless of whether it's legit or not - private equity especially seed round is a horrible investment for anyone that has no experience with venture capital and private equity. The failure rates of such companies exceed more than 90%. And there is an extremely high probability that your friend will lose the entire investment - even if it is somehow legit which is unlikely.

ketjak

Two things can be true at the same time: 1. He's hopelessly stupid. (anything he's ever said i public) 2. He's irredeemably evil. (see: discrimination law suits; CSA accusations; staring at teens backstage; sexually attracted to his daughter) Combined, he produced garbled word salad as we see... "raw earths," not "rare;" anything he's said at an economic forum; his grasp of tariffs, which changes based on who he last talked to; and much, much more.

jmu_alumni

I don’t think this is right, I believe I recall Shane Pennington saying that flow chart is not always the case. Under the CSA, the DEA has administrative authority to reschedule substances. This power is delegated by Congress, so the agency does not need new legislation each time it acts. They CAN intervene by passing laws if they want to but they don’t have to intervene. I’ll see if I can dig into this more to provide the sources I heard this from (which has now been years ago).

StockNirvana

Yes. There are two Government of Canada programs covering 25% and 10%, and the provincial government of Nova Scotia is covering 25%. The company still needs to raise the 40% to unlock those funds, and there are several options they have from the federal BDC (Business Development Bank of Canada), CSA (Canadian Space Agency), CIF (Canadian Infrastructure Fund), various space venture capital funds like Seraphim Space Trust $SSIT.LSE or some combination of those. It won't be an equity raise. The company still needs general operational expenses funded but the three VC funds that did the seed round seem to be taking care of that.

manualCAD

**DEA points to the CSA** "SEE!! IT SAYS CANNABIS IS WORSE THAN METHAMPHETAMINES RIGHT HERE!"

manualCAD

So the tldr of the boies lawsuit is to get to the supreme Court to have them give the opinion. If the DEA can just straight up ignore something from the president, don't you think they'll just ignore the supreme court's decision? The supreme Court can't edit the CSA or fire anyone at the DEA?!? Seems like it may help, but will be a dead end based on past actions of the DEA.

ApostleThirteen

S1 when implemented was intended to mesh with the UNDOC schedules. In 2020, the US' Ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft lobbied for changing the UNDOC scheduling of cannabis and succeeded in getting it to the equivalent of CSA Schedule II (hav9ing medical use). Why the Trump administration did that is anybody's guess. Now that the treaty is changed, US obligations have also changed, and cannabis should, at the very least, be aligned with the treaty classifications. We really shouldn't be at Schedule I, and as a "blanket" classification, Schedule II is just too harsh.

manualCAD

What does this industry look like if the CSA just never changes? What happens when all 50 states have legal, regulated recreational cannabis access and the federal government still says S1? Is that possible? Based on the track record of the US government with anything related to cannabis, it certainly seems possible.

Throwawayhelper420

So if I dressed up as the pope you wouldn’t care? What if I dressed up as the pope while parodying giving out indulgences for money to terrible, terrible people? I suspect there is more to it than just “terrible person dressed up as pope” because there are very real historical paintings of very real popes who have done unimaginably terrible things, genocides, violent inquisitions, CSA, etc, so it’s not like it’s “tainting” some “pure” institution.

Bosa_McKittle

He didn't completely shutdown the border. He shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry. He also didn't do it unilaterally. There was already an existing law on the books that gave him the authority to do so. This is vastly different than doing it all on his own without congressional approval. >The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500. The president’s order would come under the Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the southern border into the United States unlawfully.  [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-signs-executive-order-shutting-southern-border-rcna155426](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-signs-executive-order-shutting-southern-border-rcna155426) As it relates to descheduling marijuana, >In October 2022, President Joe Biden asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to review how marijuana is scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In August 2023, HHS recommended to DEA that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, based on HHS’ scientific and medical evaluation. In May 2024, DEA proposed a rule that, if finalized, would transfer marijuana to Schedule III. So again Biden could not use an executive order to reschedule marijuana unilaterally. >The [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section811&num=0&edition=prelim), Congress authorized the Attorney General, the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), to schedule substances, move substances between schedules, or deschedule substances. That authority is delegated to DEA, which is within DOJ. This means that, in practice, DEA is the agency that determines whether to schedule a substance and into what schedule a substance will be placed. This placement is based on the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability. [https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-and-research/drug-enforcement-and-policy-center/research-and-grants/policy-and-data-analyses/federal-marijuana-rescheduling](https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-and-research/drug-enforcement-and-policy-center/research-and-grants/policy-and-data-analyses/federal-marijuana-rescheduling)

LeftBullTesty

Careful with saying this is good news. This article says things such as “…DEA administrator nominee Terrance Cole repeatedly declined to commit to support the specific proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that was initiated under the Biden administration.” And “Cole also said in response to questions from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) at the hearing he feels it’s appropriate to form a ‘working group’ to look at the federal-state marijuana law disconnect in order to ‘stay ahead of it.’ Cole has previously voiced concerns about the dangers of marijuana and linked its use to higher suicide risk among youth.” There’s a real chance marijuana could be moved to schedule 2 instead of 3. The federal government could also pressure states in roundabout ways to make marijuana harder to access than what it is now.

roloplex

just read the headline. Don't read the article! "However, DEA administrator nominee Terrance Cole repeatedly declined to commit to support the specific proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that was initiated under the Biden administration."

pop2012

Marijuana Moment President Donald Trump’s pick to lead the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) says examining a proposal to federally reschedule marijuana will be “one of my first priorities” if he’s confirmed for the role, saying it’s “time to move forward” on the stalled process. However, DEA administrator nominee Terrance Cole repeatedly declined to commit to support the specific proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that was initiated under the Biden administration.

Own_Fold_5212

Just shows how broken DEA roles and responsibilities with respect to CSA are generally. They know how the public feels about it. They know how the HHS feels about it. They know how veterans feel about it. They know what the medical and scientific studies show. There’s no argument to keep it in schedule 1 or 2 🥲…there’s a strong argument to de schedule completely.

phatbob198

>Democratic congressional lawmakers have announced the filing of a bill that would remove a restriction that’s prevented the White House drug czar from advocating for the legalization of marijuana or other Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). >At a Last Prisoner Project (LPP) event outside the Capitol on Tuesday, Reps. Dina Titus (D-NV) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN)—co-chairs of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus—talked about the group’s legislative priorities for marijuana reform. Beyond the new bill, that will also include bipartisan legislation to end federal prohibition in legal states and free up the industry to access banking services. >The lawmakers’ “Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act” would take aim at a federal statute prohibiting the director of the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) from promoting reform around Schedule I drugs. >The current law states that no funds provided to ONDCP can be used for “any study or contract relating to the legalization (for a medical use or any other use) of a substance listed in schedule I,” further requiring the office’s director to “take such actions as necessary to oppose any attempt to legalize the use of a substance (in any form)” that is in Schedule I and has not been approved for use for medical purposes by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). >Under the two-page bill, that statutory language included in section 704(b)(12) of the ONDCP Reauthorization Act would be repealed. >Titus said on Tuesday that the legislation would “remove outdated restrictions, which are just ludicrous.” >“They’re not allowed to sponsor any research on Schedule I drugs. They can’t even talk about it, to show you how ridiculous is,” she said. “And by law, they have to actively oppose the legalization of any substance that is Schedule I and not approved by the FDA. We’re trying to remove that prohibition.” >Marijuana legalization “is not some out-of-nowhere kind of issue. This is something that is truly mainstream,” Titus said. “So if we can get rid of that policy, we can begin to do research on some of the advantages, or how marijuana can be used and what are the medical implications so when they say, ‘Oh, we don’t know—we don’t know what it’ll do, it might be dangerous’—you can counter that with good research.” >Whether the Trump administration’s recently appointed drug czar would exercise the authority to advocate for reform under the bill if enacted is uncertain. However, ONDCP Director Sara Carter has previously called medical marijuana a “fantastic” treatment option for seriously ill patients and said she doesn’t have a “problem” with legalization, even if she might not personally agree with the policy. >In a press release, Omar said that “our nation’s drug policies have been shaped by stigma.” >“The American people overwhelmingly support cannabis reform, and yet the federal government continues to tie the hands of its own experts,” she said. “The Evidence-Based Drug Policy Act is about bringing our laws into the 21st century, ensuring that the Office of National Drug Control Policy can do its job guided by facts, not outdated ideology. We need drug policy to follow the science and reflect the reality on the ground in states across the country.” >The legislation is also being backed by a wide range of advocacy organizations, including the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Nevada Cannabis Association, National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), NORML, Marijuana Policy Project (MPP), Law Enforcement Action Partnership (LEAP), Parabola Center for Law and Policy, Doctors for Drug Policy Reform (D4DPR), U.S. Cannabis Roundtable (USCC), Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) and Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA)...

Own_Fold_5212

The MMJ lawsuit against the DEA is a good read. Just insane the efforts they’ve gone to stop any measure of progress. Absurd conflict of interest to have them oversee the CSA with limited ability for medical / scientific agencies to supersede.

phatbob198

>...Days after submitting the motion to dismiss the case, the court granted it without prejudice, which D4DPR said enables it to take up the legal challenge again in the future if DEA ultimately declines to move forward with the proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). >In the interim, D4DPR is touting the disclosure of “previously withheld DEA communications” with certain witnesses selected to participate in administrative hearings related to the rescheduling process. >The group said in a press release on Monday that the documents that were disclosed as part of the court proceedings “provided transparency into the selection process and revealed that DEA engaged in communications with several applicants before formal selections were made.” >“This disclosure was a major win for transparency and accountability,” Bryon Adinoff, president of D4DPR, said. “The cannabis advocacy community has long questioned the DEA’s objectivity, and these documents confirm those concerns. Our goal was to expose the agency’s improper conduct—and we succeeded.” >But with DEA’s rescheduling process stalled indefinitely as it’s tied up in a separate administrative challenge from pro-reform witnesses, the group said maintaining its lawsuit “could have resulted in more delay.” So having met its “core objective” of forcing transparency, it moved to dismiss the petition...

mvw2

Yeah, I don't think most people realize how bad it's going to get and how FAST it's going to happen. At work we buy a lot of parts to build machinery. We already have a number of venders straight up halting shipments for an entirely unknown period of time. If our machine was using that part, too bad, we can't get it. If that part was time to Agency and in the UL report to use only that brand and model of switch, well too bad, we can't build the machine to the UL certification. Hope our customers are ok with that, lol. That's assuming we can even get an alternate. I went through Covid too. That was hell. Everyone was out of everything all the time, and we were scrambling for alternates of everything from every random supplier we could find. UL and CSA adherence went to the wind because it was entirely impossible. Our build ability was maybe 1/2 to 1/3 normal just because we couldn't get anything in. Heck, we couldn't get steel, just plain steel in. And what few scraps we could get was 3x to 4x the cost plus massive shipping costs because we were buying 1/20th the normal order size. It was stupid. It doubled the price of our products just not to lose money. This is worse. THIS is going to be MUCH worse. It's not a supply problem this time either. It's effectively sanctions, trade embargo. There's going to be so many things that we just can't get...from anybody, anywhere, and it'll have absolutely nothing to do with supply and demand. The crappy part is we're a US manufacturer, US people, US fab, US assembly, US engineering, US everything, and tariffs and this trade BS will shut our doors. And if they stay shut too long, the business is gone, dead. And we're a brand name and oem for many of the major companies in our market. There are zero other businesses capable of doing what we do. The market space will just...end. Our customer companies will lose their entire business model. Whole swaths of manufacturing and services will just stop existing. But here's the fun part. When this actually rolls through, and the average Joe really feels it, it's going to be when the go to their local Walmart, and the shelves are 90% bare. Stuff just won't exist in this country, period.

manualCAD

There are plenty of public companies on NYSE that manufacture and sell scheduled drugs. Uplisting will come before any changes to the CSA I think.

UsedState7381

Hopefully I won't have to wait that long to bounce out, because uplisting will only happen after full legalization/removal from the CSA, which is easily still years away at this point. All I care about is S3.

phatbob198

>As Pennsylvania lawmakers consider proposals to legalize marijuana, a new poll shows that voters say they favor a model where cannabis is sold by licensed private businesses, rather than through a system of state-run stores as some legislators have promoted. Meanwhile, a new legal memo concludes that the government-run approach “is fundamentally defective and would be preempted by federal law.” >The survey from Change Research, which was commissioned by the advocacy group ResponsiblePA, first reaffirmed what several polls have already found: A majority—in this case 74 percent of Pennsylvania voters—back legalizing adult-use cannabis sales in the Keystone State. >But with dueling legislative proposals over recent sessions, the survey sought to gauge voter sentiment around two regulatory frameworks for a potential recreational market. And the results showed a strong preference for the private, commercial model that has been established in other states. >The question was posed twice. There was a majority preference for the privatized option in both cases, but in the first round support for a conventional commercial market was 51 percent, compared to 25 percent who favored a state-run model, similar to how Pennsylvania approaches alcohol. >After learning more about both options—including being told that state-run stores would “allow the state to control pricing, sales, and distribution, potentially generating more public revenue but limiting opportunities for PA businesses and competition”—support for the private model jumped to 57 percent and the state-run preference stayed steady at 25 percent. >“These views transcend party lines, with majorities of Democrats (49 percent), Independents (54 percent), and Republicans (67 percent) all favoring private retail implementation,” a memo on the poll from Change Research said. “Additionally, 68 percent of voters believe a private model would keep more money in local communities, and 68 percent worry a state monopoly would restrict business opportunities.” >Nearly two-thirds of voters (61 percent) also said that they support allowing existing medical cannabis dispensaries in the state to “immediately” start serving adult consumers as well after legalization is enacted. >Further, 63 percent of respondents agreed with the following statement: “Pennsylvania should move forward now and pass cannabis legalization in 2025. Delaying only hurts the economy, restricts access for patients and consumers, and allows the illicit market to thrive.” >In contrast, 30 percent said Pennsylvania lawmakers “should not rush the process,” and “more research, planning and debate are needed” before the states enacts legalization. Another 7 percent said they were unsure. >Asked how they’d like to see tax revenue from marijuana sales allocated, 61 percent said public education, followed by infrastructure improvements (53 percent, substance misuse treatment (47 percent) and law enforcement funding (41 percent). >“Pennsylvania’s cannabis jobs are good paying jobs with benefits, healthcare, paid time off, and create economic opportunity,” ResponsiblePA spokesperson Brittany Crampsie said in a press release on Thursday. >“An adult-use program utilizing Pennsylvania businesses will add upwards of 33,500 new jobs to the Commonwealth, and Pennsylvanians prefer a private model as opposed to a federally preempted state-run cannabis retail system,” she said. “The private model is the only model for real, commonsense reform.” >The survey involved interviews with 1,129 registered Pennsylvania voters from January 25-30. >ResponsiblePA is also circulating a new legal memo prepared by the law firm Kleinbard LLC that concludes that a state-run model for cannabis sales is “unlikely to pass muster under precepts of federal preemption because, unlike many de-criminalization statutes which merely refuse to take state action in furtherance of the [Controlled Substances Act], [a Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board] role requires state action that plainly violates the CSA.” >Under the state-run approach, state officials “would be directly responsible for procuring, marketing, distributing, and selling cannabis in state-owned liquor stores,” the memo says. “Courts, however, have repeatedly invalidated provisions requiring affirmative actions prohibited by the CSA. In fact, many of the “positive conflicts” have been found by courts under far more attenuated circumstances.” >Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Pennsylvania House Speaker Joanna McClinton (D) said that Democrats are ready to pass a marijuana legalization bill this session, but that the party “will need Republican support” to get the job done—adding that it will be a “heavy lift.” >While polls have shown bipartisan support for legalization among voters, the policy change has consistently stalled in the legislature, owing in large part to GOP opposition. But not all Republican members are against the reform—and one recently said she felt her party should seize the “opportunity to snatch” the issue from Democrats...

chumgorthemerciless

You nailed it with manifest destiny. It's not a coincidence that conquest is on the table with an evangelical fascist regime in power. As an American, the US as it has existed was just waiting to collapse. Plantations, slavery and the CSA never went away. I can see the union splintering, which is probably for the best.

oldschoolczar

\>" it seems like the CSA is just a list of drugs that the US Government doesn't like." That exactly what it is... you nailed it

manualCAD

That's how politicians' brains probably work haha. Just remove the "has accepted medical use" from the CSA altogether. If the DEA is the sole controller of the CSA (which apparently they are), then they don't have the authority or knowledge base to determine how a substance is used in the medical field. You don't see doctors recommending where to set up drug checkpoints.

manualCAD

Fentanyl literally has accepted medical value?!? How can they possibly justify S1? Maybe we'll get the CSA, and cannabis, adjusted since it seems like the CSA is just a list of drugs that the US Government doesn't like.

manualCAD

The cannabis industry was created by entrepreneurs who took a risk with a federally illegal product. Then, the industry grew to become a multi-billion dollar industry. "Non criminal" entrepreneurs realized this and lobbied Congress to (possibly without them even understanding wtf they were doing because they're geriatrics who can't open a pdf) legalize hemp which created the hemp loophole to siphon off revenue from cannabis companies. This group is now extracting all the wealth from the industry that they can. They've surprisingly stayed "below board" long enough to where we have nationwide supply chains supplying intoxication hemp products to consumers across the USA without anyone really caring that the products are the same as what is sold in regulated dispensaries. At what point does this country, or it's politicians, stand up and say "wait a minute, all of this is the exact same as the illegal schedule 1 cannabis from the CSA"? I guess since it's not a stinky bud of cannabis flower, no one cares to know the difference.

UsedState7381

It is my understanding that they can extend it only once and then they have to decide on what to do, I don't know if the situation at hand even has any precedent ever since the CSA became a thing. Someone more knowledgeable on the history of this could expand on this more. They could also simply decide to not do any ALJ hearings anymore and decide to not move forward with S3, it's all up with the new DEA admin now...Which is why I say that Trump has to come out and reaffirm his support for S3, otherwise this guy can just ax the whole process while nobody(besides us) is looking at it. Oh is he going to get fired for it? So what? Harm would be already done, it didn't stopped Sessions from rescinding the Cole Memo either.

BHOmber

Literally announced yesterday... Even if this doesn't go through, weed is the last thing on Trump's mind unless one of his dumb ass kids starts a hemp brand with their shitcoin profits. The GOP does not give a single fuck about this industry. They're forced to pander to the elderly and evangelical nuts. Those are the people most opposed to cannabis and drug policy reform. https://www.marijuanamoment.net/new-gop-bill-would-block-marijuana-industry-tax-deductions-even-after-federal-rescheduling/ https://www.law360.com/tax-authority/federal/articles/2294575/gop-sens-file-bill-to-make-pot-co-tax-penalty-permanent- >Sens. James Lankford (R-OK) and Pete Ricketts (R-NE) filed the “No Deductions for Marijuana Businesses Act” on Thursday to maintain the tax barrier for the industry, which has been eagerly following the ongoing administrative process of moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in large part because it would address their 280E challenges under current law... ...>The bill would amend the IRS code to say that, in addition to all Schedule I and Schedule II drugs, businesses that work with marijuana specifically would be barred from taking tax deductions that are available to other industries. ...>No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in— >(1) marijuana (as defined in section 102(16) of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802(16))), or >(2) controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act), >which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

anonymoose_baker

Trade however you like, but can RFK Jr really do anything as head of HHS to remove cannabis from the CSA or reschedule it? I know he's an advocate, but he's not head of the DOJ or DEA to make a change, right?

KabbalahDad

It wasn't his confirmation, it was something a little bit more important to the cannabis movement: From the article: But that is not the message Kennedy sent to members of the Senate Finance Committee in response to a series of questions for the record (QFRs) this week. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), says he will defer to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on marijuana rescheduling if confirmed. And he’d “like to review the data” that led to the health agency’s recommendation for the reform before he potentially embraces it—[despite his previous, repeated calls for cannabis legalization](https://www.marijuanamoment.net/where-presidential-candidate-robert-f-kennedy-jr-stands-on-marijuana-and-psychedelics/). Among cannabis stakeholders, Kennedy’s nomination to lead the nation’s top health agency appeared to be one of the most promising Trump administration developments given his vocal advocacy for ending cannabis criminalization and replacing the policy with a system of regulated marijuana sales, where products are taxed and resulting revenue is earmarked toward supporting substance misuse treatment. Rather than defend his previously stated support for legalization, the nominee declined to even endorse the ongoing process of moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). He said that decision is up to DEA, which has been widely suspected of opposing the rescheduling move since HHS under the Biden administration recommended that reform.

262Chief

All of the major US cannabis reform bills that got any traction contain provisions for the interstate/international trade of cannabis. example; MORE Act for example mentions import 37 times and export 42 times. Many States have interstate legislation that triggers on Federal permissibility. WA, OR, CA for example The only thing stopping interstate today, between like minded US States; is the Federal prohibition via the CSA.

GeoLogic23

She's been pushing for very [comprehensive cannabis reform](https://mjbizdaily.com/two-us-senators-pitch-bill-to-resolve-marijuanas-legal-banking-taxation-issues/) for many years. She was one of the first people to push for the STATES Act. Here are her goals for cannabis from 2018, including getting rid of 280, protecting state programs, resolving banking, and removing hemp from the CSA: * Protect state-legal cannabis programs by exempting them from federal drug laws. * Allow individual states to decide whether to make marijuana legal. * Permit MJ businesses in state-legal programs to take ordinary tax deductions. They currently can’t do so. * Allow MJ businesses to put money in federally insured banks; all transactions and proceeds in state-legal programs would be considered lawful. * Remove industrial hemp from the list of controlled substances. >**Don Murphy**....**called it the “most significant piece of marijuana-related legislation ever introduced in Congress.”**

UsedState7381

>Trump will announce the legalization of marijuana as a new revenue stream for the federal government. MJ legalization will only happen via congress, according to Shane and other lawyers, Trump has no power to remove the plant from the CSA, let alone legalize it. Manage your expectations on that because a considerable chunk of the GOP is vehemently against even rescheduling the plant.

GeoLogic23

[Courts have ruled](https://www.marijuanamoment.net/thc-o-qualifies-as-legal-hemp-under-federal-law-appeals-court-says-rejecting-deas-restrictive-stance/) that based on the 2018 Farm Bill it is only the Delta 9 THC content that determines if it is federally legal. >Specifically, the opinion says, “The Ninth Circuit held that it didn’t need to consider the DEA’s position on synthetically derived substances because **the definition of ‘hemp’ under the 2018 Farm Act was unambiguous in its application to** ***all*** **products derived from the cannabis plant**, ‘so long as they do not cross the 0.3 percent delta-9 THC threshold.'” Hemp is unambiguously "all" products derived from <0.3% Delta 9 THC plants. So in theory hemp products that are <0.3% Delta 9 THC are federally legal just like CBD. So I am not sure they would need re-scheduling. I am pretty sure if the FDA decided they wanted to regulate these products they could do so. [More info](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB11227#:~:text=Hemp%20is%20defined%20as%20the,subject%20to%20the%20CSA's%20controls) >"Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would not legalize the use of marijuana in food or dietary supplements because recreational uses of **marijuana are illegal under the CSA**." "Since the enactment of the 2018 farm bill, **the addition of hemp, including CBD, to food and dietary supplements does not violate the CSA**. Any food or dietary supplement that contains a form of hemp would still have to comply with FD&C Act requirements" "FDA has not determined that products containing **CBD, Delta-8 THC**, and other cannabinoids meet the FD&C Act’s **safety requirements** for food and dietary supplements" "**Since FDA has approved drugs** containing CBD and THC, FDA has taken the position that **CBD and THC** cannot legally be used in food or dietary supplements" The only reasons cited are not having enough safety information, and the drug exclusion clause. They clearly state hemp does not violate the CSA, and hemp has been defined as anything coming from <0.3% Delta 9 THC plant.

GeoLogic23

CBD extracted from marijuana is Schedule 1. CBD extracted from hemp is not scheduled. >One exception to the general classification of cannabis and its derivatives as marijuana is hemp. The 2018 farm bill (Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018; P.L. 115-334) established a definition of hemp (7 U.S.C. § 1639o(1)) and **excluded hemp from the definition of marijuana (21 U.S.C. § 802(16)) under the CSA**. Hemp is defined as the cannabis plant and its derivatives with a “delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol concentration of not more than 0.3 percent.” **With the amendments made by the 2018 farm bill, hemp, including non-THC cannabinoids such as CBD, are no longer subject to the CSA’s controls**. That Epidiolex carve out was done in 2018, before CBD was actually legalized. [Epidiolex has since been descheduled.](https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/04/06/2012160/0/en/GW-Pharmaceuticals-plc-and-Its-U-S-Subsidiary-Greenwich-Biosciences-Inc-Announce-That-EPIDIOLEX-cannabidiol-Oral-Solution-Has-Been-Descheduled-And-Is-No-Longer-A-Controlled-Substan.html) >"GW Pharmaceuticals plc and Its U.S. Subsidiary Greenwich Biosciences, Inc. Announce That EPIDIOLEX® (cannabidiol) Oral Solution Has Been Descheduled And Is No Longer A Controlled Substance" >"Following FDA approval, EPIDIOLEX was initially placed in Schedule V of the CSA. Following receipt of this DEA notification, GW has filed a post-approval supplement with FDA to remove Schedule V designation from EPIDIOLEX."

manualCAD

Marijuana (cannabis) is what is on the CSA. CBD and THC are components of cannabis, so both are S1. The DEA carved out an exception for epidiolex (CBD medication) for big pharma. If the DEA can allow CBD, then why not THC? Not like anyone is following the CSA anyways....(hemp derived products, every state legal med and rec program, etc)

anonymoose_baker

Response from ChatGPT: If the IRS were abolished, the enforcement of 280E would depend on what system replaced it. 280E is a section of the U.S. tax code that disallows businesses engaged in the trafficking of controlled substances (like cannabis) from deducting normal business expenses. However, the law itself is part of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), not the IRS specifically. Key Scenarios: 1. If the IRS were abolished but the tax code remained • A different agency (like the Treasury Department or a new tax authority) could enforce 280E and other tax laws. • The law would still apply unless explicitly repealed. 2. If the entire tax code were rewritten or replaced • If the U.S. switched to a new system (like a national sales tax or flat tax), 280E might become irrelevant or be eliminated. • Congress would have to decide whether to include a similar provision in the new system. 3. If cannabis were removed from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) • 280E only applies to businesses selling Schedule I and II substances. • If cannabis were federally legalized or rescheduled, 280E would no longer apply, regardless of the IRS’s status. So, abolishing the IRS alone wouldn’t necessarily eliminate 280E—it would depend on whether Congress changed the tax code or how tax enforcement was restructured.

Interesting_Cake_600

I give it 75% odds of passing (pending refinement from new DEA head). HHS recommendation is supposed to be binding, it’s clearly less addictive than drugs in schedule 1 and 2, has medical value proven. And very large majority of Americans support it (and legalization). The entire basis of the CSA is: safety, addiction, medical value. And this is in the midst of an opioid crisis where marijuana is shown to reduce opioid abuse and deaths. ALJ judge has already said the focus is on CSA criteria, so his recommendation should align with HHS. DEA going against all of that is insanity. And they would break precedent of deferring to HHS on scientific matters. GOP fighting such a minor reform given all of that is a terrible look for their new found power. And Trump gets ripped early in going against his public statement.

Interesting_Cake_600

Haha; I’m optimistic given the HHS recommendation, and expectation DEA gives material deference. Nobody wants federal overreach here. And the ALJ judge has been very clear his focus is on CSA criteria (safety, abuse, and medical value). Pretty substantial evidence that marijuana has accepted medical use and lower potential for abuse than schedule 1 and 2 drugs. So any argument on other issues with it go out the window in his final decision. There will be riots if the DEA goes against both the HHS and ALJ recommendation 🥳 (in 2025). Schedule 3 also still allows ample regulation, and more research. So the GOP can reframe it that way haha.

Interesting_Cake_600

This isn’t a bill. It’s an administrative process under the CSA. Congress would have to introduce a bill if they want to change the outcome, assuming the final DEA rule is to reschedule. Trump can influence it directly through his DEA head, they would need to be the one to halt or redirect the process. Trump has publicly said he supports it, I assume you believe he’s lying and doesn’t support it.

KAI5ER

# Potential Arguments from the DEA 1. **Comprehensive Framework Needed**: * The DEA could argue that HHS’s two-factor analysis is insufficient for rulemaking, which requires a complete evaluation of all factors under the CSA. 2. **Public Safety Concerns**: * The DEA might highlight risks, such as abuse potential, impaired driving, or dependency issues, that it believes were underemphasized in HHS’s analysis. 3. **Regulatory and Legal Precedent**: * The DEA could assert that deviating from the Eight-Factor Analysis undermines the rigor of the scheduling process and sets a problematic precedent.

Davidinlbc

It appears AG Garland can reschedule drugs according to the CSA. We need to put his feet to the fire!

phatbob198

>...The plaintiffs’ first objective before the First Circuit is to overturn the lower court’s decision to dismiss their complaint. However, this is not their only objective. >Neither the plaintiffs nor court-watchers expect to be surprised if the First Circuit affirms the lower court’s dismissal. For that reason, the plaintiffs have another objective: that the First Circuit issue a decision that will attract the attention of and ultimately, a review by, the U.S. Supreme Court. >For these reasons, both parties will also be directing their arguments beyond the courtroom to the higher court. >This case matters to the extent that it will have important implications for how the federal government responds to state legalization. >If the First Circuit reverses the lower court’s decision, it could set a precedent that limits Congress’s authority to regulate state-legalized marijuana activity under the CSA. However, if the panel affirms the federal district court’s decision, it could strengthen the federal government’s ability to enforce the CSA. >Regardless of the outcome, this case is worth watching given its potential impact on the future of cannabis policy across the United States.

mealucra

>The group asserts in the new appeal letter that its members and other veterans would be harmed by moving marijuana to Schedule III. > >“Only a move to schedule V,” it says, “would alleviate our injury.”  > >“We appreciate the hard work of the DEA, [Food and Drug Administration] and [Health and Human Services Administration] on this rescheduling process,” says the letter to appeals court, dated November 25, “however, as we articulated in our request to DEA, we argue that schedule V would be the necessary conclusion of a fair hearing on this proposed rule.” Schedule V (🤖): >Schedule V is a classification under the United States Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that identifies substances with the following characteristics:  - **Low potential for abuse:** Compared to substances in Schedules I through IV.  - **Accepted medical use:** Substances in this schedule are recognized for their medical use in the United States.  - **Limited risk of dependency:** Abuse of these substances may lead to limited physical or psychological dependence. Sounds like weed to me. In Mulrooney we trust. 🙏

phatbob198

>A veterans organization has filed a challenge with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in an effort to force the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to include the group in upcoming hearings on the Biden administration’s proposal to move marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)... >“Only a move to schedule V,” it says, “would alleviate our injury...” >“No participant makes the case that we intend to make,” the filing says, adding that “there wasn’t any argument proposed by any participants in favor of a schedule greater than III...” >“The DEA’s exclusion of VAC silences a critical perspective advocating for Schedule V, which would provide Veterans with the necessary access to cannabis as a medical treatment through the [Veterans Affairs] system,” Krawitz said. https://www.reddit.com/r/weedstocks/s/ZXP5f10YAX

Stupid_boner

https://newsfile.futunn.com/public/NN-PersistNoticeAttachment/7781/20241128/SEDAR_PLUS/CSA_SEDAR_PLUS_NOTICE_RECORD_ID_381976.pdf

Interesting_Cake_600

From the docs on DEA site: “On May 21, 2024, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) through the DEA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to transfer marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana, 89 Fed. Reg. 44597, 44597 (2024). In an order dated August 29, 2024 (General Notice of Hearing or GNoH), the DEA Administrator determined that in-person hearing proceedings are appropriate and fixed a December 2, 2024 commencement date at the DEA Hearing Facility. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana, 89 Fed. Reg. 70148, 70148-49 (2024). The NPRM directed, inter alia, that “[a]ll requests for a hearing and waivers, together with a written statement of position on the matters of fact and law asserted in the hearing, must be filed with DEA.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 44598. The General Notice of Hearing acknowledged the regulatory requirement that under the DEA regulations, an “interested person” is “any person adversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable under 21 U.S.C. § 811.” 89 Fed. Reg. at 70149. The GNoH instructed any person seeking to participate in the rescheduling hearing to submit a filing”

Interesting_Cake_600

“The preliminary hearing on Monday, December 2 “will serve as a procedural day to address legal and logistical issues and discuss future dates for the evidentiary hearing on the merits,” DEA said. “No witness testimony will be offered or received at this time.” ^ this was known, but ugh 😂… “The agency also included background information on the proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). And it separately made a legal docket publicly accessible on an administrative law judge (ALJ) page so people can view key filings in the rescheduling case.“ Link: https://www.dea.gov/administrative-law-judge-orders

National_Spirit2801

The Supreme Court could apply principles from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its recent narrowing of Chevron deference to justify removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Federalism and States' Rights: Dobbs emphasized returning power to states for issues not deeply rooted in the Constitution. Cannabis regulation is a historically state-level issue, and federal prohibition infringes on state sovereignty. Commerce Clause Limits: Federal authority under the Commerce Clause does not justify regulating intrastate, non-commercial cannabis activity, particularly when state programs are designed to prevent interstate commerce. Revisiting Gonzales v. Raich could restrict federal overreach. Narrowing Agency Power: The Court’s recent Chevron ruling limits deference to administrative agencies like the DEA. Cannabis’ Schedule I classification is outdated, contradicting scientific evidence, FDA-approved cannabis-based medicines, and state policies. Practical and Social Considerations: Federal prohibition is ineffective, creates legal contradictions with state laws, and disproportionately harms marginalized communities. By removing cannabis from the CSA, the Court would respect state autonomy, limit federal overreach, and align federal law with modern scientific and legal realities.

National_Spirit2801

The Supreme Court could apply principles from Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and its recent narrowing of Chevron deference to justify removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Federalism and States' Rights: Dobbs emphasized returning power to states for issues not deeply rooted in the Constitution. Cannabis regulation is a historically state-level issue, and federal prohibition infringes on state sovereignty. Commerce Clause Limits: Federal authority under the Commerce Clause does not justify regulating intrastate, non-commercial cannabis activity, particularly when state programs are designed to prevent interstate commerce. Revisiting Gonzales v. Raich could restrict federal overreach. Narrowing Agency Power: The Court’s recent Chevron ruling limits deference to administrative agencies like the DEA. Cannabis’ Schedule I classification is outdated, contradicting scientific evidence, FDA-approved cannabis-based medicines, and state policies. Practical and Social Considerations: Federal prohibition is ineffective, creates legal contradictions with state laws, and disproportionately harms marginalized communities. By removing cannabis from the CSA, the Court would respect state autonomy, limit federal overreach, and align federal law with modern scientific and legal realities.

phatbob198

>The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “rejected” a request from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to provide witnesses for an upcoming hearing on the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling proposal, the drug agency says. >In a prehearing statement submitted to DEA Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney on Tuesday, the agency also previewed the testimony its own witnesses plan to provide—without clarifying where it stands on the proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). >The two witnesses DEA plans to call are both agency officials. One, Heather Achbach, will speak to the rulemaking process the led up to the hearing, while the other, Luli Akinfiresoye, will “provide data, studies and other information” on issues such as marijuana-related seizures, emergency room visits, THC potency and “public safety risks” associated with cannabis. >HHS, which carried out the scientific review that led to the rescheduling proposal, declined DEA’s invitation to have any of its staff show up to testify. >“DEA made a request to [HHS] and its operating division, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), to provide witnesses to testify before the Tribunal regarding the scientific and medical evaluations in the HHS Eight Factor analysis that is the basis for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the novel two factor test applied by HHS for determination of “currently accepted medical use,” DEA said. >“HHS rejected DEA’s request for witnesses from HHS (or its operating divisions),” it said. “In the event DEA determines it is necessary to subpoena a witness or witnesses from HHS (or its operating divisions), DEA respectfully requests to reserve the ability to add that witness in a supplemental filing.” >It’s not clear why HHS declined to provide witnesses. Marijuana Moment reached out to the department for comment, but a representative was not immediately available. >One of DEA’s witnesses, Akinfiresoye—a pharmacologist with the agency’s Diversion Control Division—will testify on a number of items, including how the proposed rule “specifically seeks additional data upon which DEA can rely in making its determination as to whether marijuana should be rescheduled.” >That’s a reference to the multiple times through the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) that DEA declined to endorse various scientific findings to justify rescheduling, which has led some observers to conclude that the agency disagrees with the proposed reform. >“Dr. Akinfiresoye will testify that DEA has maintained an active review of the scientific, medical, and technical literature addressing marijuana with a focus on how it relates to the eight factors relevant to the control under the CSA,” the agency said in the new filing. “Dr. Akinfiresoye will testify regarding information within DEA’s current state of knowledge,” including “additional factual evidence.” >Topics that Akinfiresoye will cover include marijuana’s potential for abuse, pharmacological effects, the “state of current scientific knowledge,” history and current patterns of abuse, the significance of that abuse, public health risks and psychic or physiological dependence liability. >“The Government is still compiling documentation for this Matter and anticipates additional exhibits,” it said. “The Government will provide an updated and accurate exhibit list in a supplemental filing at a date set by this Tribunal...”

theduderino38

As per usual our do nothing Congress can’t get their own CSA changed and can’t get anything done- so punting to EO which is easily reversible or challenged in court. So tired of being a trapped long in this god forsaken sector… what a naive idiot I was to believe that change would happen….

Many_Easy

A lot of us really don’t have a clear understanding of the Boies lawsuit. ———————— Here’s a synopsis with sources from AI. The Boies cannabis lawsuit, challenges the constitutionality of the federal prohibition of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The plaintiffs, including several cannabis companies, argue that federal enforcement contradicts the increasing state-level legalization and regulation of cannabis. They claim this creates legal and financial hardships for businesses operating in compliance with state laws, such as being subject to punitive tax measures like IRS Code 280E, which prohibits typical business deductions for cannabis-related companies. This case highlights evolving federal policies, such as Congress’s steps to protect state medical marijuana programs, which plaintiffs use to argue that the federal government has abandoned the original rationale for prohibition. The suit also draws on critiques from figures like Justice Clarence Thomas, who has called federal cannabis policy inconsistent . The case has implications for taxation, banking access, and the broader legal framework of the cannabis industry. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could lead to significant policy shifts, including potential retroactive tax relief and financial normalization for cannabis businesses.

phatbob198

Once again, here is a [CRS report](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10655&ved=2ahUKEwiChcGZpcuJAxV9j4kEHWeXF5YQFnoECBgQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1uS698BbLLbWbGxFTf2-ng) from 2021 that says it cannot be done through executive order: >Does the President Have the Power to Legalize Marijuana? >...If the President sought to act in the area of controlled substances regulation, he would likely do so by executive order. However, the Supreme Court has held that the President has the power to issue an executive order only if authorized by “an act of Congress or... the Constitution itself.” The CSA does not provide a direct role for the President in the classification of controlled substances, nor does Article II of the Constitution grant the President power in this area (federal controlled substances law is an exercise of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce). **Thus, it does not appear that the President could directly deschedule or reschedule marijuana by executive order**. >Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA’s procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA...

manualCAD

The DEA shouldn't be in charge of the CSA that THEY enforce. Like jfc you guys, this is pretty simple check and balances shit from like 5th grade. DEA is cooked, and fuck SAM in general.

manualCAD

>A GOP senator says marijuana rescheduling and industry banking legislation are “half-assed measures,” and lawmakers should instead focus on legalizing cannabis under a federal regulatory framework similar to alcohol and tobacco. He also argued that hemp-derived products that are available in states across the country are “more harmful” than marijuana itself. This is the first paragraph of the article. You're being disingenuous leaving out the rest of the details where they talk about LEGALIZING cannabis under a federal framework to deal with the banking and scheduling issues. I'm reading that as removal from the CSA and some sort of SAFE banking legislation.

Interesting_Cake_600

Uplisting gets me wet haha (I wish, gotta be a lot of challenges 😂). Just imagine all that institutional money (and retail that doesn’t want OTC) looking at a CSA scheduling shift likely with a profitable company that does share buybacks, manages debt, and is still growing even with a lot of challenges. But sadly even with schedule 3 the up-listing won’t happen as it’s still not federally legal. Though there are schedule 3 drugs with publicly traded US exchanges. And SAFER would trigger the reviews but wouldn’t explicitly do it (I guess a GOP version could address this but I would be truly shocked if SAFER happens by 2026).

greytoc

Let's take a step back. I was just looking at what Blossom Social is. It appears to be just a mobile app for discussing investing with other random people. It looks like Tinder for investing. That is not how you invest. When you invest - you open a brokerage account at a regulated financial institution. In Canada, these are financial institutions which are part of CIRO (Canadian Investment Regulatory Organization) - And these Canadian financial institutions are regulated by CSA (Canadian Securities Administrators). See here - [https://www.securities-administrators.ca/investor-tools/](https://www.securities-administrators.ca/investor-tools/) When you open a brokerage account - most brokers will provide you with tools to track and manage your investments. Unless you have complex investments across multiple accounts - you likely do not need to use your own spreadsheet. To learn more about investing - scroll up to the top and there are links to educational resources.

mealucra

[Matt Gaetz](https://x.com/mattgaetz/status/1828179540645949905#M), August 26 2024: >Delist Cannabis Man, imagine Elon, Vivek and Gaetz dismantling the CSA... 🥹

Tiaan

Having an AG in full support of descheduling would be wild because cannabis really should've never been scheduled to begin with. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was created primarily for synthetic drugs, not for a complex botanical substance. They had to create a brand new test to even attempt to reschedule it. The path to deschedule with a supportive AG would actually be a lot easier and faster than trying to force cannabis into an outdated and restrictive framework like the CSA and would truly return the issue to the states