HHS

hero_of_the_story

But if it is traceable to their stores they can just pay a bribe and trump will say HHS will just say it's not them. See: Taylor Farms/Taco Bell.

babaganoush-ish

From chatgpt: **My hypothetical Julius ruling** If I actually had to write the bottom line after this record, mine would probably look approximately like this: **FINDINGS** The record establishes that marijuana presents meaningful risks of abuse and adverse health consequences. The evidence further demonstrates substantial variation among marijuana products with respect to potency, formulation, route of administration and dosage. The opponents have presented credible evidence concerning cannabis-use disorder, psychiatric effects, impaired driving, high-potency products and limitations in portions of the medical literature. However, the evidence does not establish that marijuana lacks a currently accepted medical use. HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation concluded otherwise, and the Government presented evidence supporting that determination. The opposing parties identified limitations in that analysis but did not sufficiently undermine its central conclusion. Moreover, evidence concerning the risks associated with marijuana does not, without more, establish that Schedule I remains the appropriate classification. **CONCLUSION** After consideration of the administrative record and the applicable statutory factors, I would recommend that the marijuana presently subject to this proceeding be **transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act**, subject to the regulatory controls applicable under federal law. **But I would attach significant caveats** This is where I think Julius could surprise cannabis investors. A **Schedule III recommendation doesn’t require him to endorse the cannabis industry**. He could write a fairly harsh 100+ page decision cataloguing high-potency THC, psychiatric risks, impaired driving, dependence, questionable medical claims and deficiencies in state regulatory systems… …and still conclude: **Schedule III.** Those two things aren’t contradictory. In fact, after reviewing the testimony, I think that’s one of the more plausible outcomes: **a reluctant, tightly reasoned Schedule III recommendation with extensive findings about marijuana’s risks.** **What could change my 70–80% assessment?** The **post-hearing briefs**. That’s important because Julius’s preliminary order specifically said there would be no oral closing arguments; instead, parties would submit post-hearing briefs under 21 CFR §1316.64. And right now DEA’s public 2026 NPRM page lists all 11 transcripts plus the transcript/post-hearing briefing order, but **does not presently list the parties’ post-hearing briefs themselves**. Those briefs matter because a witness can give persuasive scientific testimony but still lose on the **law**. The briefs are where each side connects the testimony to the CSA and explains why Julius legally can—or cannot—reach Schedule III. So I wouldn’t move my probability substantially higher than \~80% until seeing those arguments. **One more important point** Even if my hypothetical Julius issues: **RECOMMENDATION: Schedule III** that **doesn’t itself reschedule marijuana**. Julius is the ALJ developing the administrative record and recommended findings. The ultimate agency rulemaking still has subsequent steps. DEA describes the process as formal rulemaking involving administrative review after the evidentiary proceeding.

babaganoush-ish

From chatgpt: **My hypothetical Julius ruling** If I actually had to write the bottom line after this record, mine would probably look approximately like this: **FINDINGS** The record establishes that marijuana presents meaningful risks of abuse and adverse health consequences. The evidence further demonstrates substantial variation among marijuana products with respect to potency, formulation, route of administration and dosage. The opponents have presented credible evidence concerning cannabis-use disorder, psychiatric effects, impaired driving, high-potency products and limitations in portions of the medical literature. However, the evidence does not establish that marijuana lacks a currently accepted medical use. HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation concluded otherwise, and the Government presented evidence supporting that determination. The opposing parties identified limitations in that analysis but did not sufficiently undermine its central conclusion. Moreover, evidence concerning the risks associated with marijuana does not, without more, establish that Schedule I remains the appropriate classification. **CONCLUSION** After consideration of the administrative record and the applicable statutory factors, I would recommend that the marijuana presently subject to this proceeding be **transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act**, subject to the regulatory controls applicable under federal law. **But I would attach significant caveats** This is where I think Julius could surprise cannabis investors. A **Schedule III recommendation doesn’t require him to endorse the cannabis industry**. He could write a fairly harsh 100+ page decision cataloguing high-potency THC, psychiatric risks, impaired driving, dependence, questionable medical claims and deficiencies in state regulatory systems… …and still conclude: **Schedule III.** Those two things aren’t contradictory. In fact, after reviewing the testimony, I think that’s one of the more plausible outcomes: **a reluctant, tightly reasoned Schedule III recommendation with extensive findings about marijuana’s risks.** **What could change my 70–80% assessment?** The **post-hearing briefs**. That’s important because Julius’s preliminary order specifically said there would be no oral closing arguments; instead, parties would submit post-hearing briefs under 21 CFR §1316.64. And right now DEA’s public 2026 NPRM page lists all 11 transcripts plus the transcript/post-hearing briefing order, but **does not presently list the parties’ post-hearing briefs themselves**. Those briefs matter because a witness can give persuasive scientific testimony but still lose on the **law**. The briefs are where each side connects the testimony to the CSA and explains why Julius legally can—or cannot—reach Schedule III. So I wouldn’t move my probability substantially higher than \~80% until seeing those arguments. **One more important point** Even if my hypothetical Julius issues: **RECOMMENDATION: Schedule III** that **doesn’t itself reschedule marijuana**. Julius is the ALJ developing the administrative record and recommended findings. The ultimate agency rulemaking still has subsequent steps. DEA describes the process as formal rulemaking involving administrative review after the evidentiary proceeding.

Expert_Context5398

"Why did he remove funding." Because a lot of these health agencies are trash and a waste of money? You mean like funding Wuhan labs where it is the source for infectious diseases that had shitty protocol and could have caused COVID? It's so funny when you guys believe the government's every move. Let me guess, you also believe Biden didn't cause the border issue because his DHS Mayorkas said so. Also, there have only been 3 medical professionals who held the HHS spot in government since the creation of this cabinet position. I wonder, did you think RFK Jr. was crazy when he was a Democrat fighting against oil and chemical companies from destroying the environment and causing cancer? How about when the EPA approved the use of RoundUp that for decades, led to tens of thousands of cases linked to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma claiming there was a very low risk to humans? Do you want to talk about how the FDA in 1999 approved Vioxx that led to over 100,000+ people being at risk for serious heart disease that RFK Jr. litigated on and had them removed from the market?

CSATTS

Especially since there was clearly over exuberance of biotech stocks during COVID. I decided to buy last year after the price tanked due to RFK policies. I thought they had a decent shot at cancer treatments and regardless of who runs HHS, this would be huge. They've been working on this for a decade and the COVID highs were a blip, not indicative of the long term value IMO.

serumvisions__go_

The cost of the tariffs by the American people not once but twice far exceed the numbers in that graph. Oxfam have shifted their low-wage definitions to those earning less than $17 per hour. So let's see if this claim holds true. 23% (39 million) earn under $17/hour. 43.7% (58.3 million) earn under $15/hour. 31.3% (41.7 million) earn under $12/hour. 1.1% (1.1 million) earn $7.25/hour or less. 62.4% of all individual workers earn under $75,000 134,790,000 U.S. households 18,196,650 households earn under $25k. 22,509,930 households earn $25-50k. 36,662,880 households earn $50-100k. 35,449,770 households earn $100-200k. 19,544,550 households earn $200-500k. 1,752,270 households earn $500k-1mil. 673,950 households earn 1mil+ The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) calculates the base number using a formula created in the 1963. It multiplies the baseline cost of a basic food plan by three, adjusting only for basic inflation each year. While the government draws the poverty line at $15,960 for a single adult, independent cost-of-living trackers show that a single adult with no children needs a minimum of $85,000 to $106,000 a year before taxes to live comfortably in the United States, depending on the state. The gross income limit is usually $20,748 (130%). Earning under $20k means you are still eligible for food assistance. In expansion states(fucking republicans), the Medicaid eligibility cutoff for a single adult is $22,025 (138%). July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): 744,380 individual filings. February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): 854,820 individual filings. Percent Change: 14.8% increase in total individual volume. July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): 402 family farm filings. February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): 547 family farm filings. Percent Change: 36.1% increase in agricultural sector insolvencies. 9,000 family farms permanently shut down between July 2023 and January 2025. 15,000 family farms permanently shut down between February 2025 and July 2026. This represents a 66.7% increase in absolute operational failures. 3,110 small business filings occurred between July 2023 and January 2025. 4,825 small business filings occurred between February 2025 and July 2026. This represents a 55.1% increase in small business bankruptcies. 385,000 small businesses permanently shut down without filing for bankruptcy between July 2023 and January 2025. 515,000 small businesses permanently shut down without filing for bankruptcy between February 2025 and July 2026. This represents a 33.8% increase in total small business closures. The wealthy: July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): The wealth share held by the top 1% hovered between 30.5% and 30.9%, growing at a standard multi-year baseline rate February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): The wealth of the top 1% surged to an all-time record of 31.9% of all U.S. wealth ($55.9 trillion total). This is the highest postwar wealth concentration ever recorded by the Federal Reserve Board In 2025 alone, billionaire wealth jumped by 16% to a combined $18.3 trillion, driven heavily by a massive boom in artificial intelligence stocks and pro-business corporate tax policies July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): The top 1% controlled $21.1 trillion in corporate equities and mutual fund shares February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): The top 1% increased their corporate equity holdings to $27.6 trillion (accounting for more than 50% of the entire U.S. stock market) Small Business Volume Absorption: As a result of 515,000 small businesses permanently closing during this 18-month block(Feb 2025 to July 2026) large publicly traded corporations saw their market share increase by 56.5%, directly picking up the consumer traffic abandoned by local retail, dining, and service closures. July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): Corporate mega-farms (operations netting over $1 million annually) maintained a steady footprint, acquiring roughly 150,000 acres of land through standard retirement sales February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): Corporate mega-farms actively acquired and absorbed 850,000 acres of prime U.S. farmland 100% Consolidation: Every single acre of land lost by liquidating family operations in major agricultural states (like Texas, Minnesota, and Iowa) was completely swallowed by these million-dollar-plus industrial syndicates. Because these mega-operations run their own domestic supply chains, they bypassed the export tariff crisis entirely. July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): The Wealthy (Top 1%): Gained $1.2 trillion in total net worth, driven by steady stock market growth. Working Americans (Bottom 50%): Lost $210 billion in real wealth, as pandemic-era savings cushions were completely depleted. February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): The Wealthy (Top 1%): Gained $4.1 trillion in collective net worth, fueled by soaring corporate profits and artificial intelligence market rallies. Working Americans (Bottom 50%): Lost $640 billion in total wealth, eroded by high interest rates, credit costs, and core inflation. July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): The Wealthy (Mega-Corporations): Gained $850 billion in total asset valuation, picking up steady market territory. Working Americans (385,000 Closed Small Businesses): Lost $48 billion in total business equity and liquid personal assets during closures. February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): The Wealthy (Mega-Corporations): Gained $2.3 trillion in total asset valuation, capturing consumer markets after independent competitors dissolved. Working Americans (515,000 Closed Small Businesses): Lost $94 billion in personal net worth, life savings, and business equity due to permanent liquidations. July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): The Wealthy (Mega-Farms): Gained $310 million in asset values through standard corporate farm expansion. Working Americans (9,000 Closed Family Farms): Lost $3.8 billion in equity, equipment value, and multi-generational land asset wealth. February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): The Wealthy (Mega-Farms): Gained $1.9 billion in added land values by taking over 850,000 acres of prime soil. Working Americans (15,000 Closed Family Farms): Lost $11.4 billion in land equity, crop revenue, and forced liquidation value due to the 2025 tariff market collapse. July 2023 to January 2025 (19 Months): The Wealthy (Lenders/Banks): Gained $195 billion in pure profit from interest payments on consumer debt. Working Americans (Household Debt): Lost $410 billion in added debt balances, with credit card interest rates averaging 21.5%. [1] February 2025 to July 2026 (18 Months): The Wealthy (Lenders/Banks): Gained $340 billion in pure profit from record-high borrowing interest rates. Working Americans (Household Debt): Lost $720 billion in added debt obligations, driven by a surge in high-interest credit card utilization to survive daily living expenses. So based on all of that it's easy to come to the conclusion he hasn't done shit to help working Americans. He's worked extremely hard for the wealthiest though, you know all the people named in the epstein files he said would be hurt by releasing them.

skyplt29

I consider a very important aspect was the judge recognizing the HHS study. Thanks for sharing the link, it saved me a bit of time scouring the internet for the source of that spike (which seems to be levelling off on no volume). Sure hope it gets picked up by CNBC...as you say, this sector could use some good news.

skyplt29

DEA, which is charged with defending the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.”

GeoLogic23

This DEA sat on rescheduling for quite a long time before doing anything at all. The HHS review was completed years ago, so they could've done something very early in this term if they wanted to. Not saying they won't move expeditiously, but why make this assumption?

Own_Fold_5212

Ahh, I would love to see the markets moved😢 But alas, I think we need at minimum the ALJ recommendation but more likely final rule…everyone in the sector has been consistently shocked by how long and painful this journey has been. The hearing details were shared by attendees. The DEA argued it has medical use benefits (focused on narrow set of conditions) and doesn’t kill anyone (safety). Opponents challenged how the HHS recommendation was reached. At the end of the day the DEA / DOJ / admin are going to try to move it forward. Strongest legal argument against seems to be how HHS reached the conclusion.

Trayeboujee

I believe what your saying is true, but for now What could move the sector is what's actually contained in the briefs today DEA's defense of Schedule III How they address the currently accepted medical use (CAMU) issue How opponents attack HHS's 2023 scientific determination Any indication that the government believes Schedule III is legally defensible Any unexpected concession or weakness in either side's case

imaloony8

You can't articulate anything man. All you can do is non-specifically call *checks notes* ALL DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES non-serious, presumably for the crime of not kissing Daddy Trump's feet. Let's be clear, I have major, MAJOR problems with the Democratic party, especially leadership at the top. There's a lot of deep rooted corruption in that party, and a lot of change that should happen. But comparing the Democratic Party is a lot like comparing Team Rocket to Sauron. They are not even in the same ballpark of evil. I want BOTH parties to be better, and Democrats are currently closer to what I want and voters are more willing to push the party in that direction, and candidates that reflect those values are more likely to run as Democrats. Now we have to talk about that other comment. When cornered, you accuse the other side of not "loving" America. Let me explain what patriotism is and what it is not. Patriotism is NOT waving around American flags, shooting fireworks, constantly talking about how much you love America, and blindly supporting the president no matter what he does. Those are superficial things that mean nothing, and in the case of the latter, is incredibly detrimental to democracy. Patriotism is standing up to defend the ideals of your nation, and putting your fellow man first. And also, the desire for your country to be better tomorrow than it is today. Patriotism is want accountability for your officials and wanting them to do better. You are happy to prostrate yourself for a man who is employing a personal police force who has arrested, deported, and murdered American citizens and seemingly doesn't even give a shit. Who gave the reins of the HHS to a man who started a Measles outbreak. Who gave reign on government spending to a tech billionaire whose cuts not only didn't save us money, but will cause untold deaths overseas. A man openly taking bribes in the form of his shitty cryptocurrency for anyone with a few million dollars to spare. Someone happy to throw American soldiers away and kill Iranians so he can manipulate the stock market with the thousands of stock trades he's made since returning to office. A man who claims to be the least corrupt politician of all time while bucking presidential traditions made in good faith, including releasing his tax returns and conceding an election he lost. A man who sewed doubt about our safe and secure elections by spreading conspiracy theories about the 2020 election because he's mad that he lost. A man who pardoned violent rioters who attempted a coup and assaulted and killed police officers. A man who then sued his own IRS with his own DOJ to take $1.8 billion of *our tax money* to give to said insurrectionists. A man who has been selling pardons, including to Ross Ulbricht, the founder of the Silk Road and one of the largest drug peddlers in American history. I hate Trump explicitly because I love America. He is a cancer eating away at the very heart of this country. He is killing people, he's stripping wealth away from the working class, and he's doing his best to erode our democratic process. He does not care about you or me, he cares for exactly one person on this planet: Donald Trump. He wants power and money, and he's getting it with the presidency. And you're just happy to give it to him. We will never do better until Trump and his ilk are out of office, and preferably answering for their crimes in court. I'll be eager to hear what you say after the absolute ass-kicking the Republicans get in November. Because then, it won't be me saying that I hate Trump. It'll be America saying that we hate Trump. To use a quote you guys love so much: "Facts don't care about your feelings."

imaloony8

Ya'll run reality TV stars for office. Where do you get off calling *anyone* a non-serious candidate? Trump regularly talks about annexing Canada and Greenland. He put an anti-vaxxer as head of HHS (which led to the biggest Measles outbreak in decades). He suggested we inject bleach into our bodies to treat COVID. Yeah, Media is biased. And it goes in both directions. Turn on Fox News and they'll be jerking each other off about how great the economy is and how amazing Trump is and how that pesky illegal war will be over any day now. And you're correct that the the pollsters have consistently underestimated Republicans... *when Trump is on the Ballot*. Trump, for all his faults, is really good at getting people who don't normally vote to come out and vote. But only when he's on the ballot. Those same people don't seem too interested in getting to the ballots for anyone not named Donald Trump. That's the problem with running a cult of personality. Since he's been in politics, the pollsters have been pretty accurate during midterms, off-year elections, and special elections. And those have not been especially great for Republicans since Trump has been around. Even in 2022 when Biden was in office and incredibly unpopular, the Republicans had a pretty mediocre result. They only gained 9 seats in the House, lost 1 in the Senate, and lost 2 Governors. Compare that to 2018 when Trump was in office and unpopular, where the Republicans gained 2 seats in the Senate... but lost *41 in the House, and 7 Governors.* And Trump is *less* popular now than at the same point in his first term. He's also made the cost of living crisis far worse with his War in Iran and his idiotic Tariffs. The Republicans will be lucky if they hold the Senate, and in spite of openly putting their thumb on the scale with their gerrymandering, they're even more likely to lose the House. And also keep in mind that Democrats have been doing extremely well in Special Elections since Trump began his second term. While those certainly don't guarantee a good performance in the midterm, it does say something about voter enthusiasm for the Democrats. If the Republicans keep both chambers, I'll eat my words. But I'd say no way in hell they keep the House and if they keep the Senate, it'll be by the skin of their teeth.

EmpathyFabrication

Kennedy back on CNN's State of the Union claiming a link between Tylenol and autism: Aug 2, 2026 Secretary Kennedy spoke to Dana Bash on CNN’s State of the Union. Approximately 13:23 into the interview: Bash: …my question is why not because you are HHS secretary now. Why not study what could cause autism which scientists do believe starts with fetal brain development? Why not do some studies on that, Whether there's [unintelligible] an environmental lawyer, whether there are environmental factors that go into contributing to a predisposed genetic situation. Secretary Kennedy: Well, let me say this first. We're doing all those things. And that's one of the ways that we found Tylenol. There's 73 studies out there and link Tylenol exposure during later pregnancy and during the perinatal period to, uh, to autism onset. But um – you are wrong when you say that this issue has been studied. It has been studied and you're rolling your eyes.

rair21

$20 is not out of reach IMO. I truly think there is a place for telehealth, mostly mitigating urgent care visits, some dermatology, and many types of follow up appointments. It's just going to take more time to catch on. Everything in our society has gotten more "touchless" but getting in your car and driving to see a dr in person is exactly how it was done 75 years ago. It's not going to replace all in person visits, but it is going to supplement them. CMS and HHS continually cite telehealth as a way to lower costs, and the idea has bilateral political support.

KAI5ER

Using the last of my Fable5 access ;) **The government came out swinging and rested fast.** The DEA's lead counsel opened by framing the entire hearing around "currently accepted medical use" (CAMU) — arguing that if even one accepted medical use exists, marijuana legally cannot stay in Schedule I. The government presented just two witnesses: Dr. Dominic Chiapperino of the FDA, who described the scientific process behind the Schedule III recommendation, and Dr. Corey Burchman, a pain physician who testified about transitioning patients from opioids to marijuana. The government rested its case-in-chief within four days. **Crucially, the legal framing favors rescheduling:** HHS's scientific and medical determinations on CAMU bind the DEA by statute, and Julius said he can't entertain arguments about whether the HHS two-part test is legally permissible. That dramatically limits what the opposition can attack. **The opposition has shifted strategy.** NDASA's witnesses focused on workplace drug testing and transportation safety rather than challenging the medical science — and legal observers note their arguments may do opponents more good in judicial review or public messaging than before the ALJ on the merits. Translation: they're building a record for the D.C. Circuit appeal, not trying to win the hearing. **SAM's Kevin Sabet is publicly rattled** — calling the government's testimony "surreal" and claiming they're "lying through their teeth". That's not what winning sounds like. **What's left:** SAM, DUID Victim Voices, Finn, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Drum, and the four states present after the recess — so this week through July 15. Updated odds: I'd nudge **Schedule III finalization up to \~85%**. The hearing is going about as well as the pro-rescheduling side could hope. The post-order Barr lawsuit remains the real fight.

Tsev33

VXRT is about to read results possibly this coming week on PH2B covid vaccine 400 person cohort in the 5400 person trial that is fully funded by BARDA and RFK Jr's HHS. Vaxart is the only standing competitor in Operation Next-Gen. Sanofi acquired Dynavax in February 2026, which means it inherited Dynavax's exclusive worldwide license and collaboration agreement for Vaxart's oral COVID-19 vaccine. Vaxart has already received $25 million upfront plus a $5 million equity investment from the original deal. After Vaxart delivers its PH2B data and completes its end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA, Sanofi can choose to take over late-stage development by paying another $50 million. If Sanofi exercises that option and the vaccine is successful, Vaxart could be eligible for up to $620 million in regulatory and sales milestone payments, plus royalties on future sales. This trial will validate the VAAST Oral Pill Vaccine Platform which already beat Sanofi Flu Mist head-to-head. They also hold a possible blockbuster Norovirus Vaccine

manualCAD

Weird play before the hearing. Weird play before SAFE Banking. Weird play before Fat Joe. Weird play before Farm Bill. Weird play before Anne Milgram. Weird play before Cole Memo. Weird play before Dems take the Senate. Weird play before Repubs take the Senate. Weird play before Biden. Weird play before Trump. Weird play before Fat Joe. Weird play before Mike Tyson. Weird play before HHS recommendation. Weird play before interstate commerce. Weird play before exports to EU. Weird play before hemp carve outs. Weird play before institutional investors. Weird play before THCa. Weird play before $5B investment. Weird play before fake walls. Weird play before Aphria. Weird play before Booker throws himself down. Weird play before 280e relief. Weird play before GTI / Circle K. Weird play before TLRY buys the alcohol brands. Weird play before Schumer's tweet about decriminalizing marijuana at the federal level. Weird play before Doug Kass. Weird play before Shardi B. Weird play before bread in the oven. Weird play before cresco bestco. Weird play before GTI has no tax liability. Weird play before Amendment 3. Weird play before MSOS. Weird play before the barbarians arrive at the gates.

chinaski73

Warsh was the only one not to submit a dot plot. Didn’t want his master Trump to find out if he plotted a hike most likely. He’s going to fuck up the fed like RFK Jr HHS

the_mammynun

It was a relay. Biden had two years to get it done after the HHS report was finalized.

No_Love_Gained

No shade at Trump, I think someone showed him the money and he's gone ahead and made this happen (atleast the medical bits). Also tbf, this whole rescheduling discussion was kicked off with Biden's order to HHS for review, albeit lacking follow up to get this over the finish line for whatever reason. It was an easy win for Dems and they failed and allowed Trump to capitalize.

ShittyUsernane1222

\> Ebola in India and DRC \> Hantavirus cases slowly moving up while tracking is established \> Screwworms moving north \> antivaxxer leading the HHS 2026 is truly the year of nurgle.

No_Love_Gained

Reminds me of timelines discussed back in 2023 after the initial HHS review was initiated....lol

KAI5ER

here we go: **Immediately after July 15** The ALJ writes up findings and recommendations. This is not a quick process even under pressure — expect 2-4 weeks minimum. The ALJ has to summarize the entire hearing record, assess witness credibility, evaluate competing evidence, and make recommendations to the DEA Administrator. Realistically that lands on the Administrator's desk sometime in early to mid August. **The Administrator's review** Terry Cole then has to review the entire record — the ALJ findings, all 43,000 public comments, the HHS scientific recommendation, the hearing testimony — and decide whether to publish a final rule. There's no hard deadline on this step. That's actually the soft underbelly of the entire timeline. The expedited hearing has a hard July 15 deadline. The Administrator's review does not. Under political pressure from the White House — which has already demonstrated it will publicly complain about slow-walking — Cole would be expected to move quickly. But quickly here probably means 4-6 weeks not 4-6 days. So realistically a final rule gets published somewhere between late August and late September. **The 30-90 day effective date window** Once the final rule is published it needs a minimum 30-day effective date under the APA. The DEA already argued this is not a major rule under the CRA so they're claiming the 60-day Congressional Review window doesn't apply. SAM will dispute that. If DEA is right — 30 days minimum. Final rule effective late September to October. If SAM convinces a court it's a major rule — 60-day Congressional Review window kicks in on top of the 30-day APA minimum. That pushes effectiveness to November or December.

Trvthnvker696967

Someone who wants to sell homeopathic medicine and has the ear of a gullible HHS head. A month from now some conspiracy media could claim this treatment causes super aids or some other bullshit and that will be enough to delay it for years.

Ahleron

Yet another thing Demented Donny got wrong. RFK Jr., his HHS guy, literally went swimming in sewage.

ZYHUA

American tests positive for hantavirus, another is symptomatic, HHS says

PoeOfPoe

seriously how did we go up like +500% briefly with the HHS recommendation letter to reschedule back in aug 2023, and now that it's finally happening we can't even sustain a +20% run. (im talking about LPs)

VuvuzelaSound

You have a number for that? Seems like a vastly majority of their tenants are quite fluid with cash based on their latest report. NIH and HHS grants surely have increased vacancies already but likely most of the damage has already been done.

SpongEWorTHiebOb

Nothing about the pressure many of their tenants are under. Many are biotech companies who have seen NIH and HHS funding and grants slashed. This company could see wide spread defaults in the next 12 to 24 months. A blue wave in November could help them but thats far from a certainty.

GeoLogic23

No I don't think rescheduling will increase the consumer base to any significant degree. The only way I see it doing that is if it were to open up distribution through pharmacies, or some other way to reach different consumers. But anything that would increase consumers I would think would be detrimental to the current setup of the Florida market (from MSO perspective). Or if S3 does cause large price compression, that could increase the consumer base. But again that would also hurt Trulieve's numbers. I cannot imagine the Florida consumer who: * Doesn't trust the Florida medical system and needs the Fed to give guidance * Is politically aware enough to understand this difference between fed/state cannabis laws and the rescheduling process * But also doesn't trust the HHS review for years until it's finally "official" and signed You'd need a ton of those people to exist to have S3 officially being signed increasing the consumer base.

jmu_alumni

How? Biden kicked off HHS to review rescheduling and they reccomended S3. There was ZERO action that indicated full legalization

donat3ll0

I don't mean to and that's fair to call out. But your OP is framing this as: - Democrats chose not to act - Republicans are choosing to act now - Therefore Republicans are more aligned with legalization or reform That is more about persuasian than accuracy. It is a formal process that runs through the DEA and HHS. The president can direct priorities, but it's not a flip of a switch. Biden's review in 2023 to HHS is one of the steps that make rescheduling possible. It mostly just sounds like you're making a case to give a pass to a fascist administration headed by an adjudicated rapist and alleged pedo. Just because he's doing something performative that you assume was super simple to accomplish before.

Lostndamaged

It’s a logical fallacy when you cite “other priorities” because it presupposes the two choices are mutually exclusive and there is no middle ground or grey area. They can move on as many or as little issues as they choose. The Biden administration reviewed federal marijuana drug policy in 2022 and the HHS recommended moving marijuana to schedule 1 in 2023, based on their own review. So yeah, Biden had every opportunity to do rescheduling, and he didn’t. I hate the orange man but a spade is a spade my friend. https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/DPA-BidenReschedulingMarijuana_InDesign-Interactive.pdf Since you cite the last two years with a congressional minority as a sticking point for Biden, exactly how was congress involved in Trump’s rescheduling? I’m literally all ears because I’m pretty sure congress had zero say in it.

LandStander420

So hear me out Medical cannabis is legal The Federal Government determines what can be sold in Pharmacies through the DEA & HHS So CVS Texas, South Carolina, Indiana, basically ALL U.S states can now sell medical cannabis Am I technically correct?

enfuego138

You “can’t” do a lot of really dumb stuff. In reality, you can if you don’t care bout or understand the consequences. See: tariffs, attacking Iran, gutting basic research funding, COVID response, putting the brain worm guy in charge of HHS…

Tiaan

Cannabis the botanical plant is currently schedule 1. The proposed rule in progress will reschedule cannabis to 3 pending the outcome of the ALJ hearings. Cannabis does have an accepted medical use as defined by HHS when they recommended for it be moved to 3 a few years ago. It could very well still be illegal to buy or purchase it depending on state laws, sure, but that is separate from the scheduling of cannabis itself

jmu_alumni

It’s either 3 or it fails and stays at 1. I cannot imagine any other scenario. These hearings are built upon the process already founded, which HHS recommended 3…. Would be extremely hard for it to be anything other than their reccomendation (unless denied aka 1)

ConsciousScar7821

I haven’t been here as long as some, but I have been here long enough to know that when HHS first announced their recommendation to S3, the sector rallied for many months (with MSOS reaching a high of $11.26). It’s bizarre how stuck the sector is, despite federal reform continuing to move forward, and us being in such a beneficial position. The rec thing is annoying but most MSO’s will already see benefit, and rec is merely a short-term delay (just as Trump signing the EO (and it being implemented) was just a short-term delay.

meifx

LOL, No. The event today was actually to promote Regeneron's participation in TrumpRx. President Trump explicitly stated that it was HHS Secretary Oz and Commerce Sec. Lutnick who proposed the idea, but also said that he loved the idea.

ConLawHero

It's all bullshit. They have to resolve an interlocutory appeal. Then the stayed DEA hearing has to resolve, then they can reschedule, and then Smart Approaches to Marijuana, represented by former AG Bill Barr will immediately file a lawsuit seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. I think they actually have a good shot at winning it because the HHS medical recommendation is so full of holes because Biden clearly told them to just make the recommendation, science be damned. Point being, unless they intend on violating the Administrative Procedures Act and the Controlled Substances Act, it is a process that will take time, even still.

volckerwasright

The HHS letter was 2023!

J_Dabson002

It has to go through the Attorney General, HHS leads, and DEA leads who were all appointed by the executive branch. It’s a formality.

drbigtoe

The authority is vested in the Attorney General (via the DEA) under the Controlled Substances Act, with input from HHS. The DEA has the final rule following a review, which is what Joe Biden did as he was following the legal process. The president can not just wave his hand and reschedule marijuana.

UsedState7381

Seems like the standard going from S1 to S3, considering the HHS starting the rescheduling process of cannabis and it taking half a year for the DEA to say "yes" and then another half a year to decide to do those ALJ hearings(which is where we actually got slow-walked).

GeoLogic23

The HHS review initiated by Biden is the only reason we're discussion Schedule 3. That was real action that we can see the results. If he hadn't done that Trump would have had to make his executive order directed at HHS to start the 8 step review. Not for the AG to simply to sign off on the already completed review. Also Biden approved a bunch of new research growers after Trump didn't appoint a single one in his first 4 years. We just had one grower who grew ditch weed before Biden expanded the program. Biden could have done a lot more, but he's literally the only person to have made actual progress on cannabis in some way.

skyplt29

Nope...this guy has no concept of "praise in public, persecute in private". I have zero respect for this President. That being said, if the previous President had kept his promise of being one term and allowed the appropriate process of determining a new candidate I doubt we would be enduring this shit show.  S3 should have happened by 2024. Both parties, as well as HHS and DEA are both inefficient and ineffective. Soon? Slowalking...this is the most obstructive process I have ever witnessed.  Public call-out by this narcissistic President was the best thing to happen to the sector so far  this year.

jmu_alumni

Acually dude in green tie talks 41 minutes in. He clearly is from HHS being next to OZ and based on what he speaks about. I think Trump was just pointing to HHS when asking the question….which is not the people that are the issue. You even hear a faint ‘yes sir’ when he ask. But I see that as just an knowledgement. It is our of their hands. This is a bit of a nothingburger. But I do like that this is for sure on Trumps mind and he is pushing to get it done.

asetniop

It's not really something you can "learn" in a traditional sense. But if you eat enough crayons (the HHS has new guidelines for how many) you can directly absorb the retardium into your bloodstream.

asetniop

I'm worried I'm not getting enough raccoon penis in my diet. When is HHS going release the new guidelines?

GeoLogic23

Biden is the entire reason we're discussing Schedule 3?? What are you talking about? Biden is the single person to actually make real cannabis reforms. Trump did not direct the HHS to perform the required 8 step review. Biden did that (insert sticker meme). This was actual action that we have seen the results that were produced. Of course he could've broken protocol and forced it through the DEA himself, but he didn't do that for anything, let alone for cannabis. We don't want the President picking and choosing what drugs are legal, unless you want a recreational horse dewormer market. Biden also approved new federal growers. Obama changed the rule right at the end of his term to allow more, but Trump didn't approve a single one. We used to have one single company approved to grow research cannabis, and they didn't even grow what is typically in the market. Now we have a bunch thanks to Biden. Also pardons. Signing the research bill. Remaining hands off on the industry (unlike Sessions/Barr).

asetniop

It's like he got RFK's HHS to whip up some kind of super-serum that gave him dozens of extra chromosomes.

volckerwasright

The Biden admin initiated the rescheduling process. Come July, we’ll have hit the point in time where the Trump admin has held up the process for longer than Biden’s since the Aug 2023 HHS letter.

SpecificImpossible45

WTAF. The Medicare CBD program was announced Dec 18th, and launched less than four months later. Meanwhile rescheduling has been in the works for years now. The HHS recommendation to S3 was 954 days ago [Both the White House and the DOJ tell me they're working on this but have offered no timeline. A DOJ spokesperson said this morning the department "is working to implement the President’s executive order on rescheduling, and that work will continue." @RogerJStoneJr: Who is holding up President Trump's order to reschedule marijuana?] https://x.com/kaelandc/status/2042246866838925638?s=46&t=Ovar60Fpj3Nft-zzZ-9i5Q

Boxofmagnets

They might still be in hiding over the HHS funding. But it doesn’t matter if they’re back in DC

UsedState7381

https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/viewEO12866Meeting?viewRule=true&rin=0910-ZC82&meetingId=1349923&acronym=0910-HHS/FDA https://x.com/i/status/2039688288118726863 CAN ANYONE OPEN THIS LINK AND VERIFY THIS? IT'S NOT WORKING HERE ITS PRETTY FUCKING GOOD NEWS FOR US IF THE AGENCY IS GIVING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS

Wide_Gur_9963

A quick AI answer  An interim Attorney General (AG) of the DOJ can sign off on a final ruling regarding reclassification of drugs, but it's essential to note that the authority and scope of an interim AG may be limited compared to a confirmed AG. Typically, the Attorney General is responsible for making decisions on drug reclassification, which involves evaluating recommendations from the DEA and HHS. The process includes a public comment period, a hearing, and a final ruling. While there's no explicit restriction on an interim AG's authority to sign off on such rulings, it's crucial to consider the specific circumstances and the interim AG's delegated authority ¹.

skyplt29

I am seeing more like 4 years to date...ever since Biden asked to expedite and HHS made its recommendations.

Own_Fold_5212

I remember how elated I was when Zorn got the HHS report released, and going through it felt like validation it was happening 🥲 And then I was surprised that one of the few things the GOP publicly disputed with Trump the was rescheduling. What a thing to side against 😂 I think it will happen; but who knows that the timeline will be for the real benefit to materialize (removal of 280E). I love GTI, but man…fundamentals and other realities (competitors restructuring) just won’t show up in stock prices without reform.

1_FCKTRD

On October 6, 2022, President Joe Biden requested an administrative review to fast-track the reclassification of cannabis from Schedule I to a lower schedule. On August 30, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) sent the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) a 252-page recommendation to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). On April 30, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced its intent to begin the formal rulemaking process to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug. On August 11, 2025, President Trump told reporters that his administration was "looking at that very strongly" with regard to the reclassification of marijuana. He added that a determination would likely be made within a few weeks. On December 18, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the U.S. Attorney General to "expedite" the rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. On this date, you can fill in the blank.

UsedState7381

All things considered I think I'm insanely lucky for only investing in MSOS after the letter from the HHS...Still didn't helped me at all but at least my portfolio isn't down like 90%

SuzyCreamcheezies

The Cannabist was pumped hard by this sub after the initial HHS recommendation. Sorry to those invested.

KAI5ER

I remember a hearing where Gatez asked the head of the DEA if they could work in tandem with the HHS on rescheduling. She bluntly said no. Nothing was started till AFTER the DOJ got the official EO from he white house. Everything they do is in 30 day windows.

Aggravating_Law_1335

doesnt matter HHS has proven cannabis has medical benefits and what some brainwashed journalist wrote is irrelevant 

boravuth

The Antelope @__OuttaControl_ Not spiking the football (and obv neither is the market) but two items dropped today that, read together, are worth noting for anyone tracking cannabis rescheduling. First: The Medicare CBD pilot launching April 1 will allow full-spectrum products, meaning trace THC is included. The government could have narrowed this to CBD isolate. They didn't. That's a quiet but meaningful acknowledgment of the entourage effect - that the combination of cannabinoids produces better clinical outcomes than CBD alone. You don't design a Medicare pilot around full-spectrum products without believing the THC interaction matters therapeutically. And before anyone says 'the hemp industry just lobbied for this' - Charlotte's Web would have taken isolate coverage and celebrated. The full-spectrum spec is a clinical design choice, not a lobbying win. Second: Rep. Reschenthaler (R-PA) introduced H.R.7987 today, creating a safe harbor for national securities exchanges to list cannabis companies and prohibiting federal adverse action against businesses that serve cannabis operators. Here's the dot-connect: Schedule I is defined as 'no currently accepted medical use.' The federal government is now covering full-spectrum cannabinoid products (including THC) for seniors through a physician-recommended Medicare pilot. You cannot hold both of those positions simultaneously forever. HHS already formally concluded in 2023 that cannabis has accepted medical use. The EO directed the AG to expedite rescheduling. The pilot is now building the real-world evidence record that makes DEA resistance increasingly indefensible. The rescheduling isn't done. 280E relief isn't here yet. But consider what today actually represents: on the same day a federal health agency quietly acknowledged that THC has therapeutic value by designing a Medicare pilot around it, a Republican congressman introduced legislation to let cannabis companies list on national exchanges. One is the scientific predicate. The other is the capital markets infrastructure. You don't build the second without the first eventually following. Cautious optimism is the right posture. But the architecture is taking shape 7:32 AM · Mar 19, 2026 · 15.2K Views

boravuth

The Antelope @__OuttaControl_ Not spiking the football (and obv neither is the market) but two items dropped today that, read together, are worth noting for anyone tracking cannabis rescheduling. First: The Medicare CBD pilot launching April 1 will allow full-spectrum products, meaning trace THC is included. The government could have narrowed this to CBD isolate. They didn't. That's a quiet but meaningful acknowledgment of the entourage effect - that the combination of cannabinoids produces better clinical outcomes than CBD alone. You don't design a Medicare pilot around full-spectrum products without believing the THC interaction matters therapeutically. And before anyone says 'the hemp industry just lobbied for this' - Charlotte's Web would have taken isolate coverage and celebrated. The full-spectrum spec is a clinical design choice, not a lobbying win. Second: Rep. Reschenthaler (R-PA) introduced H.R.7987 today, creating a safe harbor for national securities exchanges to list cannabis companies and prohibiting federal adverse action against businesses that serve cannabis operators. Here's the dot-connect: Schedule I is defined as 'no currently accepted medical use.' The federal government is now covering full-spectrum cannabinoid products (including THC) for seniors through a physician-recommended Medicare pilot. You cannot hold both of those positions simultaneously forever. HHS already formally concluded in 2023 that cannabis has accepted medical use. The EO directed the AG to expedite rescheduling. The pilot is now building the real-world evidence record that makes DEA resistance increasingly indefensible. The rescheduling isn't done. 280E relief isn't here yet. But consider what today actually represents: on the same day a federal health agency quietly acknowledged that THC has therapeutic value by designing a Medicare pilot around it, a Republican congressman introduced legislation to let cannabis companies list on national exchanges. One is the scientific predicate. The other is the capital markets infrastructure. You don't build the second without the first eventually following. Cautious optimism is the right posture. But the architecture is taking shape 7:32 AM · Mar 19, 2026 · 15.2K Views

PositionJournal

I've written a little bit on Reddit on Doximity but I'm afraid to share here because WSB is strict with the rules. So you can check it out on my profile Tldr: network effects, high switching costs, regulatory moat (HIPAA compliant infra, FDA/HHS regulated) and first party data (85% of US physicians use/read the platform) makes it a stand out bet for me. Like Intuit who has the regulatory moat of tax compliance but for healthcare. Also founder led

manualCAD

Nothing in Washington gets done without someone powerful wanting it. Pretending like the "will of the people" ever mattered, for anything, is silly. "But...but..but...states rights...and... that one EO that one time....and...expeditiously....and...directed the HHS to blah blah...but the state voted...but but .." JUST STOP. None of these politicians (or presidents) ever actually wanted cannabis reform. It will happen when someone who is actually powerful enough, and who actually wants to do it, gets into their position. Until then....nothing ever happens.

AverageNo130

Aug '23 HHS approved cannabis S3. How many years waiting for SAFE banking?

GeoLogic23

Trump's EO was directed at the Attorney General to move cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3. It was not directed at the HHS to perform their own scientific review. They have to be using Biden's science for Trump to be directing the Attorney General to move it to Schedule 3. One thing I can say with absolute confidence is that it's not the science that Trump is waiting on. We also even have one recent example of them specifically ignoring the science for drug scheduling with fentanyl. They were wanting to put fentanyl on Schedule 1 for political reasons, but it is very widely used in medicine so it's an obvious Schedule 2. They had to bifurcate it to put "illegal" fentanyl on Schedule 1 while keeping "medical" fentanyl as Schedule 2.

HooliganBeav

We put a coke fiend in charge of HHS and he's done nothing to address this?!

GeoLogic23

To be fair, the Biden EO was to start the process, which then had to go through the whole HHS review before actually getting to the DEA. There was actual work that was done that we can see, and that's the whole reason we're even talking about Schedule 3. The DEA sat with it for a couple years now after that was finished. Trump's EO was literally just like "sign the thing". There isn't even any action that "should" be needed besides finalizing it, if the DEA had cared to do anything at all over the last 2 years.

neo-futurism

Another rando elected to HHS, and u think market will not care?

AverageNo130

The Trump administration is “very anxious” to create a pathway for access to psychedelics therapy, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. says, and top officials across federal agencies want to “get it out to the public as quickly as possible.” In an interview on the Joe Rogan Experience podcast that was released on Friday. MM

denzl480

the supply chain risk only applies to military actions and contractors. If you are doing medical research in HHS, and a vendor users Anthropic services, they are not at risk.

TheDeaf001

Holy shit. I didn’t believe you until I did the google search. But the weird thing is that the HHS.gov site on Google has a snippet about it but as soon you log on… it’s empty.

Comfortable_Goal9110

I can do it too just ask why NOT and it will shit you out the inverse. I also got emojis so it's solid DD Based on recent developments and financial data, investing in Hims & Hers Health (HIMS) presents significant risks. While the company has experienced impressive growth, it is currently facing a severe regulatory and legal storm that threatens its core business model. Here are the primary reasons why buying HIMS shares could be a bad idea right now. 🚨 The Core Problem: A Regulatory and Legal Meltdown The single biggest threat to HIMS is the collapse of its weight-loss business. The company's recent growth was largely fueled by selling compounded versions of popular GLP-1 drugs like semaglutide . This "gold rush" has come to a screeching halt. · End of a Loophole: The FDA removed semaglutide from the national shortage list, effectively ending the legal protection that allowed HIMS to sell these profitable compounded versions . The company has already had to pull its compounded semaglutide pill from the market . · DOJ Investigation: The situation escalated quickly in February 2026 when the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) referred Hims & Hers to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for a potential investigation into federal law violations . · Patent Lawsuit: Pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk has filed a patent infringement and "deceptive marketing" lawsuit against the company, posing a major financial threat . 📉 Financial Fallout and Deteriorating Outlook The regulatory issues are already hitting the company's finances and future prospects. · Shockingly Slowing Growth: The company's growth is decelerating at an alarming rate. Revenue growth is projected to fall from a staggering 111% year-over-year in early 2025 to just 26% in the fourth quarter . This suggests the GLP-1 fueled party is over. · Earnings Are Dropping: Analysts expect earnings per share to decline significantly. For the upcoming report, EPS is estimated to be $0.02, a staggering drop of 81.8% from the previous year . Estimates have also been revised downward recently . · High Expectations vs. Reality: The stock is expected to be extremely volatile, with options traders pricing in a potential 13% swing after earnings—much higher than usual . This reflects deep uncertainty about the company's future.

Late-Tadpole-2318

I was not mentally prepared to see that HHS RFK Kid Rock video

skyplt29

I just read a rather startling article about how the (US government) administration was telling outright lies to cover up its ICE activities in Minnesota despite obvious evidence (mostly phone videos taken by other protestors) to the contrary. Only now are some being held accountable for their actions...but not the people in real power. They are suddenly not in front of the cameras spouting off "brandishing a weapon" hearsay. Now we have Trump saying somebody else posted the Lion King bigotry on his Truth Social feed. I guess the buck does not stop at his desk. I could not help but draw a comparison to what is happening with this industry. For me, the facts are so compelling with regard to cannabis having significant medical applications...yet there it sits with heroin as S1. We even have an Executive Order (questionable how valuable these things actually are) suggesting S3 should happen expeditiously. Biden instructed HHS to do pretty much the same thing in 2021 in WRT taking the necessary steps. Yet (at least right now) there appears to be little appetite by the DOJ to get this done. I really was not expecting end January...but the radio silence on this seems odd. Not even an update after close to two months since the President signed his EO. Sadly, I watched a lot of Bondi's testimony last week; she strikes me as neither capable or sincere. Even during that bizarre scene where she was talking about the Dow going above 50,000 she was unable to state 50,000 what (dollars, thingies, widgets...points). I don't think I have ever heard the head of a DOJ mention stock markets in a testimony like that. Never in my life did I see a DOJ suggesting stock market performance was somehow of any interest to the DOJ. Now it has come out the DOJ is monitoring what political leaders are looking into when they access the unredacted Epstein files. That is some serious Orwellian shit right there. This is not about the Epstein files, or so much about ICE, or Pam Bondi and the DOJ monitoring the actions of elected members of Congress. But the similarities to our situation are disconcerting. Despite facts supporting a move from S1 to S3 (that's not legalization, just recognizing medical aspects) and two Presidents asking the administration to move S3 along...we continue to get quiet pushback (I am not a conspiracy theorist, but 'deep state' seems to fit here). It's now mid Feb and not even a progress report on the status of S1 to S3? That strikes me as just more manipulation by an entity that really does not want to see this happen. Sheesh, it really would be nice to get some insight as to what the status of this is.

Blackhole_sun81

 Besides snorting cocaine from a toilet seat, are there any other requirements for being HHS secretary?      Stay away from MRNA while that dude is around… Puts

Pecncorn1

Well RFK just let us know he used to snort cocaine off of toilet seats. If that doesn't qualify him to head HHS the bar must be pretty high....

Separate_Fold5168

Plot twist: it's the HHS secretary

vlad7208

FDA : We agree to your trial design. Moderna Spends 100M and two years FDA Actually, we changed our mind and won't even open the envelope. Imagine being a biotech CEO trying to forecast revenue when the regulator acts like a moody girlfriend, MRNA down,7 because the best available standard of care changed mid-game. This is basically a coin flip for earnings on Friday. If you're long youre betting on Bancel's ability to sweet-talk a hostile HHS. Godspee, did you magnificent bagholders

plannedgravy

I don’t know about the HHS, but the FDA is definitely not as strict as last admin.

CriticalBlackberry90

I don't think so, I think HHS and FDA are quite strict under RFK Jr these days

SuperHeavyHydrogen

Puts two podcasters in charge of the FBI, one of them doesn’t like it and goes back to podcasting. “Former” heroin addict who hoards rotten roadkill in charge of HHS Can’t make it up istg

UsedState7381

Executive Order is signed already, also RFK was literally there at the office thanking Trump for rescheduling cannabis. The HHS ranks leagues above the ONDCP in these matters, and in the end it's still the DOJ and DEA call. That's not happening. Also, >That’s why we reiterate our call that the director of ONDCP should be elevated to the Cabinet-level status the position once enjoyed: our drug crisis demands nothing less.  That's on the same weblink posted here. All of this is beyond her power.

shortyman920

Powell was also handpicked by Trump and he kept Fed’s independence in tact. I’m simply pointing that this isn’t like his HHS or DOE appointments which were left field candidates that weren’t qualified to be the head of those departments. Warsh at least has a long relevant resume which includes serving on the fed and having been mentored by previous fed chairs who had integrity. He’s qualified and understands economics and the role of fed. So this invites at least some leeway to see how he’ll operate. I understand you’re unhappy with Trump, and I am as well. But let’s not completely close our eyes to possible hope. I’ll remain healthily skeptical, but this isn’t a bad pick on paper like rfk jr for the hhs

King_Chron

its hard to speculate on why they did these things.......frame looks less as a political play and more as a timing/optics issue: the DEA may have simply expected the process to get less attention with a new president-elect in office. The HHS recommendation came about a year before the election, and then the ALJ retired, which naturally paused the formal process without implying any improper motive. ([cannabisbusinesstimes.com](https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15751360/dea-judge-overseeing-cannabis-rescheduling-hearing-set-to-retire?utm_source=chatgpt.com))

greenbelieve

Robert F Kennedy Jr. he’s in charge of the HHS

King_Chron

the ALJ paused the hearings in Jan 2025 pending an interlocutory appeal and then retired mid‑2025; no new ALJ has been publicly assigned, so the formal hearing phase remains stalled. ([cannabisbusinesstimes.com](https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15751360/dea-judge-overseeing-cannabis-rescheduling-hearing-set-to-retire?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) That said, the December 18, 2025 Executive Order doesn’t nullify administrative process — it directs DOJ/HHS/DEA to finish the rulemaking “in the most expeditious manner permitted by law,” which means agencies can’t use the lack of an ALJ or other procedural pauses as an excuse to stall indefinitely. --------That phrasing does two things: (a) it makes completing the rulemaking an express White House priority, and (b) it reduces the cover agencies previously used to justify indefinite delays -------because further delay becomes an arguable failure to follow the President’s directive and can invite judicial/congressional enforcement. This gets into APA (Administrative Procedure Act)lawsuits ......([presidency.ucsb.edu](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/white-house-fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-increasing-medical-marijuana-and?utm_source=chatgpt.com)) So yes, the administrative‑law mechanics still matter, but they’re now largely a timing issue rather than a blocker of the ultimate outcome. ([blankrome.com](https://www.blankrome.com/publications/hold-your-horses-cannabis-rescheduling-hearings-stayed-pending-appeal?utm_source=chatgpt.com))

King_Chron

They can still follow the law — hold hearings, accept comments, and build the administrative record — but they can’t slow-walk it anymore. Ignoring HHS, restarting the science, inventing new hurdles, or delaying indefinitely would be non-compliance and open them up to APA lawsuits, court-imposed deadlines, congressional scrutiny, and leadership consequences. At this point, any delay affects timing, not outcome. Schedule III is a when, not an if.

King_Chron

I don’t dispute that the DEA previously used procedure to delay.....the record supports that....... That’s exactly why the EO matters. It explicitly directs DOJ, HHS, and DEA to complete Schedule III rulemaking expeditiously and in coordination, which removes their ability to hide behind internal process indefinitely. They can still follow the law, but they can’t slow-walk it anymore. At this point, delay affects timing, not outcome. Schedule III is a when, not an if.

King_Chron

Ah yes, DEA smash things fast, drag feet slow....... very great analysis. Meanwhile, real Schedule 3 rescheduling involves careful HHS review, decades of abuse potential studies, medical use evidence, and federal regulatory checks......not grunts or swings of a club. But sure, your one-sentence caveman wisdom totally explains bureaucracy!

King_Chron

Right, because clearly Milgram’s oral diplomacy is the real bottleneck in DEA Schedule 3 cannabis policy.........Meanwhile, the DEA and HHS are still doing the boring stuff...... analyzing pharmacology, abuse risk, and medical use....

King_Chron

The idea that agencies would ignore rescheduling is off-base. The process stalled under the last administration not because the DEA or HHS refused to act, but because of procedural hurdles and an administrative appeal. In early 2025, a hearing to evaluate reclassifying cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III was paused due to an interlocutory appeal, and later the DEA’s chief Administrative Law Judge retired, leaving the case without a judge to preside. These delays are procedural, not a refusal to comply with the law. What’s different now is the executive order from Trump, which explicitly directs the DOJ, HHS, and DEA to complete the Schedule III rulemaking in the most expeditious manner in accordance with federal law. This restarts and accelerates the stalled process, and agencies cannot legally refuse to follow it. For U.S.-domiciled MSOs, the Schedule III catalyst remains very real.

King_Chron

Honestly, that sounds more like a conspiracy than reality. The HHS and DEA follow the law and the process set by the president and Congress. Schedule III rescheduling isn’t arbitrary — it goes through a formal statutory review. There’s no evidence that agencies refuse to comply; historically, these processes are slow but ultimately legal mandates are followed. For investors, the key takeaway is that if Schedule III is finalized, the structural upside for U.S.-domiciled MSOs is real. 280E taxes drop, cash flow jumps, and institutional investors can finally enter. Betting on regulatory non-compliance is much riskier than betting on the law actually being implemented.

IllCamel5907

Does that somehow invalidate Bidens order to the HHS to review and reschedule marijuana?? You know, the process that's been going on for over 2 years now? Are you interested in discussing or learning about the subject or will you you just reply with another "but he's dumb" comment? Like him or not, this whole process started because of his administration. It's great that Trump is supporting the move, and I don't fucking care WHO gets the credit for it at this point. People like you just don't understand how foolish they look with this hyper partisan nonsense.

el-art-seam

$2 billion investment from HHS next week please

SpecificImpossible45

Shane Pennington stated he expects the final rule to be published sometime this February. He also mentioned, “If we get to February 15th and we haven't heard anything, that will make me happy because that means they're working on a final rule that's very thorough, which is what I hope they're doing, and I hope they have been doing. It will also mean that they're very likely not about to do something crazy like send this into another round of notice and comment”. Shane is the admin law expert and has been actively involved in this rescheduling process. He’s been pretty conservative and hesitant to comment on timelines or expectations in the past so personally I give more weight to his February comment. I’m sure it helps in some capacity having his partner in crime Matt Zorn, who is currently serving as Deputy General Counsels at HHS and referred to as the “Psychedelics Czar”, being so close to the process