III

Thumbszilla

IMHO the most likely response that gets filed today is this: "We do not object to the GAO report being added to the public record. However, because the report focuses purely on administrative paperwork and does not alter the HHS's medical findings regarding cannabis, it is legally irrelevant to the final Schedule III determination. Therefore, supplemental briefing is unnecessary, and the stay should be lifted." The judge in turn agrees, admits the report, and lifts the stay with an issued recommendation in weeks. ​ The other reason why I think this is the most likely is because not only does it make the record bullet proof for any possible future challenges because nothing was excluded from the record, it continues to follow the fastest possible path as ordered by Trump last December.

CODEX_LVL5

Dont you see where this is going? Its pretty clear to me. This is world war III and every crisis combined [wartimeready.com](http://wartimeready.com)

Odd-Web4113

Thanks for your comment. Both NTRA and GH appear to be good companies. I see why you are long them. To answer your two questions - regarding the panel vote - there were three votes total: **For safety** \- yes voted 10-0 **Effectiveness** was 6-4 Yes to No **Benefits to Risk** was voted 7 Yes, 2 No and 1 abstain. Based on the vote, I am guessing it will get approval from the FDA next year, but certainly the disclosures will be tight around this. Overall, it seems positive for the MCED / or really just multi-cancer detection...not necessarily early. More to be done there, but this is really positive. Again, a test like this requires dna to shed into the bloodstream. So, it doesn't look like it is as good as picking up lung cancers for example than a specific lung cancer screening - but it does appear to give a chance across cancers where there may not be screenings or candidly many people don't have symptoms so would never be given an order for certain screening tests. For your second comment with the major trial failure. You are referring to the NHS Galleri trial. You are right it failed its end point. The goal was to prove significant reduction in stage III and IV cancers. It was very successful over the 3 years dropping the Stage IV diagnosis (approx 20%) - but Stage III remained high. The combined endpoint for success was stage III and IV - but the issue was the amount of Stage III cancers they found in the first round. These were all asymptomatic people and they were surprised at amount of stage III in regular population. this in turn inflated the stage III's throughout the test while IV's got offset. Definitely room for improvement, but when you dig into it, it is truly surprising on how much stage III they detected right away again in asymptomatic people. There is a lot here and a lot certainly to learn but no test has been subject to the 100,000s of tests they have done and the data they have been able to take. Again - this is my opinion.

Lebempe

Schedule III: Drugs with low to moderate potential for abuse and/or addiction, but less dangerous than Schedule I or II. These drugs can be obtained through prescription, but generally are not available over the counter. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/prescription-drugs/classifications

SwordfishOk504

> Schedule 3 ≠ prescription, there is an exempt path. DEA rescheduled and puts the same medical registrations system in, fda gives exempt status and this is wrapped up Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but under federal guidelines, a formal medical prescription (or medical document/authorization) is required to access and handle state-licensed medical cannabis under Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule III controlled substances legally require a prescription from an authorized practitioner and dispensing/registration rules via the Drug Enforcement Administration.

OHto30

Will weedstocks rebound before the 13th? (ALJ decision to disallow or allow the stay, to delay Schedule III for rec)

Constant_Ad_8028

"I'd give real money if he'd shut up." Leonard McCoy But since money is neither real nor is he ever going to shut up, and since it's all imaginary and made up by a few handfuls of greedy aholes who are somehow allowed to keep doing this. Everyone needs to simply stop playing their rigged game. The entire system is a scam where those few aholes have somehow by the magic of an imaginary hierarchy of a pyramid scheme, been allowed to create currencies out of thin air by using fractional reserve banking and government bond/slave purchases. Because this national debt is made in a way to mathematically be unpayable, and designed on purpose to continually expand, the lower level aholes/presidents/financiers, then get to make up and enforce heavy taxes, implement "austerity," aka financial extortion which effectively steals the labor and wealth from the people and funnels the currency to pay back the debt holders/slave owners with interest. Just to name a few of these greedy ahole slaveholders... These are the most notable examples from around the world, but there are of course many more. Alexei Mordashov, Vladimir Potanin, Vagit Alekperov, Leonid Mikhelson, Viktor Rashnikov, Dmitry Rybolovlev, Carlos Slim Helú, Germán Larrea Mota-Velasco, Iris Fontbona, Alejandro Baillères Gual, María Asunción Aramburuzabala, Jaime Gilinski, Dheeraj Hinduja, Sanjay Hinduja, David Reuben, Simon Reuben, Michael Platt, James Dyson, Hugh Grosvenor, Charles III, Jack Ma, Pony Ma, Qi Qiaoqiao, Deng Jiagui, Jiang Zhicheng (Alvin Jiang), Deng Zhuodi, Wen Yunsong (Winston Wen), Zhang Peili, Zhang BoZong Fuli (Kelly Zong), LuXiangyang, Alexandre de Rothschild, Ariane de Rothschild, David Rockefeller Jr., Mark Rockefeller, Jacob Wallenberg, Marcus Wallenberg, John Elkann, Susanne Klatten, Stefan Quandt, Ken Griffin, Ray Dalio, Bill Gross, Jeffrey Gundlach, David Tepper, Warren Buffet, Mohammed bin Salman, Alwaleed bin Talal, Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Haitham bin Tarik Al Said, Lena Krupalnik, Benjamin Netanyahu, Sara Netanyahu, Yair Netanyahu Isaac Herzog, Shmuel Dayan, Moshe Dayan,** **Eyal & Idan Ofer, Yitzhak Tshuva. Slavery is still alive and well but with new twists, people's labor as "free range slaves" and in other cases actual slaves to be trafficked and sold into old school slavery like back in the day. They are sold off to other dynasties back and forth as a commodity and labor force to them. They all literally view anyone not like them as cattle or livestock. This process, eventually after the wealth and labor of the people are siphoned off, it then leaves the people with the cost and loss of their purchasing power by paying the people with "fake money" that loses value over time, while trapping their labor in an endless cycle to enrich the ahole dynasty slave traders. The people build those scumbags empires and hoards of tangible wealth, while they trade you and your real physical labor and lives with worthless paper and numbers. Point back, OP's post is that to the changing of names, dogshit is still shit no matter how many times you try and dress it up and so is slavery. Only those disgusting slave traders are "positioned" to make profit off anything within this system of slavery that their ancestors have been doing to the rest of the world for millennia. When a person is born into a family that already controls the largest commercial banks, the energy infrastructure, or the dominant political apparatus, their position is already secured by nepotism generational wealth, and systemic** **leverage, and no one should be profiting from slavery. Let alone be allowed to exist solely to be a parasite to the collective labor of the people. They are only flesh and blood not above anyone else, and certainly not gods, and they all, and the system that they use to enslave people must fall, so that humanity can thrive as a whole, rather than in the hands of these greedy few.

AggravatingCrow897

**US10Y: 5.32%** **US20Y: 5.76%** **US30Y: 5.72%** **Brent: $103** **WTI: $91** Bond market pricing in the apocalypse. Oil market pricing in World War III. Mortgage market pricing in indentured servitude. Meanwhile, the Nasdaq is up because NVIDIA announced a new GPU that can generate pictures of a financially stable middle class. **SPY $700 calls. This is fine.** 🔥🤡🚀

Loose-Dream7901

Rescheduling under CSA → cannabis is Schedule III → FDA approved cannabis products under exempt nonprescription status → can be sold without a prescription. Bookmark this I’ll comeback and I want my flowers.

SuzyCreamcheezies

Speaking of "no argument," I'm not sure why the burden of proof is on me when you have yet to provide a shred of evidence supporting your claim of recreational cannabis under Schedule III. And before you bring it up, broader rescheduling ≠ adult use recreational. There is zero precedence for a drug listed as a controlled substance being available recreationally. Not a single substance under the CSA that is available off the shelf. Even your example of codeine was only ever available OTC in *select* states, most of which have rolled back that policy. Regardless, codeine has always remained illegal to possess recreationally at the federal level, so your argument has no leg to stand on. Honestly, I care little for your tenuous grasp of the subject. However, I will watch with great joy as your thesis crumbles around you. Lol.

Loose-Dream7901

Show me where Schedule III itself says prescription-only. §829(b) actually qualifies the prescription requirement: it applies to Schedule III substances that are prescription drugs under the FD&C Act. Scheduling and prescription status are separate legal determinations.

SuzyCreamcheezies

Putting quotes around those five words only doesn't negate the rest of that sentence. You see that comma? It grammatically implies that ALL schedule 3 drugs are prescription only. **"no** [**controlled substance**](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-247483554-746552643&term_occur=999&term_src=) **in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription**[ **drug** ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-3092384-1668295558&term_occur=999&term_src=title:21:chapter:13:subchapter:I:part:C:section:829)**as determined under the** [**Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act**](https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/federal_food_drug_and_cosmetic_act) **\[**[**21 U.S.C. 301**](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/301) **et seq.\]"** But sure, believe whatever "facts" you dream up. I'm not wasting my time arguing in circles with you.

Loose-Dream7901

RE: previous poster.. House.gov is down, but this states it clearly: (b)Schedule III and IV substances Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act \[21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.\], may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act \[21 U.S.C. 353(b)\]. Such prescriptions may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date thereof or be refilled more than five times after the date of the prescription unless renewed by the practitioner. RE: wrong interpretation. The previous poster stated the above. You aren’t interpreting the existing policy correctly. The government has said this openly in the ALJ hearings via the DOJ website. That section doesn’t prove Schedule III cannabis can’t be adult-use. §829(b) applies specifically to a Schedule III/IV substance “which is a prescription drug” under the FD&C Act. Scheduling and prescription status aren’t the same thing. So if federal law created a framework allowing non-prescription adult-use cannabis while placing it in Schedule III, §829(b) wouldn’t automatically prohibit it. The argument that “Schedule III = prescription-only” is therefore too broad.

1_FCKTRD

***1\_FCKTRD • 8mo ago From Kevin Sabet -*** ***"Now that doesn't mean that there may not be medical therapeutic effects of the marijuana plant that we should study and that we should have.*** ***"*** [***https://x.com/learnaboutsam/status/2025959793517527292?s=20***](https://x.com/learnaboutsam/status/2025959793517527292?s=20) ***This sounds like Schedule III to me.*** On February 23, 2026, Dr. Kevin Sabet asked, "Why is marijuana allowed to sidestep the FDA approval process and be regarded as medicine despite existing evidence?" 1. At the time, there was already a 252-page peer-reviewed scientific study from the HHS showing all kinds of medical benefits. [https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/2016-17954-HHS.pdf](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/2016-17954-HHS.pdf) 2. The October 2026 update to the "Drugs of Abuse" report (pages 81–84) will rectify the "GAO's procedural flaw" by officially recognizing facts that align with the FDA's scientific conclusions. [https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2026-10/Drugs-Abuse-2026.pdf](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2026-10/Drugs-Abuse-2026.pdf)

Loose-Dream7901

I’ll add Codeine is a good example of this two-tier concept: it’s a controlled Schedule III substance, yet certain low-dose codeine products can be sold without a prescription under specific **FDA rules**, while other formulations remain prescription-only. So Schedule III does **not inherently mean prescription-only..** the legal framework can distinguish between medical/prescription and non-prescription access. You need FDA regulatory guidance for any S3 adult use program. If it mocks the existing registration model the box is checked

Loose-Dream7901

That section doesn’t prove Schedule III cannabis can’t be adult-use. §829(b) applies specifically to a Schedule III/IV substance **“which is a prescription drug”** under the FD&C Act. Scheduling and prescription status aren’t the same thing. So if federal law created a framework allowing non-prescription adult-use cannabis while placing it in Schedule III, §829(b) wouldn’t automatically prohibit it. The argument that “Schedule III = prescription-only” is therefore too broad.

SuzyCreamcheezies

[House.gov](http://House.gov) is down, but [this](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/829) states it clearly: **(b)Schedule III and IV substances** Except when dispensed directly by a [practitioner](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-574573338-1668295528&term_occur=999&term_src=title:21:chapter:13:subchapter:I:part:C:section:829), other than a pharmacist, to an [ultimate user](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-246387258-1668295522&term_occur=999&term_src=title:21:chapter:13:subchapter:I:part:C:section:829), no [controlled substance](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-247483554-746552643&term_occur=999&term_src=) in schedule III or IV, which is a prescription[ drug ](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-3092384-1668295558&term_occur=999&term_src=title:21:chapter:13:subchapter:I:part:C:section:829)as determined under the [Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act](https://www.law.cornell.edu/topn/federal_food_drug_and_cosmetic_act) \[[21 U.S.C. 301](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/301) et seq.\], may be dispensed without a written or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act \[[21 U.S.C. 353(b)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/353#b)\]. Such prescriptions may not be filled or refilled more than six months after the date thereof or be refilled more than five times after the date of the prescription unless renewed by the[ practitioner.](https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?width=840&height=800&iframe=true&def_id=21-USC-574573338-1668295528&term_occur=999&term_src=title:21:chapter:13:subchapter:I:part:C:section:829)

SuzyCreamcheezies

>Schedule III does not mean prescription-only. You are just patently wrong. Schedule III drugs *absolutely* need a prescription.

Loose-Dream7901

Schedule III does not mean prescription-only. It has medical properties. The crowd who thinks this have not been reading the hearings. It’s why Trulieve is currently listed on a major exchange and S3 medical is done.

AnimeOrDie

Hey guys, what are the odds the black plague is hiding within rats in the Russian grain shipments? Are we gonna get a purge like in Warcraft III :pepecross:

KAI5ER

Even letting the report in, the most likely outcome is a short round of briefing and a Schedule III recommendation around January 2027

Micheal_Hancho

What, did they cancel squid games part III?

skyplt29

I cannot imagine rescheduling not happening although I've never understood why this administration chose to make this a medical/recreational thing. The next statement comes from the DEA's own website. This rationale is difficult to contest. There are actually facts from the HHS Report embedded in what I consider to be a reasonable assessment: 1. Acceptance of Medical Use in Treatment * Marijuana no longer meets the Schedule I criteria of having "no currently accepted medical use". * The federal government recognizes that broad-based data from state programs demonstrates widespread therapeutic use. More than 30,000 practitioners treat upwards of 6 million medical marijuana patients across 43 U.S. jurisdictions, **establishing accepted medical utility for conditions such as anorexia, nausea, and chronic pain.** 2. Reduced Potential for Abuse * While acknowledging marijuana remains a drug capable of causing harm, its abuse potential is lower than that of Schedule I or Schedule II substances (such as heroin or fentanyl). * Data indicates that while marijuana is widely consumed, its overall rate of serious adverse health outcomes, high-risk physical addiction, and overdose mortality profile aligns much more consistently with the threshold of Schedule III drugs (which includes substances like ketamine, anabolic steroids, and Tylenol with codeine). 3. Moderate or Low Physical Dependence Risk * Schedule III requires a drug to carry a low-to-moderate risk of physical dependence or a high risk of psychological dependence. * Federal medical data concluded that the physical withdrawal and dependence profile associated with chronic cannabis use, while prevalent, does not mirror the severe, physically life-threatening withdrawal symptoms seen in higher-schedule narcotics and depressants.

Visual-Try-8081

This is based on an AI-assisted review of the new GAO report, Judge Julius’s stay order, and the relevant scheduling procedures. Obviously, this is interpretation, not legal advice. As has been said before, my takeaway is that the stay may be much more procedural than substantive. The evidentiary record was essentially complete when the new GAO report came out discussing gaps in DEA/FDA scheduling procedures. Opponents immediately asked to add it to the record and submit supplemental briefing. Julius could have simply denied the request and moved on. But doing that would leave opponents with an obvious argument for a later appeal: a federal watchdog released a report directly related to the scheduling process, they brought it to the ALJ’s attention before the case was finished, and he refused to meaningfully consider it. Why give them that argument? The cleaner approach is to temporarily stay the proceeding, let the government and the other parties respond, and then issue a reasoned decision on whether the GAO report is actually relevant or material to this case. That does not mean Julius agrees with the opponents’ interpretation of the report. It does not even mean he will admit it into the record. The GAO report itself also needs to be kept in perspective. GAO identified gaps in the formal policies and procedures used by DEA and FDA and recommended that those agencies better document and standardize their processes. It did not conclude that the 2023 HHS marijuana analysis was scientifically wrong, that previous scheduling decisions were invalid, or that marijuana cannot qualify for Schedule III. And this appears to be a broader institutional issue, not something GAO uncovered specifically about marijuana. So another reasonable way to read the stay is that Julius is protecting the administrative record before moving forward. If the parties are allowed to address the GAO report now, and Julius later concludes that it does not materially undermine the marijuana analysis, that could actually make the eventual decision harder to attack in court. What would be much more significant is if Julius concludes that the GAO report exposes a specific defect in the marijuana eight-factor analysis, substantially reopens the evidentiary record, or suggests that the underlying HHS analysis needs to be redone. For now, the stay itself looks more like an effort to make sure this new issue is properly dealt with and the record is defensible before the case moves forward. \- Just my AI-assisted two cents

skyplt29

This is directly from the DOJ website (not AI slop as some like to say). I see nothing that differentiates between medical and recreational: # DEA Announces Interested Parties for Upcoming Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing On April 28, 2026, the Acting Attorney General issued a notice of hearing on the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to transfer marijuana from schedule I to schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. *See Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana,* [89 FR 44597](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/21/2024-11137/schedules-of-controlled-substances-rescheduling-of-marijuana) (May 21, 2024); *Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana,* [91 FR 22777](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/04/28/2026-08177/schedules-of-controlled-substances-rescheduling-of-marijuana) (Apr. 28, 2026) (Notice of Hearing). The notice of hearing provided that every interested person, defined in [21 CFR 13011.01(b)](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/part-1300/section-1300.01#p-1300.01(Interested%20person)), who wishes to participate in the hearing shall file a written notice of intention to participate in conformity with the requirements of 21 CFR 1308.44(b) and in the form prescribed in 21 CFR 1316.48. The Administrator has completed his assessment of the notices of intent to participate that were timely submitted, and has selected the following interested persons to participate in the hearing: 1. National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association 2. Tennessee Bureau of Investigation 3. Smart Approaches to Marijuana 4. The States of Nebraska, Idaho, Indiana, and Louisiana 5. DUID Victim Voices 6. Kenneth Finn, MD 7. Phillip A. Drum, PharmD The hearing on the NPRM is scheduled to commence on June 29, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. ET at the DEA Hearing Facility, 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA 22202. The hearing will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557, and 21 CFR 1308.41-1308.45, and 1316.41-1316.68. As set forth in the Notice of Hearing, the hearing will conclude not later than July 15, 2026. The hearing may be moved to a different place and may be continued from day-to-day or recessed to a later date without notice other than announcement thereof by the Administrative Law Judge at the hearing pursuant to [21 CFR 1316.53](https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/section-1316.53). Further information regarding the hearing will be provided by the Administrative Law Judge designated to preside over the hearing.

No_Love_Gained

I asked gemini to review and analysis this report and articulate the impact of this report on rescheduling of marijuana and here is what it says.. Summary of Impact Ultimately, this report does not alter the trajectory of marijuana rescheduling; rather, it solidifies the bureaucratic and legal defensive wall around it. By documenting that the DEA's historical scheduling decisions have aligned perfectly with HHS scientific recommendations (100% alignment for finalized cases from 2020–2025), the GAO structurally reinforces the legitimacy of the DEA following HHS's scientific conclusion that marijuana belongs in Schedule III.

Bobbe22

Oh this ones a doozy, as if things couldn't get even more twisted and insane. Excerpt: "But the judge granted the motion for a stay filed by the National Drug and Alcohol Association (NDASA), DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn, M.D.—parties opposed to cannabis rescheduling that participated in the hearing and who now want the GAO report included as part of the record. That report found, among other things that DEA “does not have any policies or procedures regarding how its staff are to conduct evaluations or schedule substances” and the Food and Drug Administration “does not have policies or procedures specifying how its staff are to conduct evaluations or develop scheduling recommendations for substances.”" So basically, because of the GAO audit finding that the lack of an official process is now being used to stall rescheduling, despite the insistence by the DEA for literally decades that they couldn't reschedule because they had to follow the process, a process which we now know, in fact, never existed. DEAs straight up out here giving the ministry of truth a run for their money. I repeat: After over 50 years of playing God with drug laws, locking up millions of people, and locking down life-saving medical research, a federal audit just revealed that neither the DEA nor the FDA has EVER had an actual written, official policy on how they evaluate or schedule drugs. I guess this at least explains why they've been able to ignore the staggering body of growing evidence of medical efficacy, not just for cannabis but also psychedelics. They literally do not care, and no one has been able to stop or correct them. Now, the second the federal government finally tries to use that exact same flexible, informal process to move cannabis to Schedule III, the prohibitionist groups run to a judge screaming, "Wait! Stop! You can't reschedule weed—there’s no official written procedure!" And the DEA judge actually paused the whole thing to hear them out. You honestly can't make this stuff up. The federal government relied on a completely made-up, off-the-cuff process to keep cannabis illegal for decades, but the moment that same lack of a process threatens to legalize or reschedule it, opponents weaponize the missing paperwork to freeze the entire system. It’s the ultimate bureaucratic double-speaking catch-22 I've ever heard of. And, of course, our sector is down another 13% on the news... sigh

Unable_Brilliant6652

**How is this for substance? I got my research** **partner** **to pull up all of the TDR podcast episodes in the last six months where they discussed the fact that this sort of thing was going to**** ****happen…** **SHOCKER**** ****it happened****.** **Not** **financial advice do your own DD.** **April 24 — “Schedule III Is Official — What Comes Next?”** Michael Bronstein said his coalition was preparing to **defend the rescheduling effort against anticipated legal challenges**. That’s basically the setup you remembered: the policy move happens, and then opponents try to attack it through the courts. **May 5 — “House Passes Farm Bill…”** This one is particularly strong for what you’re looking for. They explicitly discussed the **anticipated legal challenge from Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)**. Bronstein said he thought SAM would have a difficult case and that a stay was unlikely, but the important point is they were already discussing the challenge as expected. **May 6 — “Curaleaf Earnings…”** TDR reported that **SAM had filed a formal petition**, calling it the first move in a legal challenge to the rescheduling process. **May 29 — “Rescheduling Lawsuit, Curaleaf Feedback & MSO Merger Talk”** By then the thing had escalated. Indiana, Nebraska and Louisiana had sued, and that case was consolidated with challenges from **SAM and NDASA**. The whole episode asks whether the lawsuits could slow rescheduling or whether they would ultimately fail. **June 11–12 — opponents seek a stay / “Big Changes Are Hitting The Cannabis Industry Now”** TDR covered NDASA and MMJ International asking the D.C. Circuit to **freeze the rescheduling order while the litigation proceeded**, with SAM and several states involved in the broader consolidated challenge. The June 12 show specifically analyzed the lawsuit attacking the procedure used to move cannabis to Schedule III. **June 23 — “The Most Important Hearing In Cannabis History”** Bronstein again discussed SAM, NDASA, MMJ International and the three state AGs, their consolidated lawsuit and **motion to stay**. They specifically asked whether a court-issued stay could disrupt the ALJ proceedings. **June 29–July 1 — ALJ hearing coverage.** TDR was still framing SAM and the other opponents as trying to delay or undermine the process and noted that arguments developed during the hearing could feed the **parallel D.C. Circuit litigation**. **July 7 — “We Are Live From The ALJ…”** This may be the clearest Bronstein example. After SAM’s testimony, Bronstein said opponents appeared increasingly focused on **procedural objections rather than the underlying science**, and characterized that as a likely **long-game strategy aimed at future court challenges**. **August 18 — Trade To Black with Michael Bronstein.** After the closing-brief deadline, Bronstein said the ALJ process would proceed through findings and objections, followed by DEA action, and that the final order was **likely to draw litigation**.

AverageNo130

Health and Human Services (HHS) officially recommended reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III on **August 29, 2023.** **It's been in DEA since.**

agedoak31

Anyone else just tired? I get this is a process and it’s not going to stop moving cannabis to schedule III; however, I’m just tired of loosing money. I hold both stocks and options. Why can’t we, the people, just make some money already.

ComprehensiveKiwi489

Question, I put some things into AI to try and understand this better. I asked if Trump could (hypothetically) fire the Judge if he does not move this to S3, the response I got was: *"2. The Judge Does Not Have Final Authority* *Even if Judge Julius produces a recommendation that opposes moving marijuana to Schedule III, his opinion is purely advisory:* *Recommendation vs. Order: The ALJ’s role is simply to gather evidence, run the administrative hearing, and write a recommended decision.* *The Administration Retains Final Say: The final determination to issue a binding rule rescheduling marijuana rests entirely with the executive branch—specifically, Attorney General Todd Blanche and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram (or their successors).* *3. What the Executive Branch Can Do* *If the judge recommends keeping marijuana in Schedule I or stalls the process indefinitely, the administration can simply override or reject the judge's recommendation in its final agency rulemaking, provided they articulate a reasoned explanation based on the administrative record.* *Furthermore, while Trump cannot directly fire the ALJ, he does have the authority to fire or replace political appointees in executive leadership (such as the DEA Administrator or Department of Justice leadership) if they fail to carry out his policy directives on rescheduling."*

Spy300

The Federal Reserve is forced to act because the US sovereign debt mechanism has hit a structural wall: with the 30-Year yield breaking above 5.55% and the 10-Year yield at 5.22%, annual interest expense is compounding toward $1.8 Trillion (over 36% of all tax revenues), while foreign central banks have launched an outright buyer strike—evidenced by last week’s brutal 8.3 bps auction tail and foreign demand collapsing to 47%. This has forcibly dumped over $70 Billion of unwanted paper onto Primary Dealers in a single morning, choking bank balance sheets against their regulatory Basel III capital limits while creating over $1.1 Trillion in paper duration losses across the banking sector. With 30-year conforming mortgage rates now pushed up to 7.55%–7.75% and threatening to freeze the housing market, Primary Dealers cannot warehouse another wave of October auctions without immediate Fed balance sheet relief (SLR exemptions, Standing Repo backstops, or Operation Twist buybacks) to prevent an outright failure in Treasury auction clearance.

123789dftr

First, I want to know. Do you understand yet the difference between diluting shareholders and acquiring another company's shares? Thanks for letting know that "people like me" are destroying the lives of millions (because I guess in your mind me saying he is a retard means I'm a fan of his)! What would you put my kill count at? BTW we learned this from our ancestors, the British. King George III would probably think that the US is the real British Empire.

Educational_Salt7147

A TERED ☰ Hardware & Chips Huang’s 2x Chip Vow Locks Up 37% of HBM Supply [2026] Marcus Bell Updated Sep 25, 2026 · 14 min read Jensen Huang has made bold predictions before. But the one he delivered on September 17, 2026, standing outside an AI summit convened by King Charles III at Dumfries House in Cumnock, Scotland, is now rippling through memory chip factories in South Korea, a new Nvidia-Palantir supply chain product, and a debate over whether “twice as many chips” means what Wall Street thinks it means. Table of Contents “I expect Nvidia to sell twice as many chips next year as we do this year,” Huang told reporters, according to CNBC. He added: “The reason for that is because AI has so much contribution to the benefits of different industries, different economies, and you can see that in almost every single country that we’re in, people want to invest in AI.” Nvidia shares climbed as much as 2.8% in the hours after the remarks spread, a reaction later detailed by industry outlet MarketScale. A week later, the story has split into two threads that matter more than the headline number. One is about who actually benefits if Nvidia doubles its chip output: mostly Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix, the two companies that make the high-bandwidth memory (HBM) every AI accelerator needs. The other is about whether Nvidia can even hit that number, given that its own chief financial officer has framed doubling as the best-case, supply-unconstrained scenario rather than a locked-in plan. What Huang Actually Said, and Where The setting matters. Huang wasn’t on an earnings call or a keynote stage. He was speaking to reporters ahead of an AI-focused gathering hosted by Britain’s King Charles III, an event that also drew representation tied to Google DeepMind, OpenAI, and Anthropic, according to reporting picked up by outlets including The Next Web. That’s an unusual venue for a chip-shipment forecast, and it’s part of why the remark traveled so fast: it read less like guidance and more like a spontaneous, confident aside. Coverage landed within hours across CNBC, Bloomberg, South Korea’s Seoul Economic Daily, and the Chosun Ilbo. By September 22, follow-up pieces were already reframing the comment as a message aimed squarely at shareholders rather than a passing quote to a press pool. Nvidia has not issued a formal press release restating the forecast, which means every subsequent analysis, including this one, is working from the same handful of on-the-record sentences. “Twice as Many Chips” Is Not the Same as Double the Revenue The most important clarification, and the one that got lost in the first wave of headlines, is that Huang was talking about unit volume, not dollars. Nvidia’s chip business spans far more than data-center GPUs. It includes CPUs, networking and optical interconnect silicon, notebook processors, and Jetson robotics modules. A doubling in total unit count could be driven heavily by cheaper, high-volume parts rather than by Blackwell or Vera Rubin GPUs, the products actually gated by memory and power constraints. That distinction matters because Nvidia has already put out a formal number that’s easier to hold it to: roughly 70% revenue growth guidance for the fiscal year ending January 2028, a figure CNBC has pegged against a market-implied revenue estimate of about $673 billion. Seventy percent growth is enormous by any normal company’s standard, but it isn’t a doubling. If Huang’s “twice as many chips” comment and the official 70% growth guidance both hold true at once, it implies the mix is shifting toward higher unit volumes at lower average prices, exactly what you’d expect if CPUs, networking gear, and notebook chips are pulling more weight in the count. Huang’s CFO Already Told You the Catch Nvidia CFO Colette Kress has previously described the doubling scenario as the supply-unconstrained case, according to the MarketScale analysis of the company’s recent statements. That’s corporate shorthand for: this is what happens if nothing breaks. And in a supply chain that depends on thousands of component suppliers delivering millions of parts on schedule, something usually breaks. A rack-scale AI system needs coordinated delivery of compute, memory, networking, cooling, and power hardware. A shortfall in any single category, most often HBM, can gate an entire rack shipment regardless of how many GPUs are sitting in a warehouse. That framing turns Huang’s comment from a demand story into an operations story. Demand for AI compute hasn’t been in question for two years. What’s genuinely uncertain is whether the physical supply chain, memory fabs, substrate suppliers, cooling vendors, can be coordinated tightly enough to turn that demand into doubled shipments within twelve months. From a $1 Trillion Backlog to a 2x Forecast: The Timeline Huang’s Scotland comment didn’t come out of nowhere. At Nvidia’s GTC conference in March 2026, he told the audience that combined orders for Blackwell and Vera Rubin systems could total $1 trillion through 2027, an order-value figure rather than a unit or revenue number. Separately, Huang has said Nvidia shipped 6 million Blackwell GPUs over the prior four quarters, a shipment statistic that predates and is distinct from the new doubling claim. None of the currently available reporting ties that 6 million figure to a formal 2026 shipment target, so it can’t be used to say whether Nvidia beat or missed earlier guidance, only that the company has a track record of citing large, headline-friendly numbers at major public moments. Date Forecast or Figure What It Actually Measures Source March 2026 (GTC) $1 trillion Cumulative order value for Blackwell and Vera Rubin systems through 2027 Nvidia GTC keynote 2026 (reported) 6 million units Blackwell GPUs shipped over the prior four quarters Huang public remarks Most recent quarter ~70% growth Guided revenue growth for fiscal year ending January 2028 Nvidia earnings guidance, via CNBC Most recent quarter ~$673 billion Market-implied fiscal 2028 revenue estimate CNBC September 17, 2026 2x (doubling) Total chip unit volume in 2027 versus 2026, across all product lines Huang remarks, Scotland AI summit, via CNBC Laid out this way, the pattern is consistent: Nvidia’s public forecasts keep getting bigger and less precise about which metric they actually describe. Order value, shipment counts, revenue growth, and unit-volume doubling are four different measurements, and coverage this week has repeatedly conflated them. Readers comparing this story to Nvidia’s record $96.2 billion earnings quarter earlier this year should note that quarter measured revenue, not the unit counts Huang cited in Scotland. The Real Constraint Is Memory, Not Compute How Much HBM Nvidia Actually Needs The supply-side reality behind Huang’s forecast comes down to one component: high-bandwidth memory. A Morgan Stanley analysis cited in September 2026 reporting estimates that Nvidia, Alphabet, and AMD combined will consume roughly 85% of global HBM supply in 2027, with Nvidia alone accounting for about 37.3% of that total. HBM has also grown from roughly 20% of a GPU’s material cost to more than 50% today, according to the same analysis. That’s the clearest evidence that Nvidia’s doubling ambition lives or dies on memory availability, not on its own fabs or TSMC’s wafer output. Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron’s 2027 HBM production capacity is already described as effectively sold out, with no meaningful new capacity expected until late 2027 or 2028 at the earliest. That’s a hard ceiling sitting directly under a forecast that assumes output can double within a similar window. Readers who followed the site’s earlier coverage of China’s AI chip prices jumping 50% on HBM shortage will recognize the pattern: memory scarcity, not GPU design or fab capacity, is the binding constraint across the entire AI hardware industry right now. Company Estimated Share of 2027 Global HBM Supply Role Nvidia ~37.3% Largest single buyer, GPU maker Alphabet Part of combined ~85% TPU and custom silicon buyer AMD Part of combined ~85% Instinct GPU buyer All other buyers ~15% Remaining global demand Note that the Alphabet and AMD figures are only available as part of the combined 85% estimate; Morgan Stanley’s analysis, as reported, breaks out Nvidia’s individual 37.3% share but does not further split the remaining allocation between the other two buyers. Samsung and SK Hynix Are the Quiet Winners If there’s a clean winner from Huang’s comment, it’s South Korea’s memory industry. Seoul Economic Daily reported that Samsung Electronics and SK Hynix shares rose in Korean trading immediately after the doubling forecast circulated, as investors read it as confirmation that HBM demand isn’t slowing down. That’s a notable reversal in framing: for most of 2026, memory shortages have been covered as a cost problem squeezing device makers and consumers. This is one of the first times the same shortage has been reported as a straightforward earnings tailwind for the two companies actually producing the memory. It also reinforces a theme this site has tracked closely: memory, not logic, has become the scarce resource that determines who profits in the AI hardware cycle. Samsung previously detailed its 8-layer HBM4E memory built for Nvidia, running at 18Gbps per pin, and that product roadmap is now directly tied to whether Huang’s 2027 unit forecast is achievable at all. Every additional GPU Nvidia wants to ship needs a matching allocation of Samsung or SK Hynix memory stacks, and that allocation is reportedly locked in well past 2027.

oldschoolczar

\>>Insert skeleton on bench meme here<< “Still waiting on Schedule III”

Zealousideal_Yak9977

Ww III ? Who going to attack us ;p

Gram_variable

Starship Troopers on hulu, Starcraft III announced, I'm happy as a clam

remilk123

:screech: :screech: 🚨 GUYS! GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!!! 🚨 📉 TOMORROW WILL BE THE SINGLE MOST HORRIBLE DOWN DAY IN STOCK MARKET HISTORY!!! 😱 💥 THE S&P WILL DROP 40%! ♾️ FOREVER WAR! ☢️ WORLD WAR III! 🚀 NUKES! 🛢️ OIL CRISIS! 📈 10% YIELDS! 🏃‍♂️💨 SAVE YOURSELVES!!! 🙏

Samuelpo

I take it you’re actually Canadian. It’s all makes sense now. And you’re pretty much European. You’re basically west Britain. You recognize Charles III as your king and head of state. lol

Cav829

And yet it was one of these heralded American models that almost started World War III lol.

RZDirInvest

GFS is not your typical AI play, other than future optical or quantum. It can be a physical AI play for future robotics. GFS is also strong in specialty semiconductor, such as RF, power devices,… even III to V semiconductor, which do not require most advanced node and process.

Few-Bee8995

Seems that algos run on Pentium III rather than Claude Mythos 5

Yogurt_Up_My_Nose

I experienced the same thing. Calc I was the most difficult and I may have even had to retake it. Calc II and III were fine, Diff-q was fine, Discrete Structures I fucked up hard on.

Sufficient_Habit5091

Continually chipping away at all the regulation and buffers from GFC. Lowered Supplementary Leverage Ratios for the big banks this year. Next year Basel III and LCR reform. All basically increasing lending capacity.

Sufficient_Habit5091

Continually chipping away at all the regulation and buffers from GFC. Lowered Supplementary Leverage Ratios for the big banks this year. Next year Basel III and after that LCR reform. All basically increasing lending capacity to keep the AI game running longer and increase the pain when it blows up.

tbuitommy

WW III tomorrow? What's up with those way OTM PUTs?

Sufficient_Habit5091

Basel III endgame + LCR reform is going to basically be deregulation and unlock trillion+ maybe trillions in lending capacity of banks. They went total 180 from 2023, "let's make banks safer" to "actually let's let them hold 5% to 8% less capital". But obviously because of how banks can leverage their cushions, this leads to 13x to 14x or more in actual lending capacity for every $. It will be a way for regulators to essentially massively increase the money supply. But setting up more inflation and the next GFC.

Sufficient_Habit5091

Basel III endgame + LCR reform is going to basically be deregulation and unlock trillions in loan capacity of banks. It will be a way for regulators to essentially massively increase the money supply. But setting up more inflation and the next GFC.

Bravadette

SATL is going up cus of Slingshot III program apparently.

Silver-Pomelo-9324

Schedule I is totally 100% illegal and banned which currently what it is. Schedule III is legal with a prescription. I'll take whatever I can get on this hah, but I also have a prescription. Would be nice to not be arrested if I accidentally cross state lines with it or be able to legally buy a gun again.

phantom_diorama

And, one last thing I promise I will not annoy you like this more Reading the short introduction on the link below it seems like Trump just kept the Biden directed rescheduling going. Biden told HHS while he was still in office in late 2022 to start doing it. HHS told the DEA in late 2023 to reschedule. DEA prosed a rule in May 2024 to reschedule. December 2025 Trump basically says Hey lets do this! Then... >On April 23, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order which (1) immediately placed both FDA-approved products containing marijuana and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license in Schedule III, and (2) provided for initiation of an expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III to begin on June 29, 2026. https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/research/federal-marijuana-rescheduling-process-and-impac

phantom_diorama

Ok I am not trying to BS but Schedule III means it is still illegal, right He said he would fully legalize it. It was in the headlines for less than a few hours and immediately forgotten.

Silver-Pomelo-9324

So I hate Trump but ordering the DEA to reschedule medical marijuana to Schedule III is something that he's actually done. There is also a separate rescheduling order for all marijuana that is tied up by anti Marijuana advocates in court.

imustbegthequestion

Calls on the BLUE TYPHOON. ROYAL NAVY, PETITION HIS GRACE MAJESTIC BTITTANICUS, CHARLES III, TO ASSEMBLE THE ADMIRALTY. THE ROYAL NAVIES MUST SAVE THE WORLD ONCE MORE. 🇬🇧🇨🇦🇬🇭🤡🫡🤌🏿🤌🏿🤌🏿🙏🏿🙇🏿‍♂️

SwordfishOk504

lmao. It's a fact, and just because you don't liek a fact doesn't make it "FUD" ffs. On April 23, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an immediate final order reclassifying FDA-approved cannabis products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. Now, it didn't include non medical but to say it didn't go through it just false.

themage78

>Buck: "Take a gander at them moccasins. What kind of skins is them?" Stubble: "What's that writing mean … 'Nee-kay' … what is that, some sort of Injun talk or something?" -Back to the Future III

No-Bicycle-7660

Warsh is in lock-step with the Treasury. Treasury is on a debasement and yield lowering mission, which in the absence of fiscal tightening (lol) is the only option to deal with the debt trap, now that it's this deep. First a rate hold will happen. Then very shortly thereafter they'll announce massive weakening of Basel III regs - huge monetary deregulation and expansion of the money supply, cratering yields and the dollar. Next year they'll follow with aggressive rate cuts. This while the Treasury expends vast sums on supporting the bond market, as US / JP carry trade unwinds.

Slightlybadpicks

TRUE STORY, PLEASE TAKE A MINUTE, ITS LIFE CHANGING: While out playing in Shenzhen, I wanted to experience a foreign girl, so I found a pimp. The pimp asked me if I wanted Russian or Ukrainian, and asked if I supported Putin or Zelenskyy. I said, "Is there some trick to this?" He said, "Every choice you make affects the global landscape. If you choose a Russian girl, the Russian girl will send the money back home, turning it into bullets fired at Ukraine. If you choose a Ukrainian girl, she'll send it back to Ukraine too, to buy weapons and fight back." I hesitated for a long time—this impact was huge. My one choice could actually be the spark for World War III. Later, I figured I couldn't mess up the world balance. so I chose both.

SPAC_Time

Also Colombier Acquisition Corp. III, CLBR CLBR WS. DJT Jr is on the board. First CLBR became Public Square ( PSQH ), second one was Grab a Gun (PEW ).

SPAC_Time

[PlusAI, a Leader in Physical AI Pioneering AI-Based Virtual Driver Software for Factory-Built Autonomous Trucks, to Become Publicly Listed Through Business Combination with Texas Ventures Acquisition III Corp](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260903685150/en/PlusAI-a-Leader-in-Physical-AI-Pioneering-AI-Based-Virtual-Driver-Software-for-Factory-Built-Autonomous-Trucks-to-Become-Publicly-Listed-Through-Business-Combination-with-Texas-Ventures-Acquisition-III-Corp) \- TVA TVACW

glostazyx3

BNTX— mid September, one of its many Stage III mRNA cancer treatment results to be announced.  

MoRegrets

Quiet murmur in the voice of Arya Stark "Berto I (**TACO**), Berto II (**GUAC**), Cartesian IV (**CGCF**), ~~Bleichroeder III (~~**~~BCCQ~~**~~)~~, Archimedes III (**ARCI**), Crane Harbour II (**CRAN**), Osprey III (**OSPR**). Oh and Keen Vision (~~KVAC/~~**KVAF**)...." - *SPACar pāsis* iā *SPACar* Morghulis*(all SPACs must deal/agree or all SPACs must die)*

BoatDrinks73

Richard III?

SwordfishOk504

To be clear, "S3" already "hit". The US DOJ already moved state-licensed medical cannabis and FDA-approved cannabis products to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The broader administrative hearing process overseen by Cole is about moving all cannabis, not just medical cannabis Schedule III

ConfusedChild4444

I would caution against using wisdom from the last century in the current one. The 1930s (when Graham cut his teeth) were a completely different time than 2026. Just Glass-Steagall, Basel III, 401ks, index funds, and Fed Reserve independence from the executive make this a completely different world. And there are even more changes on top of these like WW2, Bretton Woods, the gold standard, etc. Bull markets last far longer than they did back then and are more resilient even if the underlying economy is going through shocks.

TheNewOP

I would caution using wisdom from the last century in the current one. The 1930s were a completely different time than 2026. Just Glass-Steagall, Basel III, 401ks, index funds, and Fed Reserve independence from the executive make this a completely different world. And there are even more changes on top of these. Bull markets last far longer than they did back then and are more resilient.

Loose-Dream7901

Congress & Senate do not decide this process. Broader rescheduling is under AG Todd Blanche. All the DEA has to do is change cannabis broadly from S1 to S3, and mirror the same licensing registration process that exists for medical. The key is there needs to be federal compliance attached to S3 Per the NASDAQ Listing Application: **“Nasdaq is observing developments in this space, including the scheduled administrative hearing and proposed rulemaking by the DEA, and will provide updates as those administrative processes advance.”** So again, your point inherently incorrect mixed with now both DOJ release and NASDAQ official language which confirm this hearing is a dynamic consideration else it would be stated clearly. Here is the detailed application summary: “As noted in FAQ [1474](https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/Material_search.aspx?materials=1474&mcd=LQ&criteria=2&cid=120%2C1%2C145%2C108%2C157%2C14%2C22%2C142%2C29%2C107%2C34%2C37%2C38%2C45%2C16%2C110%2C52%2C71%2C156%2C69%0A%0A), Nasdaq will only list companies whose activities are legal under applicable federal law or the applicable laws in the jurisdiction(s) where the company operates.  Where a company operates in jurisdictions where cannabis, including marihuana (referred to as “marijuana” herein) as defined in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”), is legal, such company is eligible for listing (provided, of course, the company otherwise satisfies all applicable listing requirements). On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a final Order (the “DOJ Order”) rescheduling medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA.  While this rescheduling did not legalize marijuana, the DOJ Order did create a path for state-licensed medical marijuana companies to operate in compliance with federal law by registering with the DEA.  A company that follows that registration path would be eligible to list if it can provide Nasdaq with an opinion of counsel from a law firm, acceptable to Nasdaq, with expertise in controlled substance regulatory compliance confirming that the company operates in compliance with the DOJ Order and applicable requirements of the CSA (an “Opinion”).  At this time, federally illegal marijuana (*e.g.*, non-medical or other “adult use” activities) remains a Schedule I controlled substance.  As such, companies whose activities include federally illegal marijuana without having obtained appropriate authorizations (*e.g.*, FDA/DEA approvals) are currently ineligible to list.  Nasdaq has observed situations where a company has an economic stake in an entity engaged in federally illegal marijuana activities or derives revenue based on agreements with such an entity.  Where such a company otherwise satisfies all applicable listing requirements, provides an Opinion that concludes that the relationship is in compliance with the DOJ Order and applicable requirements of the CSA, and the company does not consolidate the federally illegal marijuana activities in its consolidated financial statements in their SEC filings, the economic stake or agreement does not preclude listing on Nasdaq. Pursuant to Nasdaq rules, listing determinations are made on the basis of information filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Where a newly listing company previously included federally illegal marijuana activities in its financial statements filed with the SEC, the company will have to include the complete deconsolidated financial information in an SEC filing for Nasdaq to rely upon for listing approval.  In addition, the company will have to represent in such SEC filing that its financial statements will not present the federally illegal marijuana activities on a consolidated basis in the company’s future SEC filings, unless the federal legal status of such currently federally illegal marijuana activities has changed such that the company can provide an updated Opinion. Nasdaq has historically permitted the listing of companies following applicable DEA and FDA rules for medical research and pharmaceutical development involving marijuana-derived products. The rescheduling expands opportunities for such research and development, and companies engaged in these activities continue to be eligible for listing. Nasdaq is observing developments in this space, including the scheduled administrative hearing and proposed rulemaking by the DEA, and will provide updates as those administrative processes advance. Listed companies with questions on these matters should engage early with their Nasdaq Listing Qualifications representative to discuss their specific facts and circumstances.  Companies considering listing should contact L

SuzyCreamcheezies

There seems to be much confusion around adult use under schedule 3. I'm here to muddy the waters even more with [this](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11105) quote from Congress, the day Trump made his executive order. **"With respect to the manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana, if marijuana were moved to Schedule III, such activities would remain illegal under federal law and potentially subject to federal prosecution regardless of their status under state law."**

SuzyCreamcheezies

[This](https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11105) little nugget from Congress seems applicable to the topic at hand. **"With respect to the manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana, if marijuana were moved to Schedule III, such activities would remain illegal under federal law and potentially subject to federal prosecution regardless of their status under state law."**

AverageNo130

"Pot Inc., executives tell On The Money that they believe Trump will soon remove weed from a Schedule III drug used for medicinal purposes to Schedule IV or V, which is de facto legalization..." NY Post article above

AverageNo130

"Pot Inc., executives tell On The Money that they believe Trump will soon remove weed from a Schedule III drug used for medicinal purposes to Schedule IV or V, which is de facto legalization..."

Many_Easy_V2

Enough of the BS, magical thinking, confirmation biases, not verifying ChatGPT, or only believing an answer you want. **As of August 28, 2026, the broader Schedule III rescheduling has NOT been finalized or approved.** We are still waiting for **DEA’s TerryCole** to make the final determination. And even that is preceded by several steps and time. Folks, stick to ACTION and substantiated FACTS. It’s about getting to the facts and not about winning an argument or spinning one.

Logansquarekushgod

That sentence should’ve been more precise, sure. The December EO started the process. The April action moved the qualifying medical category to Schedule III. But the ALJ hearing doesn’t mean nothing was rescheduled, and the article does distinguish medical companies in the very next sentence.

Logansquarekushgod

I worded that last comment wrong. There is a distinction in the current federal scheduling, my bad. My point was that the existence of the ALJ proceeding doesn’t negate the fact that the medical category was already moved to Schedule III. The hearing concerns the marijuana that remains in Schedule I.

UsedState7381

I almost didn't bothered to bring this up here since the source is terrible, but I guess it's something to talk about since the subreddit is mostly dead: >Pot Inc., executives tell On The Money that they believe Trump will soon remove weed from a Schedule III drug used for medicinal purposes to Schedule IV or V, which is de facto legalization meaning the capital markets will be fully open to US pot companies to spend on creating recreational products, such as joints and gummies. https://nypost.com/2026/08/28/business/marijuana-companies-are-gearing-up-for-ipos-and-nyse-and-nasdaq-are-jonesing-to-list-them/ I won't place any money on Trump doing anything to weed beyond rescheduling it to S3, though.

Ill_Mastodon8324

Really made Napoleon III look a right prick

ButtholeAnalogy

You mean trump III?

SPAC_Time

[Astrum Space Inc to Go Public Through Business Combination With Black Spade Acquisition III Co](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20260827516888/en/Astrum-Space-Inc-to-Go-Public-Through-Business-Combination-With-Black-Spade-Acquisition-III-Co) \- BIII [BIII.WS](http://BIII.WS)

Entreprenewbeur

So then III said…

Canna-dian

Thanks for the example! I dig a bit of digging and turned up the following: >§ 1306.26 Dispensing without prescription. >A controlled substance listed in Schedules II, III, IV, or V which is not a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, may be dispensed by a pharmacist without a prescription to a purchaser at retail, provided that: >>(a) Such dispensing is made only by a pharmacist (as defined in part 1300 of this chapter), and not by a nonpharmacist employee even if under the supervision of a pharmacist (although after the pharmacist has fulfilled his professional and legal responsibilities set forth in this section, the actual cash, credit transaction, or delivery, may be completed by a nonpharmacist); >>(b) Not more than 240 cc. (8 ounces) of any such controlled substance containing opium, nor more than 120 cc. (4 ounces) of any other such controlled substance nor more than 48 dosage units of any such controlled substance containing opium, nor more than 24 dosage units of any other such controlled substance may be dispensed at retail to the same purchaser in any given 48-hour period; >>(c) The purchaser is at least 18 years of age; >>(d) The pharmacist requires every purchaser of a controlled substance under this section not known to him to furnish suitable identification (including proof of age where appropriate); >>(e) A bound record book for dispensing of controlled substances under this section is maintained by the pharmacist, which book shall contain the name and address of the purchaser, the name and quantity of controlled substance purchased, the date of each purchase, and the name or initials of the pharmacist who dispensed the substance to the purchaser (the book shall be maintained in accordance with the recordkeeping requirement of § 1304.04 of this chapter); and >>(f) A prescription is not required for distribution or dispensing of the substance pursuant to any other Federal, State or local law. >>(g) Central fill pharmacies may not dispense controlled substances to a purchaser at retail pursuant to this section. I also think recreational use is going to happen, but I'm not convinced the hurdles like the requirements above are going to be that easy to overcome. And as medicinal use will be widely available, the drop off in support is going to hurt. That said, I think there is a high likelihood of the Dems taking over the legislative branch and pushing through full legalization leading into the next election cycle. And again, I do really hope you're right and I'm wrong, both for my bags and yours haha

Loose-Dream7901

Separately, the Department announced procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. It’s in the article

Canna-dian

How does that reconcile with the below: >Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in Schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without a written, electronically transmitted, or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act (21 USC 353 (b)) That certainly doesn't sound like a recreational market under Schedule 3

Canna-dian

Thanks for the link! What's not clear to me is how they're going to include recreational use as part of it. Putting cannabis on Schedule 3 means it has to follow certain rules like: >Except when dispensed directly by a practitioner, other than a pharmacist, to an ultimate user, no controlled substance in Schedule III or IV, which is a prescription drug as determined under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 USC 301 et seq.), may be dispensed without a written, electronically transmitted, or oral prescription in conformity with section 503(b) of that Act (21 USC 353 (b)) How do you align that with a typical retail purchase? To be honest, I think they're going to set cannabis to Schedule 3 and call it a day. It will take a lot of equity to get republicans on board with recreational use once medical use is legislated, since that's been the primary driver for republicans. It's great news either way, because democrats will certainly push it the final step, and I genuinely hope to be proven wrong, but that's what the transcript had led me to believe.

Loose-Dream7901

From the DOJ. The ALJ hearings are broad cannabis rescheduling. The narrative in this chat S3 only applies to medical is not valid. It’s why exchanges allowed Trulieve to list as S3 medical is currently enacted. It’s why GTI / CURA sit waiting from regulators. S3 for adult use is included in the ALJ hearings Per DOJ going into these June 29 hearings: Separately, the Department announced procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Under the prior administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2024, followed by a notice of hearing on August 29, 2024. Upon further review, the DEA is withdrawing the prior notice of [hearing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437811/dl) and terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation. This action will accelerate the administrative process, include firm deadlines, and allow DEA to proceed in the most expeditious manner consistent with federal law.

Loose-Dream7901

Again, literally from the justice department going into these hearings. You are incorrect. Separately, the Department announced procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Under the prior administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2024, followed by a notice of hearing on August 29, 2024. Upon further review, the DEA is withdrawing the prior notice of [hearing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437811/dl) and terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation. This action will accelerate the administrative process, include firm deadlines, and allow DEA to proceed in the most expeditious manner consistent with federal law.

Loose-Dream7901

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-places-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-products-containing-marijuana You’re incorrect literally from the Justice Department going into these hearings Separately, the Department announced procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Under the prior administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2024, followed by a notice of hearing on August 29, 2024. Upon further review, the DEA is withdrawing the prior notice of [hearing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437811/dl) and terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation. This action will accelerate the administrative process, include firm deadlines, and allow DEA to proceed in the most expeditious manner consistent with federal law.

Loose-Dream7901

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-places-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-products-containing-marijuana Yes the entire ALJ hearing is broad rescheduling. Literally from the justice department website. “Medical” change from S1 to S3 means there is medical benefits. S1 after all means no medical benefit. I think you’re confused. “In accordance with President Trump’s December 18, 2025, Executive Order on Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today announced the issuance of an [order](https://justice.gov/opa/media/1437751/dl) immediately placing both FDA-approved products containing marijuana and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, as well as the initiation of an expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. The [new hearing](https://justice.gov/opa/media/1437741/dl), beginning June 29, 2026, will provide a timely and legally compliant pathway to evaluate broader changes to marijuana’s status under federal law. Together, these actions provide immediate and long-term clarity to researchers, patients, and providers alike while still maintaining strict federal controls against illicit drug trafficking.”

stuenkes

Ares III announced the separation of their units starting on August 20th but the commons and warrants don’t seem to be trading anywhere. The tickets for both are supposed to be AAC and AAC/WS.

StarMaker7

Yes, Green Thumb Industries can potentially uplist to a major U.S. exchange like the NYSE or NASDAQ once federal cannabis rescheduling to Schedule III (S3) is fully finalized and implemented, though the exact timing depends on exchange policies and further regulatory clarity. \[[1](https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/rescheduled-but-not-listed-the-outlook-for-us-cannabis-companies-on-major-exchanges.html), [2](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/TLRY/pressreleases/3665559/should-you-buy-hold-or-sell-gtbif-stock-post-q2-earnings-release/)\] Management for [Green Thumb Industries](https://investors.gtigrows.com/) has stated that it remains in active discussions with major U.S. exchanges and intends to pursue an uplisting for the entire company when federal rules provide sufficient clarity. While the DEA's move to place cannabis under Schedule III reduces barriers—such as eliminating the burdensome Section 280E tax restrictions—major exchanges and brokerages still evaluate compliance, anti-money laundering policies, and federal banking frameworks before approving listings. \[[1](https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/rescheduled-but-not-listed-the-outlook-for-us-cannabis-companies-on-major-exchanges.html), [2](https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/green-thumb-just-made-unprecedented-094500163.html), [3](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/TLRY/pressreleases/3665559/should-you-buy-hold-or-sell-gtbif-stock-post-q2-earnings-release/)\]

Keraxs

Jatt III (JTTT, no warrants/rights) up 14% on debut, as much as 18%, never touched below 10%

hangingconduit

2,533 pages just to confirm the federal government can turn “move weed to Schedule III” into an 11-day courtroom miniseries. Still, the transcript could be useful. especially if it shows DEA’s own record supports rescheduling. but this is procedural progress, not the finish line. Need the judge’s recommendation and then the final rule before popping the champagne.

mfairview

AI Research 1. Final Adult-Use Rescheduling OrderExpected Outcome: Following the public release of the 2,533-page DEA transcript on August 25, 2026, Chief ALJ Derek Julius is highly expected to formally recommend shifting adult-use cannabis to Schedule III. DEA Administrator Terry Cole will then issue the final agency rule. This will effectively eliminate the 280E tax penalty for recreational multi-state operators (MSOs), mimicking the tax relief given to state-licensed medical operators.When to Expect It: Q4 2026 (October – November). Following the closing briefs from designated hearing participants, the administrative transition is expected to conclude before the winter recess. 2. SAFE Banking Act of 2026 (H.R. 9471) Committee VotesExpected Outcome: The bill faces a deeply divided Congress. However, because President Trump explicitly issued an Executive Order backing federal cannabis reclassification, the bill has a high probability of passing out of the House Financial Services and Judiciary Committees. It is expected to clear the House floor but face heavy structural gridlock in the Senate.When to Expect It: November – December 2026. Expect legislative momentum to peak during the post-election "lame duck" congressional session. 3. Decisions on MSO RICO Class-Action DismissalsExpected Outcome: Federal judges in Illinois and Connecticut are reviewing motions to dismiss Murray v. Cresco Labs and Duke v. Curaleaf. The court is expected to deny the MSOs' motions to dismiss. This will force the cases into discovery over whether MSOs illegally marketed recreational items as having clinical, unapproved medical benefits. Concurrently, Palomar Insurance' parallel lawsuits to completely deny policy coverage for these operators will likely proceed, creating a severe capital strain on corporate legal defense budgets.When to Expect It: Q1 2027 (January – March). Federal docket timelines for complex multi-party RICO actions typically rule on initial motions to dismiss within 6 to 9 months of their initial mid-2026 filing dates. 4. 2018 Farm Bill Hemp Loophole ClosureExpected Outcome: The enforcement date to officially close the structural loophole on unregulated hemp-derived cannabinoids will take effect. This is expected to instantly wipe out nearly 95% of existing synthetically derived or high-THC hemp products from gas stations and bodegas nationwide, consolidating the consumer market directly back into heavily regulated, state-licensed dispensaries.When to Expect It: November 12, 2026 (Locked-in regulatory effective date).

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.

jerome-yellen

BREAKING: CIA Director John Ratcliffe was onboard a US Air Force C-17A Globemaster III that landed early Tuesday at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport for the first unannounced CIA Director visit in nearly 5 years, for high-level meetings with Russian officials, per CBS News.

Few_Recognition202

All five of those are operators, not licensors. They literally own factories, inventory and stores. That's what's killing them, not the brand. The licensing model exists precisely to separate the trademark from that cost base. Brooks Brothers, Forever 21 and Barneys all went bankrupt and the IP still sold for real money afterward. You're right that royalties track licensee sales, so a bad cycle at G-III would hit the Halston line. Fair point and worth watching. But "operating companies with brands are struggling" isn't the same claim as "brands are worthless."

EvillNooB

Vera Rubin in Q4 2027 will probably be what Pentium III was to Pe

stuenkes

**Ursa Major Technologies enters into business combination agreement with Bleichroeder Acquisition Corp. III (BCCQ) (BCCQW)**

PaperHandsTheDip

If anyone wonders why I play this game - greedisgood was my favorite cheat code in Warcraft III

Outlier_Economist

They didn’t stop the mRNA trial. The readout is a planned readout and the trial is continuing. From the PR: “At a pre-specified interim analysis, intismeran in combination with KEYTRUDA as adjuvant therapy demonstrated statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in RFS and DMFS compared to KEYTRUDA alone for patients with completely resected stage IIB, IIC, III or IV cutaneous melanoma who had not undergone prior treatment with systemic therapy. In accordance with the trial protocol, the study will continue in order to evaluate other key secondary endpoints, including overall survival (OS).” https://www.morningstar.com/news/business-wire/20260819675697/merck-and-moderna-announce-phase-3-interpath-001-trial-of-intismeran-autogene-plus-keytruda-met-endpoints-of-recurrence-free-survival-rfs-and-distant-metastasis-free-survival-dmfs-in-patients-with-completely-resected-stage-iib-iv-melanoma