Wouldn't it have been easier, more efficient and less expensive for all the states that legalized pot to petition their states' Congressional representatives to change the federal law -- i.e. remove marijuana from the list of Schedule I drugs under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970?

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), determine which substances are added to/removed from the various schedules, although the statute passed by Congress created the initial listing.

Cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, determined to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, prohibiting its use for any purpose.

38 states, 4 out of 5 permanently inhabited U.S. territories, and the federal District of Columbia (D.C.) all have laws permitting the medical use of marijuana.  Sounds like there just might be a flaw in classifying it as having "no accepted medical use" when over 76% of the states, territories and DC say otherwise.

With such an overwhelming majority, it seems there should have been a push among those states to change the law nationally.

Just sayin'.

With such an overwhelming majority, it seems there should have been a push among those states to change the law nationally.

Just sayin'.

This ship turns slower than an oil tanker

illegaler...

https://www.hawaiinewsnow.com/2023/11/18/hawaii-attorney-general-issues-clear-roadmap-legalizing-recreational-marijuana/

it's all about money.
You can do whatever you want as long as you pay the state for your pleasure.
Just like cigarettes.
They would make us pay to shoot guns too if it weren't for that pesky 2nd amendment.

Makes the sheeple easier to control.

More revenue.  Are they going to do a Social Impact Study?  Of course not.  There's no money in that.

 

I hope the AG is also working on more important issues.  Like crime.

The State has been against and resisting this for years.
Finally they are starting to bend at the knee.

it's all about money.
You can do whatever you want as long as you pay the state for your pleasure.
Just like cigarettes.
They would make us pay to shoot guns too if it weren't for that pesky 2nd amendment.

If the feds remove it from the Schedule I list, the states can still tax it.

It's not like they are taxing a civil right -- you know, like firearms and ammo.

More revenue.  Are they going to do a Social Impact Study?  Of course not.  There's no money in that.

 

I hope the AG is also working on more important issues.  Like crime.

If they legalize a statutory crime, it follows that the crime stats will improve, too.

Win-win!   

Turbo cancer from the clot shots is on the rise and mmj is exceptional for palliative care without the hefty price tag or nasty side effects of big pharma poison painkillers.

Studies have shown cbds can actually help prevent cancer, but the turbo versions popping up now are so fast that by the time it's diagnosed there's only weeks or months at best.

Turbo cancer from the clot shots is on the rise and mmj is exceptional for palliative care without the hefty price tag or nasty side effects of big pharma poison painkillers.

Studies have shown cbds can actually help prevent cancer, but the turbo versions popping up now are so fast that by the time it's diagnosed there's only weeks or months at best.

"turbo" cancer?

"turbo" cancer?

Yeah a bunch of the batches were contaminated with strange particles. Manufacturing process was totally rushed and safety protocols ignored. They figured they could get away with it because of the Emergency Use Authorization that gives them a liability shield.

Try booking an appointment at an oncology center. They are totally slammed and chemo drugs are in short supply. MJ might be the only hope for relief for the majority of patients if the trend accelerates.

 

Turbo cancer is an anti-vaccination myth centred on the idea that people
vaccinated against COVID-19, especially with mRNA vaccines, are suffering
from a high incidence of fast-developing cancers. The myth, spread by a
number of vaccine opponents and related influencers including doctors,
has no factual basis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_cancer

Yeah a bunch of the batches were contaminated with strange particles. Manufacturing process was totally rushed and safety protocols ignored. They figured they could get away with it because of the Emergency Use Authorization that gives them a liability shield.

Try booking an appointment at an oncology center. They are totally slammed and chemo drugs are in short supply. MJ might be the only hope for relief for the majority of patients if the trend accelerates.

Maybe the problem with packed oncology centers and limited supplies has more to do with people avoiding doctors visits during the pandemic -- when many are diagnosed early during routine exams.  And the supply problem is the same as for firearm parts, car parts, etc, etc.  Trucking is suffering a number of problems which interferes with supply chain delivery.  Manufacturers are backlogged still from the pandemic as workers and raw materials were hard to find.  Also, if the incidence of cancer diagnoses rises, that would have an impact on available therapeutic medicines.  Chemo drugs have a short shelf life and require refrigeration.  I don't think they produce 5 years worth at a time -- just in case there's a hgher than anticipated demand.

I feel like there are more obvious and reasonable explanations for the anecdotal issues you raised other than a vaccine-created "turbo cancer."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbo_cancer

Wikipedia is pay for play

Wikipedia is pay for play

Is that an argument?  Or are you just deflecting from the information I shared?

Wikipedia has more good info than bad, especially since you can do a deep dive using the footnotes for the articles.  For example:

Gorski, David (19 December 2022). "Do COVID-19 vaccines cause "turbo cancer"?". Science-Based Medicine.
 "False claims persist about COVID-19 vaccine-linked "turbo cancers"". Public Health Communication Collaborative (PHCC). 2023-08-18. Retrieved 5 October 2023.
 "Fact Check-No evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause 'turbo cancer'". Reuters. Reuters. 14 December 2022.
 "COVID-19 Vaccines and People with Cancer - NCI". www.cancer.gov. 10 February 2021.
 Seneff, Stephanie; Nigh, Greg; Kyriakopoulos, Anthony M.; McCullough, Peter A. (June 2022). "Innate immune suppression by SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccinations: The role of G-quadruplexes, exosomes, and MicroRNAs". Food and Chemical Toxicology. 164: 113008. doi:10.1016/j.fct.2022.113008. PMC 9012513. PMID 35436552.
 Morris, Jeffrey (21 April 2022). "Does McCullough's paper really "establish a mechanistic framework" for mRNA vaccine harm?". Covid-19 Data Science.
 Yandell, Kate (31 August 2023). "COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Cause 'Turbo Cancer'". FactCheck.org.
 "Paper does not prove Pfizer mRNA vaccine causes 'turbo cancer'". Fact Check. AFP. 21 July 2023.
 "Claim linking Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, cancer in mouse distorts study | Fact check". USA TODAY.

If you take the first one in the list:

There is no such thing as “turbo cancer”

Unsurprisingly, “turbo cancer” isn’t a thing. Oncologists don’t recognize it as a
phenomenon, nor do cancer biologists, and if you search for it on PubMed, you
won’t find a reference to it. Basically, it’s a clever term coined by antivaxxers to
scare you into thinking that COVID-19 vaccines will give you cancer, or at least
greatly increase your risk of developing cancer. The “evidence” marshaled to
support the concept consists of the usual misinformation techniques used by
antivaxxers: citing anecdotes, wild speculation about biological mechanisms without
a firm basis in biology, and conflating correlation with causation, no matter how much
one must squint to see it.

Unfortunately, “turbo cancer” is also too frightening and pithy of a term to go away
any time soon. I expect antivaxxers to be using it for years to come, perhaps for the
rest of my life.

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-covid-19-vaccines-cause-turbo-cancer/

That's not a paid-for Wikipedia source.  It's a separate source that was used to add to the wiki article.

Is that an argument?  Or are you just deflecting from the information I shared?

Wikipedia has more good info than bad, especially since you can do a deep dive using the footnotes for the articles.  For example:

If you take the first one in the list:https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/do-covid-19-vaccines-cause-turbo-cancer/

That's not a paid-for Wikipedia source.  It's a separate source that was used to add to the wiki article.

If you trust your life to the editors at wikipedia that's fine with me. By all means go right ahead.

Wikipedia is pay for play

Ukranian Nazi's? What did I miss?