Biden Announces 'Monumental' Marijuana Rescheduling, DOJ To Take Next Steps - Aurora Cannabis (NASDAQ:ACB), Canopy Gwth (NASDAQ:CGC) - Benzinga
By: Maureen Meehan (Benzinga)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Loading...Loading...
President Joe Biden announced on Thursday that his administration is officially moving to reschedule marijuana under federal law, while praising what he called a "monumental" step.
"Today my administration took a major step to reclassify marijuana from a schedule one drug to a schedule three drug. It's an important move toward reversing long-standing inequities. Today's announcement builds on the work we've already done, and it adds to the action we've taken to lift barriers to housing, employment, small business loans and so much more for tens of thousands of Americans," Biden said.
Justice Dept. On The Move
The Justice Department is expected to post its proposed rules to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in the Federal Register, a senior administration official said on Thursday. A 60-day public comment period will follow.
"Look folks, no one should be in jail for merely using or possessing marijuana. Period," the president said. "Far too many lives have been upended because of a failed approach to marijuana and I'm committed to righting those wrongs. You have my word on it."
The White House announcement comes several weeks after the Department of Justice confirmed the DEA was moving to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug.
Cannabis Stocks Rose On The News
Following the historic announcement, cannabis stocks quickly reacted with AdvisorShares Pure US Cannabis ETFMSOS trading up 7.54% at $10.34 per share at the time of writing. Another marijuana ETF, AdvisorShares Pure CannabisYOLO, was up 5.41% at $4.4 per share.
Loading...Loading...
Popular weed giants, Canopy Growth CGC Aurora Cannabis ACB were trading 15.35% higher at $11.43 per share and 11.10% at $7.91 per share, respectfully.
Curaleaf HoldingsCURLF was slightly up, trading 5.98% higher at $5.95 per share, and one of the biggest cannabis players in Canada and the US, TilrayTLRY was trading just a bit higher or $6.75% with $2.21 per share.
The 19th Benzinga Cannabis Capital Conference, returns to Chicago this Oct. 8-9. Get your tickets now before prices surge by following this link.
Now Read: Mike Tyson's Cannabis Products Available In 'Even More Dispensaries' In Colorado Via New Partnership, Here's Where To Find Them
Image created using artificial intelligence via Midjourney and Shutterstock photo.
Loading...Loading...Market News and Data brought to you by Benzinga APIs
© 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.
Trolling, taunting, spamming, and off topic comments may be removed at the discretion of group mods. NT members that vote up their own comments, repeat comments, or continue to disrupt the conversation risk having all of their comments deleted. Please remember to quote the person(s) to whom you are replying to preserve continuity of this seed.
No Trump, Fascism References, Memes, Source Dissing.
Tags
Who is online
41 visitors
"I like to pander, Pandering maaaan. I got to pander, Pandering man"
This timing, and Biden's own past statements , make this obliviously true. I will say it was inevitable though. The dominoes have been falling since CO legalized... How much will big business put pressure on states now that haven't legalized yet?
“…inevitable…”
….just as the repeal of prohibition was inevitable. Lots of federal money to be garnered, and as always…follow the money.
Yup.
Once they legalize it-- they can tax it!
[✘]
Maybe Joe can just have Marc Elias give everyone who votes for him $100.
Sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll. Wasn't that the Democrat triad during the 1970s -- when Biden was first elected to the Senate? Biden was too old to be cool when being cool was a thing.
Gateway drug users all across the US are rejoicing- as are the drug dealers- who can still sell cheaper than the legal dispensaries.
With possession no longer being a jailable crime- what do they have to lose?
Illegal drugs are yet illegal. That is, illegal 'dispensaries' (dealers) operating outside the boundaries of the law will result in fines, arrest, and imprisonment. The government will allow sales to the public. . .not people selling 'street' drugs. Personal use will be fine. Selling in 'x' quantities will not be permitted! At least that is how I see the Justice department doing this.
It is time for the fearmongering just to control another human's freedom to end. Non-smokers of marijuana can go about their business and be none the worst off for what weed smokes are doing to/for themselves.
Finally, cigarette smoking is dangerous and no one calls it a 'gateway' drug to higher social accompaniment to an alcoholic cocktail.
That is, illegal 'dispensaries' (dealers) operating outside the boundaries of the law will result in fines, arrest, and imprisonment
Well that's the way it was before it was legal-- and that's the way it will continue to be after its legal.
As for gateway drug use. . . 'weed' smokers are not interested in pills and the like. . . or 'Crack' or any such thing. Furthermore, 'gateway' drug users have been taking stronger drugs anyway—illegally. That is the point of separating marijuana users from that 'pack' of folks. Note, other drugs are not reclassified and remain classified "as they were."
I've knownnmany "weed smokers" who also did other drugs.
Heck, I was one of them. I used to smoke Cannabis. Did Hashish, I also tried Peyote, MDMA (that was before it was called "Ecstasy"), Cocaine, and possibly some others I have forgotten. Actually Cocaine was one of my favouites, but I stopped after a while because I knew of the dangers...
And of course beer, wine, Scotch (at college changed from Scotch to Bourbon-- had to be "politically correct". natch).
Oh-- I forgot-- you mentioned pills. I used to do Quaaludes -- both the "pharmies" and the knockoffs.
Now I occasionally have a mixed drink when visiting friends-- but that's rare. I don't touch any recreational drugs at all-- and when I do drink when alone I may have one glass of wine once or twice/week.
But to say that smokers don't do other drugs-- what makes you so sure you know what everyone else does?
There are always exceptions to the rule-people like yourself. (And you are not alone, I have done my share of drugs too.) However, I am talking about 'now' that drugs are legal and from what I see young people are ditching some of those other drugs. . . to be legal. (It's a beautiful thing in that sense.)
Let's just put it this way,. . . marijuana is being made legal for 'all' who wish to indulge it safely. People of a certain age with various age-related medical problems can benefit from the properties of marijuana in ways they can not from some of the stronger stuff. So it is advisable to be smart about not doing the 'gateway thing' for them. As for the younger people-not all people like 'uppers and downers" in their state of being high unless they want to be 'f-ked up,' and suffer from a literal addiction (that is more burdensome to carry through life than a 'joint' habit.
Actually there's a lot of research going on re: possible legit medical uses of psychedelics (things like LSD, Ibogaine, many others).
I have seen some stories and television presentations about it. I think it is interesting and will be more so once all the science is properly considered.
Full Disclosure: I own shares of Mindmed stock.
Disclaimer: This is a highly speculative stock, I am not advising purchasing shares of this company. Investing in these sorts of stocks may result in the lost of some or all of your invested capital.
Stop with the puritan BS, please. Did you know coffee is considered a gateway drug? Alcohol? Tobacco? They are. Do you want to ban those things? I doubt it.
Should we just lock people up and throw away the key if they consume anything that might alter their body chemistry, no matter how mildly?
I wonder-- don't some people use the term "Gateway drug" to imply that once a person starts using some "milder" drug (cannabis, or even beer)-- that leads to to stuff like Crack Cocaine, etc. It seems to me that using the term "Gateway Drugs" implies the speaker believes that people don't have free will.
It has always kind of struck me as a BS 20/20 hindsight pseudoscience. You get someone whose addiction is destroying their life, and you trace back their life to the fact that they used to smoke cannabis. Ergo, smoking pot leads to a relentless heroin epidemic.
Of course this doesn’t account for the millions of people who smoke pot and never do anything more serious than that.
This is the crux of the argument, not all or 'many' drug users bother to try an assortment or plethora of drugs or care for 'mixing' highs-individuals will 'shop' for their drug of choice and settle on it for their own unique set of circumstances. People who promulgate, package, and promote 'bad news' drug use are after promoting their own purposes or group agenda first and foremost seeking to stop 'all' from getting out of the proverbial box(es) which someone or group thinks we all should exist.
That is, what such people do is share fear-mongering propaganda techniques and tactics which they have found to work at keeping others in line with their worldview (and not their own). Similar to what we see with the prolife movement which grifts and makes money and careers off promoting a supposed "culture of life" though evidence proves that once a life is brought into this world-prolife interests in said life wanes.
Of course, finding and printing the most negative and drug defeatists 'cases' to exploit helps with spreading the negative messaging and giving it 'stickability' too.
I dunno.
Based on some of the comments here-- some people might want to ban some of those things!
They will actually lose some business.
(Some people will continue to buy from illegal dealers because its cheaper, but some will stop buying from illegal sources and be willing to pay a little more to buy it legally).
As long as no one forces me or others to partake there's no harm
Well various governments at various times forced people-- or perhaps more accurately put a lot of pressure on people-- to have Covid shots and other vaccines. (This is not meant to be a judgement-- its just an observation.).
Am I supposed to applaud? What took so long? This is literally decades overdue.
No, it's worse than that. It should have never happened in the first place. This intoxicating substance wasn't part of the dominant white culture, so it was easily outlawed. All you need to do to see the contrast is look at how we have treated alcohol and tobacco, both of which are objectively more harmful than cannabis.
And golly, as a nation we have not even begin the discussion about processed foods and the damaging effects of a lifetime of that. . . 'stuff'! Processed foods are a generational curse that still is going on. . . . Alas, it's "Liberty."
One could argue changing it's place on the schedule is too little too late. This move doesn't legalize marijuana. It only changes the DoJ's priority on it. It will make it easier on labs to study it which, I think is a good thing.
Remember when there were ads like this on TV?
BTW, if anyone wants to learn how dangerous alcohol can be (to some addiction prone people--- because there are many people that can drink without having problems)-- and if you're a curious person-- I highly recommend going to an AA ("Alcoholics Anonymous") meeting. I've been to a few-- I learned a lot!
If not AA, there are many other types of these anti-addiction meetings. (They are all part of the same type of program-- its called "the Twelve Step Program").
There's Debtor's Anonymous, Cocaine Users Anonymous, Overeaters Anonymous, etc.
Now I'm curious. Do they still teach History in the public schools?
Perhaps they merely omit certain minor details?
Apparently many people are unaware of what happened during Prohibition (???). Because during Prohibition the use of Alcohol was "limited by the government"-nor was it "regulated".
Rather it was totally forbidden!!!
The Prohibition era was the period from 1920 to 1933 when the United States prohibited the production, importation, transportation and sale of alcoholic beverages . [1]
The alcohol industry was curtailed by a succession of state legislatures, and finally ended nationwide under the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution , ratified on January 16, 1919
Not only was it illegal-- but we actually passed an Amendment to the Constitution!
I think it is about time.
I'm interested to see how some states where it's currently illegal handle it, likely controlled and taxed like booze and tobacco.
Businesses like bars will be interesting to see if it's allowed in the establishments. But most of those are non smoking now, some do have outside smoking areas if they have the room and conform to local ordinances for outside drinking.
I'm curious as to how employers will handle it.
Won't matter for me , even if I were not totally retiring this year , I still hold a CDL class A, I would still have to be able to pass a piss test, and companies will still have to get the vehicle insurance, and they get discounts if they drug test regularly.
So I doubt very much will change on that front.
Our policy required a person to be sober while on the job. This includes impairment caused by alcohol and drugs.
Drunks can’t be drunk and stoners can’t be stoned. The problem lies within testing. Testing BAC is much easier and quicker than most drugs tests.
And that is why I do not partake of the devil's lettuce, those I know that do understand that I won't risk losing my lic over even just a casual secondhand contact, thanks to fed regulations , if I lose my CDL I lose the right to drive anything , even a car , the lics are no longer seperate like they use to be. So a hot piss test means I'm on foot, and there are no exemptions.
As it should be. Shit you’re operating and much of what use in constructions needs a sober mind to operate safely. People do enough stupid shit while sober. No need to exacerbate it worse with wasted staff.
Most legalized states have specific jobs that can still be employer tested. Otherwise employees are protected for what they do on their off time.
But what if they smoke just before work (on their off time) and come into work high? Should that be a right that is "protected"?
Yes-- and there have been warnings, down through the ages, about partaking of such evils.. Here's one for your listening pleasure!
):
MARIJUANA, THE DEVIL'S FLOWER BY MR. SUNSHINE
May I? Coming/going to work high is unprofessional. That is, no one pays for unprofessional behavior when it is found out to be the case.
I'm not sure if I'm ready to grant permission yet.
Let me think about it for a while and i'll get back to you.
No one?
I would imagine that many stoners would argue that smoking Cannabis doesn't cause any "impairment", and that these requirements are a result of a Fascistic government infringing on their rights!
I’m sure they would but they would wrong. Impairment on a job site is a safety concern. And as we strive to make the work place safer, is absolutely counterproductive to achieving that goal.
No debate required.
I'm more of a Jim Stafford generation and his tune , the Wildwood weed.
Do try to understand what I am taking time to share here, please.
As a general rule, most governments tax whatever they can...
(And raise taxes, over time . . . as much as they can).
I've read that there are some unique difficulties for those business owners. I heard about this a while back, it may have changed.
For example, while while its currently non-criminalized in certain states, while its still legal on the Federal level-- banks don't want to deal with these business for fear of government repercussions.
So store owners can't just go to the bank every day and deposit the proceeds. So what to do? Well, they have an armored truck come by every day at the close of business to take the money to a safe, (This is a major expense).
Ever hear of civil forfeiture? The feds and the state can use that .
Though the state may decriminalize or legalize something, another government entity can keep it illegal, and anything connected can be seized and kept by the government and disposed of at their discretion.
Large sums of cash with no paper trails are generally assumed to have been gained through illegal activity. It gets turned around to instead of them having to prove that's the case, the person with the money has to prove it wasn't.
Can that be done without bank records or a paper trail?
Why didn't he do this when he first took over? Is he doing it now for election help?
I have a theory about such things.
Bear with me here, I think there are issues that could be simply resolved if people have simple honest discussions, but politicians get involved.
And some issues that can be easily solved are held back in a way and only approached by those politicians when it is in their best interests. Kind of like the fire axes in the glass cases in the hallway , big sign on them , break glass in case of emergency only.
And it's the politician that determines when to break the glass and what constitutes an emergency about the issue.
Some say follow the money, I think timing has and plays a part in things as well.
I agree. There are ideal moments and then there are 'essential' moments, and politicians like the rest of us are 'left' to pick their moments based on a number of considerations and factors.
Of course he is. No doubt.