More

The DEA just wrote a letter to Congress about marijuana. It's a big deal.

What might change if the DEA 'reschedules' marijuana.

The DEA just wrote a letter to Congress about marijuana. It's a big deal.

The way state governments treat marijuana has changed a lot over the past decade.

In fact, states with more relaxed marijuana laws now outnumber states with stricter policies. In many states, governments have decriminalized marijuana, legalized the use of the compounds in marijuana for medical purposes, and even legalized weed altogether.

This gives a pretty good look at which states have decriminalized and legalized marijuana, or passed medical marijuana laws. Map from April 2016 via NORML, used with permission.


If you just look at our drug laws on the federal (not the state) level, you won’t see those changes.

According to the federal government, marijuana is still completely illegal. The Drug Enforcement Agency even categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug, part of the group of controlled substances that the DEA deems most dangerous.

But the DEA just sent a letter to Congress suggesting that the winds of change are blowing.

Lawmakers and activist groups have been asking the DEA to assign marijuana to a different schedule group for a while, and according to the new letter, they're about to act on that request.

"[The] DEA understands the widespread interest in the prompt resolution of these petitions and hopes to release its determination in the first half of 2016," the letter stamped April 4, 2016, reads.

Something tells me this plant isn't as dangerous as the DEA thinks it is. Photo via Wikimedia Commons.

"But ... wait," you may be thinking. "We're in the first half of 2016." If a federal change happens, it's happening soon. Here's what you need to know about what the new rules could mean:

A lot of people disagree with drug scheduling because it seems pretty random.

Back in the 1970s, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act, which created five classifications for drugs based on their potential for abuse, medical usefulness, and potential safety. According to the DEA, drugs that belong in Schedule I are the ones you definitely don't want to mess with. Schedule I substances supposedly have a high potential for abuse, no "currently accepted medical use," and are generally unsafe.

But here's the big problem: Lots of people disagree with the way the DEA and the FDA scheduled drugs in the '70s. Heroin, which is in Schedule I, was behind more than 17,000 fatal overdoses last year while marijuana hasn't caused a single fatal overdose in, well, recorded history. However, they're both in the same scheduling category.

Also, given that doctors in many states now prescribe cannabis and its chemical compounds to treat conditions like depression, arthritis, and epilepsy, there are plenty of reasons to take marijuana off the mega danger zone list.

Why does rescheduling matter that much?

One word: research.

It's really, really, really, REALLY hard to research marijuana if you're a scientist in the United States because the government heavily restricts research on Schedule I drugs. It's kind of a catch-22: We don't have many clinical trials involving marijuana, so we have limited knowledge about its medical uses and abuse potential, and it stays in Schedule I.

But according to the letter, "We [the DEA] support research on marijuana and its components that complies with applicable laws and regulations to advance our understanding about the health risks and potential therapeutic benefits of medications using marijuana or its components or derivatives."

Bottom line, rescheduling marijuana means that we would know a lot more about that little green plant, what it does, and how to use it safely. Which is important, since people in lots of states have started using the substance more freely in recent years.

Rescheduling marijuana could also mean big changes for our criminal justice system, too.

Photo via A7nubis/Wikimedia Commons.

Even if the DEA reschedules marijuana, that doesn't mean the government is going to fully decriminalize it any time soon. Thousands of people (and disproportionately people of color) are arrested for marijuana possession each year — often outpacing arrests for violent crimes.

Rescheduling could also put us closer to the FDA approving marijuana as a "safe and effective drug" with legal uses, though. Ultimately, criminal justice reform is going to take some time ... and a lot more cooperation from Congress. But this is a good start.

No matter what happens with the schedule, though, this conversation is important for a lot of reasons.

The DEA might end up keeping marijuana in the category of drugs that are even more dangerous than cocaine, meth, and steroids, but it's important that they're at least having real, nuanced discussions about cannabis. This whole thing proves that we’re moving forward, which is a good progress by any standard.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
True

Glenda moved to Houston from Ohio just before the pandemic hit. She didn't know that COVID-19-related delays would make it difficult to get her Texas driver's license and apply for unemployment benefits. She quickly found herself in an impossible situation — stranded in a strange place without money for food, gas, or a job to provide what she needed.

Alone, hungry, and scared, Glenda dialed 2-1-1 for help. The person on the other end of the line directed her to the Houston-based nonprofit Bread of Life, founded by St. John's United Methodist pastors Rudy and Juanita Rasmus.

For nearly 30 years, Bread of Life has been at the forefront of HIV/AIDS prevention, eliminating food insecurity, providing permanent housing to formerly homeless individuals and disaster relief.

Glenda sat in her car for 20 minutes outside of the building, trying to muster up the courage to get out and ask for help. She'd never been in this situation before, and she was terrified.

When she finally got out, she encountered Eva Thibaudeau, who happened to be walking down the street at the exact same time. Thibaudeau is the CEO of Temenos CDC, a nonprofit multi-unit housing development also founded by the Rasmuses, with a mission to serve Midtown Houston's homeless population.

Keep Reading Show less

Empathy. Compassion. Heart-to-heart human connection. These qualities of leadership may not be flashy or loud, but they speak volumes when we see them in action.

A clip of Joe Biden is going viral because it reminds us what that kind of leadership looks like. The video shows a key moment at a memorial service for Chris Hixon, the athletic director at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida in 2018. Hixon had attempted to disarm the gunman who went on a shooting spree at the school, killing 17 people—including Hixon—and injuring 17 more.

Biden asked who Hixon's parents were as the clip begins, and is directed to his right. Hixon's wife introduces herself, and Biden says, "God love you." As he starts to walk away, a voice off-camera says something and Biden immediately turns around. The voice came from Hixon's son, Corey, and the moments that followed are what have people feeling all their feelings.

Keep Reading Show less
Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash
True

Glenda moved to Houston from Ohio just before the pandemic hit. She didn't know that COVID-19-related delays would make it difficult to get her Texas driver's license and apply for unemployment benefits. She quickly found herself in an impossible situation — stranded in a strange place without money for food, gas, or a job to provide what she needed.

Alone, hungry, and scared, Glenda dialed 2-1-1 for help. The person on the other end of the line directed her to the Houston-based nonprofit Bread of Life, founded by St. John's United Methodist pastors Rudy and Juanita Rasmus.

For nearly 30 years, Bread of Life has been at the forefront of HIV/AIDS prevention, eliminating food insecurity, providing permanent housing to formerly homeless individuals and disaster relief.

Glenda sat in her car for 20 minutes outside of the building, trying to muster up the courage to get out and ask for help. She'd never been in this situation before, and she was terrified.

When she finally got out, she encountered Eva Thibaudeau, who happened to be walking down the street at the exact same time. Thibaudeau is the CEO of Temenos CDC, a nonprofit multi-unit housing development also founded by the Rasmuses, with a mission to serve Midtown Houston's homeless population.

Keep Reading Show less

Pete Buttigieg is having a moment. The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana keeps trending on social media for his incredibly eloquent explanations of issues—so much so that L.A. Times columnist Mary McNamara has dubbed him "Slayer Pete," who excels in "the five-minute, remote-feed evisceration." From his old-but-newly-viral explanation of late-term abortion to his calm calling out of Mike Pence's hypocrisy, Buttigieg is making a name for himself as Biden's "secret weapon" and "rhetorical assassin."

And now he's done it again, this time taking on the 'originalist' view of the Constitution.

Constitutional originalists contend that the original meaning of the words the drafters of the Constitution used and their intention at the time they wrote it are what should guide interpretation of the law. On the flip side are people who see the Constitution as a living document, meant to adapt to the times. These are certainly not the only two interpretive options and there is much debate to be had as to the merits of various approaches, but since SCOTUS nominee Amy Coney Barrett is an originalist, that view is currently part of the public discourse.

Buttigieg explained the problem with originalism in a segment on MSNBC, speaking from what McNamara jokingly called his "irritatingly immaculate kitchen." And in his usual fashion, he totally nails it. After explaining that he sees "a pathway to judicial activism cloaked in judicial humility" in Coney Barrett's descriptions of herself, he followed up with:

Keep Reading Show less

The English language is constantly evolving, and the faster the world changes, the faster our vocabulary changes. Some of us grew up in an age when a "wireless router" would have been assumed to be a power tool, not a way to get your laptop (which wasn't a thing when I was a kid) connected to the internet (which also wasn't a thing when I was a kid, at least not in people's homes).

It's interesting to step back and look at how much has changed just in our own lifetimes, which is why Merriam-Webster's Time Traveler tool is so fun to play with. All you do is choose a year, and it tells you what words first appeared in print that year.

For my birth year, the words "adult-onset diabetes," "playdate," and "ATM" showed up in print for the first time, and yes, that makes me feel ridiculously old.

It's also fun to plug in the years of different people's births to see how their generational differences might impact their perspectives. For example, let's take the birth years of the oldest and youngest members of Congress:

Keep Reading Show less