|
Yeah, it needs a noticeable change in more DEA business than just the Schedules to have a noticeable effect. I don't think DEA would rush to make those changes, but I could see the same pressures that brought about this news also being working on those changes as well. Otherwise, your health care provider that already has a DEA registration could sell you weed and still get to use a bank, but I don't think that's the solution that any large chunk of people is looking for.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 20:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Always wondered, do fed background checks look for medical cards or dispensary purchases? Or do they focus more on like, foreign contacts and unexplained money?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 20:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Is there a test for marijuana intoxication? The only tests are for whether you've used it in the past however long, month(s). You play the theme song from Conan's "In the Year 2000" bit and see how much they giggle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 21:31
|
|
|
So, you can see what type of stuff they ask about drugs specifically starting on page 102 (as it's numbered on the document) of the SF-86 here https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf Everyone has to fill that out, from the lowest to highest clearance levels. If it's something in your medical records, they won't see it unless you sign a medical release, which they only ask you to do up front if you answer "yes" to a question of whether or not you've been declared by a court to be mentally incompetent for whatever reason. It can be a somewhat dangerous gambit to lie about something on the SF-86 and hope that they don't find out one way or another, because it's like the old saying about the cover-up being worse than the crime, you'd be way worse off if they find out you're lying about past or current drug use than if you just tell them directly. Ultimately, until weed is fully considered to not be an illegal drug at the federal level, it would technically be a mark against you if you use it and tell them about it, but it might not immediately disqualify you. But, practically speaking, they're also not going to move heaven and earth to try to uncover someone's secret weed habit, either.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 21:38
|
|
|
single-mode fiber posted:So, you can see what type of stuff they ask about drugs specifically starting on page 102 (as it's numbered on the document) of the SF-86 here https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86.pdf Everyone has to fill that out, from the lowest to highest clearance levels. If it's something in your medical records, they won't see it unless you sign a medical release, which they only ask you to do up front if you answer "yes" to a question of whether or not you've been declared by a court to be mentally incompetent for whatever reason. It can be a somewhat dangerous gambit to lie about something on the SF-86 and hope that they don't find out one way or another, because it's like the old saying about the cover-up being worse than the crime, you'd be way worse off if they find out you're lying about past or current drug use than if you just tell them directly. Ultimately, until weed is fully considered to not be an illegal drug at the federal level, it would technically be a mark against you if you use it and tell them about it, but it might not immediately disqualify you. But, practically speaking, they're also not going to move heaven and earth to try to uncover someone's secret weed habit, either. This. Different agencies have different rules about marijuana usage and when it will/won't disqualify you from federal employment. As an example, both the FBI and CIA have recently loosened their rules on marijuana usage for prospective employees - now you can't have used it within the past 1 year, as opposed to 3 or 5 years or whatever the previous standard was. I'd be willing to bet the NSA and other intelligence agencies are in the same boat, especially if you work in their cyber divisions. Lying about it is far worse (assuming you get caught), however, because that shows a baseline level of being untrustworthy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 21:46
|
|
|
Does this mean that the few lovely holdout states that have no form of legal weed like Idaho and Texas now have to allow medical? I'm not aware of any other schedule III drug that's illegal in certain states.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
so texas is in kind of a weird spot with weed, they did some ag bill in 2019 that legalized hemp below a certain thc percentage. they later outlawed smoking hemp altogether but there are dispensaries everywhere and you can buy all kinds of gummies and edibles. delta 8 is also legal here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 22:53
|
|
|
L. Ron DeSantis posted:Does this mean that the few lovely holdout states that have no form of legal weed like Idaho and Texas now have to allow medical? I'm not aware of any other schedule III drug that's illegal in certain states. It doesn't force states to make medical marijuana legal. If you get a prescription for weed, there is an FDA approved weed product for your condition, and an online pharmacy that registers as a schedule III provider with the DEA, then you could get medical weed mailed to your house in Texas or Idaho. However, states are still free to ban medical dispensaries from opening in their border if they want. The FDA is allowed to study and evaluate weed for medicinal purposes and approve marijuana products for medical use after this change, but it will probably take a while before marijuana itself is FDA approved. Edit: There is apparently already one single FDA approved drug that uses ingredients derived from marijuana. It is for treating seizures. Marijuana itself and THC have never been FDA approved for any medical condition (because they weren't allowed to as a schedule I drug). https://www.fda.gov/news-events/public-health-focus/fda-and-cannabis-research-and-drug-approval-process Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:02
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:so texas is in kind of a weird spot with weed, they did some ag bill in 2019 that legalized hemp below a certain thc percentage. they later outlawed smoking hemp altogether but there are dispensaries everywhere and you can buy all kinds of gummies and edibles. delta 8 is also legal here. I believe it's legal, but you need a prescription under the compassionate use program. It's not a card - you can't just go to any dispensary and show it to them. That said, I think the doctors doing it are usually affiliated with a dispensary and it's basically telemedicine, tell them you have one of the conditions covered (including anxiety and PTSD), get your script, and then you can go buy. A buddy of mine is doing it and thinks it's great - not as great as being legal, but simple and straightforward enough. I'm also not sure how the THC limit interacts with edibles, the websites I'm seeing just advertise the total content of THC both per gummy and per total package - the same as I've seen in states where recreational use is legal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:18
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:so texas is in kind of a weird spot with weed, they did some ag bill in 2019 that legalized hemp below a certain thc percentage. they later outlawed smoking hemp altogether but there are dispensaries everywhere and you can buy all kinds of gummies and edibles. delta 8 is also legal here. this makes some members of the legislature very angry but they're having some trouble convincing other members of the legislature to turn down the giant cartoon bags of hemp money
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:19
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:I believe it's legal, but you need a prescription under the compassionate use program. It's not a card - you can't just go to any dispensary and show it to them. That said, I think the doctors doing it are usually affiliated with a dispensary and it's basically telemedicine, tell them you have one of the conditions covered (including anxiety and PTSD), get your script, and then you can go buy. A buddy of mine is doing it and thinks it's great - not as great as being legal, but simple and straightforward enough. i don't know the ins and outs because i work in a field that drug tests but there are like three dispensaries within a mile of my house. there is a chain of them here called the THC club lol. these are not catering to people with medical weed. sever people i know definitely don't have any sort of condition or prescription and they buy edibles all the time lol.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:29
|
|
|
LA's got consumption bars opening up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:32
|
|
|
Is breeding weed to be strong but not smell a thing? With it being more and more legal (especially in my state) I smell it in cars driving past me every single day multiple times a day. Like ideally I think people who smoke and drive should be thrown the book but practically that's just gonna invite selective reinforcement, perhaps with a paper bag test. But if weed is being more legal I would imagine that it might be good if breeders start trying to tone down the smell a bit so people 20ft around you can't smell it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:34
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:i don't know the ins and outs because i work in a field that drug tests but there are like three dispensaries within a mile of my house. there is a chain of them here called the THC club lol. these are not catering to people with medical weed. sever people i know definitely don't have any sort of condition or prescription and they buy edibles all the time lol. It seems like edibles are legal in Texas, but they have to have a very low THC level. quote:As long as CBD edibles contain less than 0.3% THC, they remain legal to possess or sell in Texas. That's like 1/30th the amount of THC an edible typically has for getting high recreationally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:42
|
|
|
hemp based THC edibles in Texas can get you high as balls though
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:46
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It seems like edibles are legal in Texas, but they have to have a very low THC level. I'm looking at a page right now advertising this in Texas with multiple locations: quote:0:1 RSO 20 mg Pineapple Gummies (300 mg) 20mg per gummy, 300mg per pack (15 gummies per pack). Not linking because I have no clue what the rules are about that, but those aren't low THC gummies by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:49
|
|
|
Goatse James Bond posted:hemp based THC edibles in Texas can get you high as balls though You gotta qualify for the medical program to get "normal" strength edibles. They had about 12,000 people on it in 2023, which is incredibly low. Florida has 800k on their medical program. Maybe there is a weird loophole or something that allows non-medical people to get normal strength edibles? No idea. Doesn't look like the official medical program is very large or they intend for non-medical people to get access to anything with more than a very low THC content. https://www.axios.com/local/dallas/2023/11/14/texas-original-thc-gummy-edible-medical-cannabis Shooting Blanks posted:I'm looking at a page right now advertising this in Texas with multiple locations: Those are supposedly medical strength. The highest you can legally sell is 30 mg and it is for medicinal patients only. Maybe Texas is having a situation like California in 2004 where a bunch of weed doctors are cranking out prescriptions for people? Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:59 on Apr 30, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:54
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Is breeding weed to be strong but not smell a thing? With it being more and more legal (especially in my state) I smell it in cars driving past me every single day multiple times a day. Like ideally I think people who smoke and drive should be thrown the book but practically that's just gonna invite selective reinforcement, perhaps with a paper bag test. But if weed is being more legal I would imagine that it might be good if breeders start trying to tone down the smell a bit so people 20ft around you can't smell it? Isn't that just using a vape?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It seems like edibles are legal in Texas, but they have to have a very low THC level. From a quick glance, the hemp carve out is similar to the NC one, which has created a market for delta-8 THC, another psychoactive cannabinoid that technically qualifies as less that .3% THC. I’m assuming that (and other poorly regulated synthetic products) are what is being mentioned here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2024 23:59
|
|
|
The loophole right now is THCa anyway. THCa turns into THC when you burn it, and the law only limits THC content or something like that. So you just sell weed with very low THC content but high THCa and viola.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:00
|
|
|
Baronash posted:From a quick glance, the hemp carve out is similar to the NC one, which has created a market for delta-8 THC, another psychoactive cannabinoid that technically qualifies as less that .3% THC. I’m assuming that (and other poorly regulated synthetic products) are what is being mentioned here. Boris Galerkin posted:The loophole right now is THCa anyway. THCa turns into THC when you burn it, and the law only limits THC content or something like that. So you just sell weed with very low THC content but high THCa and viola. Both of these make a lot more sense and would explain the very low medical program count, but large market.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:01
|
|
|
Boris Galerkin posted:Is breeding weed to be strong but not smell a thing? With it being more and more legal (especially in my state) I smell it in cars driving past me every single day multiple times a day. Like ideally I think people who smoke and drive should be thrown the book but practically that's just gonna invite selective reinforcement, perhaps with a paper bag test. But if weed is being more legal I would imagine that it might be good if breeders start trying to tone down the smell a bit so people 20ft around you can't smell it? Yes and no. Some of the smell is from the terpenes in cannabis which are often desirable and bred for. One of the popular genetic breeds which I find in the lineage of many strains present in dispensaries is GMO named for the garlic mushroom onion smell and terpene profile it gets from myrcene. Cannabis consumers and producers are often not going to want to remove this aspect from their cannabis. We like it. Some things though might be changed. I stumbled on this recently and the skunky smell that was previously assumed to be some sort of terpene has been isolated and identified as something not a terpene and this raises the prospects for breeding strains that lack this skunky smelling compound: some pop science article linked below posted:Two independent research groups recently discovered a different type of chemical playing the starring role in marijuana’s distinctly skunky scent – volatile sulphur compounds known as thiols that contain a molecule called 3-methylbut-2-en-1-yl (321MBT). https://www.newscientist.com/article/2399753-why-cannabis-smells-like-skunk-and-how-that-could-soon-change
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:02
|
|
|
Baronash posted:From a quick glance, the hemp carve out is similar to the NC one, which has created a market for delta-8 THC, another psychoactive cannabinoid that technically qualifies as less that .3% THC. I’m assuming that (and other poorly regulated synthetic products) are what is being mentioned here. There's also something I don't fully understand about (allegedly) hemp derived delta 9 THC, but yeah, hemp derived delta 8 is all over the place in "high as balls" edible dosages. It actually is chemically distinct. My understanding is that the extra bonds (?) mean it leads to a longer, slower, mellower high.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:06
|
|
|
lobster shirt posted:so texas is in kind of a weird spot with weed, they did some ag bill in 2019 that legalized hemp below a certain thc percentage. they later outlawed smoking hemp altogether but there are dispensaries everywhere and you can buy all kinds of gummies and edibles. delta 8 is also legal here. Beaten but yeah the hilarious loophole is THCa which literally turns to THC when you burn it. Austin has actual vending machines that sell it and don't even require you to scan an ID. It's basically the wild west in Texas right now as God intended. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
I love the effects of weed but absolutely detest the smell and taste. I would love tasteless/odorless weed that got me just as hosed up
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
Its wild, I was passing through Texas last year for a funeral and in a very conservative area it was now the tupperware party sort of ladies doing MLM meet ups and selling delta gummies. Someone left a card with a gummy taped to it. The suburban ladies finally found a way to enjoy cannabis. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:30
|
|
|
Everyone of my parents hyper conservative rural boomer friends take a gummie at night before bed. It's wild.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:33
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:The reason that mandated Medicaid expansion was overturned by SCOTUS back in the day was bc the ACA was written to withdraw all federal funds unless states accepted the expansion.. I'm not arguing that the Medicaid expansion part of legislation was well written or even all that well-implemented. I was responding to your response to After the War's post: After The War posted:Reminder that people are dying every day because of states refusing the Medicare extensions in the ACA, leading to hospital closure. They have no problems loving over their own citizens. To which you said: Willa Rogers posted:People also dying every day because of the ACA but less than the nos. would be under the AHCA (Trumpcare). The imperfections of the ACA are irrelevant to the argument that Republicans are quite literally killing their residents by refusing to expand Medicaid. The ACA is the law that we do have, and is a law that was barely passed in the first place with a supermajority, and regardless of whether or not states could not be forced to accept Medicaid expansion, the fact remains that Republicans are choosing not to expand Medicaid. Willa Rogers posted:I support expanded Medicaid & would love to see that model used for a single-payer plan--except for two issues: I don't disagree about those points: the privatization is awful, as are clawbacks. Is the purported difference in deaths between Trump's plan and Obamacare almost exclusively Medicaid expansion? Even if so, the 2026 numbers are showing a divergence by a factor of 2 that looks to only grow from there. Also, I'm assuming that this chart is pre-Covid, and given what happened in 2020-2022, almost certainly underestimates the effect of not having Medicaid during Covid. small butter fucked around with this message at 00:38 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:35
|
|
|
D-Pad posted:Beaten but yeah the hilarious loophole is THCa which literally turns to THC when you burn it. Austin has actual vending machines that sell it and don't even require you to scan an ID. It's basically the wild west in Texas right now as God intended. Yeah and THCa weed is like legit actual real weed. I don't live in CA but from what I hear these days even in a fully legal place like CA the weed you're buying at dispensaries are high in THCa and less so THC. E: I just googled "thca provo" cause it's the only city I could remember in Utah and I'm assuming weed is super illegal in Utah but there are shops selling THCa weed there.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:37
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I love the effects of weed but absolutely detest the smell and taste. I would love tasteless/odorless weed that got me just as hosed up Clearly you need to butt-chug your weed. Surely we have the technology!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:45
|
|
|
Rappaport posted:Clearly you need to butt-chug your weed. Surely we have the technology! thc suppository's appear to be a thing if you google search it
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 00:46
|
|
|
small butter posted:Is the purported difference in deaths between Trump's plan and Obamacare almost exclusively Medicaid expansion? As I said, it was a guess. quote:Even if so, the 2026 numbers are showing a divergence by a factor of 2 that looks to only grow from there. Also, I'm assuming that this chart is pre-Covid, and given what happened in 2020-2022, almost certainly underestimates the effect of not having Medicaid during Covid. The 2026 numbers, as with the other years, are cumulative deaths, not deaths per year. The projected ACA total deaths thru 2026 look to be around 320k, while the projected AHCA total deaths thru 2026 appear to be around 540k. That is not a factor of two, but yes: 20 percent or w/e more deaths per year does accumulate over time. It's still hundreds of thousands of people dying under either plan because of being uninsured or underinsured. Funny you should mention the pandemic & Medicaid, bc one of the pandemic-relief programs started under Trump was no-questions-asked/no-income-verification-required Medicaid that led to record numbers of enrollment--but that's now been phased out by most states through a combination of low income threshold for means-testing and administrative snafus (people moving or not filling out the paperwork properly). Here are some charts from KFF showing    More info here at the KFF Medicaid disenrollment tracker. Tens of millions of Americans now have lost their free healthcare under Medicaid, but it was great while we had it (alongside expanded unemployment comp; student-loan & mortgage forbearance; and cash outlays). I've always said that the best aspect of the ACA was the Medicaid expansion (shame about the part that scotus cited), which is why I was mystified that you were questioning my opinion about it. eta: As to your point about mean Republican states that have refused expansion, my point in mentioning scotus was to point out that it was the ACA's tying of the expansion to receiving any Medicaid money at all that killed it for the Court. Baucus et al. could've drafted that part without the all-or-nothing language that was rejected by scotus. I'd also point out that if the ACA had expanded Medicare to replace Medicaid I don't believe that it could've been rejected by the states. For example, Medicare covers gender-affirming healthcare and no matter how Republican a state may be, its leaders & legislatures cannot overturn that coverage. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 01:27 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 01:15
|
|
|
Nissin Cup Nudist posted:I think this was touched on during a previous immigration chat, but as busted as the US system is, I think it's still easier to get into the US compared to Australia/EU/etc if you have no preexisting ties? Not at all, lol. Most developed countries use a points based system for skilled migration that is far more transparent and navigable. The US system is pretty byzantine and capricious by comparison. Source: working with adult ESL students in the US, and having moonwalked into Australian permanent residency on the basis of my age, English ability, and having done a Masters in something on the skilled shortages list a few years ago myself. Didn’t even need a job offer or work experience, although the threshold is higher now and I’d likely need a few years on a work visa (automatically granted after finishing an Australian degree) to gain local work experience and top up my points to the new pass mark. By comparison, ask anyone who immigrated (or is trying to immigrate) to the US for work how they managed. There’s far more uncertainty and pitfalls, it blows my mind how much time and money people risk for what could ultimately get torn away from them at any point in the process. Also, student visas are not allowed to work in the US, which is a definite downside compared to many other countries. One of the only cool and good things about the US immigration system vs the rest of the world IMO is the green card lotto, it should be expanded here and more countries should have similar programs.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 01:21
|
|
|
One of the depressing things about working in public benefits is seeing the current effects of all the "unwinding" of pandemic era programs and knowing that those were things we should be doing at all times as a bare minimum safety net, like the expanded UI that was essentially a UBI and the expanded Medicaid that should just be UHC.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:27
|
|
|
The NYPD is currently raiding a building on Columbia’s campus occupied by peaceful protesters https://twitter.com/_tylerthetyler_/status/1785481755073351810?s=46&t=BHs6Pl38GJXGN2Y4xeriNA
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:37
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:The NYPD is currently raiding a building on Columbia’s campus occupied by peaceful protesters The occupiers renamed the hall "Hind's Hall" after the little Palestinian girl who was murdered along with medical workers in an Israeli strike.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:40
|
|
|
I’m glad that NYC closed their libraries on weekends so that the cops had the money and overtime to do pointless poo poo like this
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 02:42
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:One of the depressing things about working in public benefits is seeing the current effects of all the "unwinding" of pandemic era programs and knowing that those were things we should be doing at all times as a bare minimum safety net, like the expanded UI that was essentially a UBI and the expanded Medicaid that should just be UHC. Yeah, and I think* that's a major (and majorly ignored) reason for the disconnect between voters' sentiments about the economy vs. the "indicators." You don't want to pay $8000/year deductibles for insurance after free healthcare for the last several years? You're missing that $500/month you had instead of paying your student loan? Sounds like someone needs some Visine in those lyin' eyes bc Krugman & Furman say that the economy is terrific right now! (Also, I find "unwinding" to be a particularly odious term; it sounds gentle & slow, unlike the speed & sternness with which medical providers will hunt you down for outstanding payables, e.g.) *Please note that this is my opinion (hence the asterisked phrase), backed up by my subsequent posts on the topic as well as a NYT piece that buttresses the contention that the pandemic relief being taken away has affected people's sense of financial security & opinions about the economy at large. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 05:15 on May 1, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:03
|
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:Yeah, and I think that's a major (and majorly ignored) reason for the disconnect between voters' sentiments about the economy vs. the "indicators." That theory doesn't really square because they say they are personally doing well and "the economy" is doing poorly. During the period where those policies existed they reported they were doing worse financially. It would match if people were reporting that they were personally doing poorly or if they at least reported higher economic confidence in late 2022 vs now.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:21 |
|
|
Willa Rogers posted:You're missing that $500/month you had instead of paying your student loan? Sounds like someone needs some Visine in those lyin' eyes bc Krugman & Furman say that the economy is terrific right now! An absolute goddamn shitload of people have gotten their student loans forgiven and more have had their payments reduced to 5% of discretionary income (read: nothing), and yet we still have this talking point. Even on this specific case, not getting into the polling someone else noted (and people constantly notes) where there's a massive disconnect between perception of personal situation and perception of the economy, your constant refrain of "their lying eyes" is completely ignoring an actual, genuine, serious improvement in people's individual, personal material conditions. Perhaps it is your take on individual material conditions that is wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2024 03:21
|
|