TA-OP said:

---

Congress still needs to undue what they did in the recent legislation reopening the government. Even with rescheduling the federal government will effectively make criminals out of millions that currently use hemp-derived products allowed by the 2018 Farm Bill.

---

This is addressed in the EO, he's compelling Congress to do this very thing.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-is-increasing-medical-marijuana-and-cannabidiol-research/

" The Order directs the White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Legislative, Political, and Public Affairs to work with the Congress to allow Americans to benefit from access to appropriate full-spectrum CBD products while still restricting the sale of products that pose serious health risks."

Additionally, it's not actually rescheduled yet. He's directed the AG to expedite the rescheduling.

Not a shot at you, but it really amazes me how there are so few threads on this website without a direct source and how many people spew assumptive nonsense. Biased politics, I suppose.

The biggest ignorance is what descheduling means.

A schedule I drug is defined as one that has no medical benefit. A doctor cannot prescribe a drug that is Schedule I without endangering his license to practice. In states that it is decriminalized for medical use, a doctor is simply saying that you meet the conditions to allow one to receive a medical marijuana card. They are not prescribing anything. Once it is officially moved from a Schedule I to a schedule III, a doctor can prescribe and thus would fall under the same requirements as most prescription drugs. Thus you would be protected from any employer retaliation from a positive drug test - as long as you aren't under the influence AT work.

For example, if you have a valid prescription for hydrocodone and you are not using or under the influence at work, you can't be fired for having it in your system. The thing with THC, it is fat soluable and remains detectible in your system for a lot longer than most other drugs. So in practice, what should happen, is that if you test positive on a random, no consequences. If an employer has reasonable suspicion you are under the influence and you test positve - there will be consequences.

The litmus test for reasonable suspicion is that the evidence has to be specific, contemporaneous and articulable. What this means is that you have to have definable evidence to test. Just because someone made a boneheaded mistake, that doesn't qualify. If someone makes a boneheaded mistake and they smell of alcohol, MJ, have bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, etc., then that would warrent a reasonable suspicion test. If you test positive, regardless of having a valid prescription, you can have consequences.

For example, I had a case were a guy tested positive for opiates. He had a valid prescription. The medical review officer contacted the prescribing doctor. They were able to correlate that IF the employee had been using the opiates as prescribed, his level wouldn't of been that high. Perfectly acceptable to part ways at that point.

Furthermore, the "At Wil employmentl" arguement is null and void if you have a valid prescription. ADA easily trumps this arguement. You can't tell me I can't take my prescribed blood pressure medicine, just like you can't tell me I can't take prescribed THC (whatever format taken).

On a side note, for a drug to be a Schedule I drug, there has to be no medical benefit from it. I'm not sure what fits that definition better than alcohol. The banning of this... well, we all know the outcome.

From personal experience, being in saftey for multiple decades and running our 10,000 employees' drug and alcohol program, I obviously would prefer no employees indulge. However, I would much rather have an employee who took a hit then day before to help sleep than them use alcohol to sleep. Also, I'm not niave. I would much rather have employee recreationally use THC the night before coming to work than alcohol.

Quote:

---

Furthermore, the "At Wil employmentl" arguement is null and void if you have a valid prescription. ADA easily trumps this arguement. You can't tell me I can't take my prescribed blood pressure medicine, just like you can't tell me I can't take prescribed THC (whatever format taken).

---

Medical use is one thing; recreational use is another. The stoners actually think that their recreational use should be protected. It's not.

I don't think recreational use is any part of this topic...

You can't prescribe opiates for recreational use, doesn't mean that people don't use it recreationally.

Dan Patrick must have had an aneurysm when he heard the news

Agreed.

The move to prescription status is going to unleash a slew of court cases since the ability to test for being "under the influence" of THC is markedly different, and less proven, than alcohol testing.

I know Hound Labs is now out of business, but a way to accurately assess level of THC currently in one's system and defining a level of acceptability will be what decides the employment at will / fired for cause cases. There's no case law on it yet to my knowledge (haven't looked), but rather as you said, a binary, in system at all or not. Need a quantifiable way to prove somebody has "abused or exceeded" a prescription, similar to the opiate example you provided.

Also in safety, and feel the same way as you. Would much rather somebody have THC the night before instead of alcohol, myself included. I haven't used anything other than alcohol in close to 15 years due to company drug policies. Would welcome the ability to have personal choice at my disposal (with a valid prescription at this point).

rsf0626 said:

---

Dan Patrick must have had an aneurysm when he heard the news

---

He gonna have one of them crazy eyes like Paxton now?

Legalize it nationally. Safer than booze and a lot of Rx.

AtomicActuator said:

---

The schedules that the president can manipulate were created by Congress, but Congress shouldn't have had the power to do that without an amendment imho, just like with prohibition.

---

This was exactly my point. And a tremendous example of how we've (mostly judges confirmed by congress) shat on the constitution over the years. Something that everyone agreed required a constitutional amendment to infringe on the rights of the people is now done by a committee of 3 people that nobody voted for and nobody even knows their names. This is how our Constitutional Republic was turned into a majority rule (mob rule) democracy, where 51% of the voters can infringe on the other 49% with virtually impunity. And it will be the ruin of our republic.

One question...you said if someone has a prescription for hydrocodone, if they have it in their system that's fine as long as they don't use it at work or are under the influence at work.

Are you saying you can't take your prescribed pain pill AT ALL while you're on the clock, even if it doesn't impact your work and you're not impaired?

I believe certain jobs can require additional restrictions. Pilots and other transportation operators come mind. It's beyond being under the influence whilst at work.

Beyond that, I imagine employers can prescribe additional restrictions up front as a condition of employment and as long as you are applying and administering fairly, consistently, then you are generally protected.

I administer the drug tests for my companies. As in if the good good is good, den we good den. Test complete.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

I'm going to laugh at all the pro weed advocates when this research that they've been clamoring for confirms all the worst aspects of weed that have been shown already in studies regarding effects on brain development, long term lung health, etc and weed gets banned again.

---

There's basically zero chance of that happening. Tobacco is much worse for your lungs, and alcohol is at least as bad for your brain, and both are legal.

However, studies already show and will continue to show truly medicinal purposes for caniboids, medicinal purposes lacking in the affermentioned products.

It's remarkable how many people in 2025 are still profoundly ignorant about Marijuana.

---

There's medicinal uses for tobacco too, as with most plants. No one wants to talk about it, though, and there's certainly no funding for research.

There's medicinal benefits to alcohol, although at minuscule levels far below what most people want to drink.

The medicinal argument for pot is not nearly as strong as advocates think. It's usually latched onto as justification by those wishing to expand recreational use.

techno-ag said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

maverick2076 said:

---

I'm going to laugh at all the pro weed advocates when this research that they've been clamoring for confirms all the worst aspects of weed that have been shown already in studies regarding effects on brain development, long term lung health, etc and weed gets banned again.

---

There's basically zero chance of that happening. Tobacco is much worse for your lungs, and alcohol is at least as bad for your brain, and both are legal.

However, studies already show and will continue to show truly medicinal purposes for caniboids, medicinal purposes lacking in the affermentioned products.

It's remarkable how many people in 2025 are still profoundly ignorant about Marijuana.

---

There's medicinal uses for tobacco too, as with most plants. No one wants to talk about it, though, and there's certainly no funding for research.

There's medicinal benefits to alcohol, although at minuscule levels far below what most people want to drink.

The medicinal argument for pot is not nearly as strong as advocates think. It's usually latched onto as justification by those wishing to expand recreational use.

---

So you're good with allowing research and should be pushing for it since it'll show said deficiencies.

You'd think small government conservatives wouldn't care what individuals put in their body so long as theyre not out harming others, like drunk driving, or second hand smoke in public.

Yep, the question should have always been "why must this remain banned?", not "should we allow this?"

Everything should be allowed by default in a free country.

For simplicity sake, let's keep the discussion on pain pills on opiates. The simple answer is no, you can't use opiates on the clock at most businesses. You can have opiates in your system if you have a valid prescription and the amount is = or lower than the amount that would be expected if you were using it at the prescribed level.

I'm sure there are some ADA cases that could trump prohibitting using on the job, but that would not trump using on the job WHILE causing a hazard. For example, a forklift operator can't. If, however, you are not performing safety sensitive functions (easily defined by DOT, more cloudy if not) and you have a note from your doctor that you would be okay, that COULD be allowed. For example, let's say you have a chronic issue with your back and you are in sales, confined in an office. It is certainly possible it could be allowed. The question in this case would have to be decided by previous cases or a new case.

It would still be a little sticky. The drug free workplace laws on require companies to not allow someone being under the influence at work. Until the decriminalization of THC, things have started to change, for THC. I haven't seen any cases and am goings solely off of my experience and my understanding, but, I think a company can let someone go under reasonable suspicion AND they test positive.

There is no good reason for marijuana to be Schedule 1, when it's objectively less dangerous than many legal drugs.

This is a common sense move. There is no reason why we shouldn't research the hell out of it and get some final understanding of what it can and can't do from a medicinal perspective. No one can logically argue against this while alcohol is legal. If they find it has actual pharmaceutical benefits then that's awesome because that's one more easily obtainable and natural remedy in everyone's toolbox.

My only caveats are that you want that to be regulated because as someone else said this isn't your grandfather's weed. The stuff out there now is much more potent and potentially dangerous depending on where you are getting it. You better know and trust your source.

I also think smoking it should be outright banned in public because it's a total nuisance. It would obviously fall under existing indoor smoking bans that are already most everywhere, but I want it banned in public spaces as well. Don't care about liberties here and I'll own any hypocrisy people want to throw my way on this topic. Have at it.

The people who would benefit from this from a medicinal standpoint are either a) not buying off the street at all or b) would prefer to buy from a licensed grower rather than off the street but don't have that option.

The ones currently buying off the street for recreational purposes might prefer a licensed grower, but others don't really give a crap where it comes from. They'll take a risk on the stronger street stuff.

So honestly, this actually makes it LESS dangerous or likely that someone is going to get the type that people are wringing their hands over. Once allowed and controlled by the government, a lot more safeguards are going to be put in place to ensure safety.

AJ02 said:

---

The people who would benefit from this from a medicinal standpoint are either a) not buying off the street at all or b) would prefer to buy from a licensed grower rather than off the street but don't have that option.

The ones currently buying off the street for recreational purposes might prefer a licensed grower, but others don't really give a crap where it comes from. They'll take a risk on the stronger street stuff.

So honestly, this actually makes it LESS dangerous or likely that someone is going to get the type that people are wringing their hands over. Once allowed and controlled by the government, a lot more safeguards are going to be put in place to ensure safety.

---

Maybe so.