Washington — The United States Narcotic Enforcement Administration is considering reclassifying marijuana as a less harmful narcotic. The Justice Department’s proposal would recognize cannabis’ medical purposes but not legalize it for recreational use.

The proposal would shift marijuana from the “Schedule I” category to the less stringent “Schedule III.”

So, what does this mean, and what are the implications?

Technically, nothing has happened. The White House Office of Management and Budget must first examine the idea, followed by a public comment period and an administrative judge’s assessment, which could be a lengthy process.

Nonetheless, the change is considered “paradigm-shifting, and it’s very exciting,” Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended it.

What Marijuana Reclassification Means For The United States

“I can’t emphasize enough how big of news it is,” he said.

It came after President Joe Biden last year requested that HHS and the attorney general, who controls the DEA, investigate how marijuana was classified. Schedule I legalized it alongside heroin, LSD, quaaludes, and ecstasy, among other substances.

Biden, a Democrat, is in favor of legalizing medical marijuana “where appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Thursday. “That is why it is important for this independent review to go through.”

No. Schedule III medicines, such as ketamine, anabolic steroids, and several acetaminophen-codeine combos, are still considered controlled narcotics.

What Marijuana Reclassification Means For The United States

They are subject to a variety of restrictions that allow for some medical usage as well as federal criminal punishment of anyone who traffics in the medications illegally.

Medical marijuana programs, which are already regulated in 38 states, and legal recreational cannabis markets in 23 states are expected to remain unchanged, but they are unlikely to meet federal production, record-keeping, prescribing, and other Schedule III drug criteria.

There haven’t been many federal prosecutions for simply possessing marijuana in recent years, even with marijuana’s existing Schedule I designation, but reclassification would have no immediate impact on those currently in the criminal justice system.

“Put simply, this shift from Schedule I to Schedule III is not keeping people out of jail,” said David Culver, senior vice president of public relations of the United States Cannabis Council.

However, rescheduling would have an impact, especially on research and marijuana business taxes.

Because marijuana is classified as a Schedule I substance, it has been extremely difficult to undertake permitted clinical trials involving its administration. This has produced a Catch-22 situation: there is a need for further study, but there are hurdles to doing so. (Sometimes, scientists rely on people’s claims of marijuana use.)

Schedule III medications are easier to study, although reclassification would take time to remove all hurdles to research.

“It’s going to be really confusing for a long time,” says Ziva Cooper, director of the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids. “When the dust has settled, I don’t know how many years from now, research will be easier.”

Among the unknowns include whether academics will be permitted to study marijuana from state-licensed shops and how the federal Food and Drug Administration would regulate this.

Some researchers remain optimistic.

“Reducing the schedule to schedule 3 will allow us to conduct research with human subjects using cannabis,” said Susan Ferguson, director of the University of Washington’s Addictions, Drug, and Alcohol Institute in Seattle.

Firms involved in “trafficking” marijuana or any other Schedule I or II substance are not allowed to deduct rent, payroll, or other expenses that other firms can. (Yes, despite the federal government’s prohibition on marijuana, at least some cannabis firms, particularly those permitted by states, pay federal taxes.) According to industry associations, tax rates frequently reach 70% or more.

The deduction regulation does not apply to Schedule III medications, so the proposed amendment would significantly reduce cannabis companies’ taxes.

They claim it would treat them like other industries and let them compete with unlawful competitors that frustrate licensees and officials in locations like New York.

“You’re going to make these state-legal programs stronger,” says Adam Goers, an executive at Columbia Care, a medicinal and recreational cannabis provider. He co-chairs a group of corporate and other stakeholders advocating for rescheduling.

According to Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Center, deducting those expenditures could result in greater cannabis marketing and advertising.

Rescheduling would have no direct impact on another marijuana business issue: limited access to banks, particularly for loans, due to federally regulated institutions’ concerns about the drug’s legal status. Instead, the sector has focused on the SAFE Banking Act. It has frequently passed the House but is stuck in the Senate.

What Marijuana Reclassification Means For The United States

Yes, there are, notably the national anti-legalization organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS suggestion “flies in the face of science, reeks of politics” and gives a disappointing nod to an industry “desperately looking for legitimacy.”

Some legalization supporters argue that rescheduling marijuana is too modest. They want to keep the focus on totally removing it from the controlled substances list, which does not include alcohol or tobacco (although they are regulated).

According to Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, simply reclassifying marijuana would be “perpetuating the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policies.” According to Kaliko Castille, President of the Minority Cannabis Business Association, rescheduling simply “re-brands prohibition,” rather than giving state licensees the green light and bringing an end to decades of arrests that disproportionately affected people of color.

“Schedule III is going to leave it in this kind of amorphous, mucky middle where people are not going to understand the danger of it still being federally illegal,” the senator stated.

Peltz reported from New York. Associated Press writers Colleen Long in Washington and Carla K. Johnson in Seattle contributed to this story.

SOURCE – (AP)

With the cost of living consistently on the rise, more Canadians are continually turning to credit. Canadian’s owe more debt relative to their income than they did before Justin Trudeau and his liberals came to power in 2015.

Many Canadians are on the verge of going bankrupt due to increased debt carrying costs, living expenses, and concerns about the possibility of further interest rate and price increases.

Higher interest rates may have deterred Canadians from borrowing, but they remain optimistic. I’m hoping that interest rates will be reduced and the debt they’re collecting will become more affordable.

According to Bank of Canada data, household credit increased in February and has accelerated slightly since then. This raises some concerns for the country, which is already experiencing slowing economic growth as a result of its enormous debt levels.

Canadian households have recently reduced their borrowing, yet they have nonetheless accrued a significant amount of debt. Household debt increased by 0.3% (+$10.1 billion) to $2.94 trillion in February.

This boosted yearly growth to 3.4% (+$96.1 billion), marking the fourth consecutive month of acceleration.

Canadians Under Mountains of Household Debt

The roughly $3 trillion in debt sounds monstrous, and it is. Between March 2020 and the most recent figures, consumers added $541 billion to their debt load. After just under four years, accumulation was 50% faster than in the years prior rate reduction.

According to the most recent data, Canada’s household debt-to-GDP ratio was around 132% in February. Statistics Canada announced Wednesday that Canada has the highest household debt-to-disposable income ratio of any G7 countries.

According to Canada’s 2023 Financial Stress Index, money is the top stressor for Canadians, with 40% citing it as their primary source of stress, surpassing personal health, relationships, and job for the sixth year in a row.

And financial problems are affecting people’s quality of life and sleep.

Leger’s poll of more than 2,000 Canadians discovered that 48% of adults had lost sleep and 36% have experienced mental health issues as a result of financial stress. Nearly half of poll respondents (48%) reported having less disposable income than a year ago.

According to writer and political commentator David Moscrop, Canada’s housing problem is unprecedented, and half the country lives paycheck to paycheck.

In a classic example of disconnect, some Trudeau Liberals believe the party’s biggest problem is that people don’t realize how terrific a job they’re doing.

According to Moscrop, half of the country is living paycheck to paycheck, suffering from crippling debt, and dealing with a housing and homelessness crisis, while working families are increasingly reliant on food banks to get by.

Inflation and Interest Rates Rising

More than half of Canadians feel their personal finances are worse now than they were in 2015, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau campaigned on a promise to support the middle class and those aspiring to it.

A jump in inflation, and the interest-rate hikes intended to combat it, have pinched deeply indebted Canadians, who have also stated that the high cost of living is the most important factor influencing how they intend to vote.

According to a Nanos Research study for Bloomberg News, 53% of people say their personal finances are worse now than they were eight years ago, while 24% say they are better off and 21% say nothing has changed.

Those aged 35 to 54 were the most likely to be experiencing financial difficulties, with 61% reporting a worsening situation.

The poll explains why Trudeau’s government is finishing the year with low ratings. “When the economy is flat and people are concerned about paying their bills, they become agitated and seek to punish the incumbent government,” said Nik Nanos, the polling firm’s chief data scientist. “If you are struggling to pay for housing or the groceries, you might think, ‘What do I have to lose with a change in government?'”

If an election were conducted today, over 45% of Canadians indicated the cost of living, including housing, groceries, and energy costs, would be the most important factor influencing their vote. The environment (14%) and health care (12%) are next on the list.

Between November 30 and December 2, Nanos conducted a telephone and online poll of 1,069 Canadians. The margin of error is 3 percentage points (19 times out of 20).

Soaring Inflation in Canada

In Canada, inflation is certainly easing. It remained constant at 3.1% annually in November, down from 8.1% in June 2022. While this is improvement, it is cold consolation for some Canadian households, which have experienced one of the most precipitous declines in purchasing power in history.

According to Bloomberg calculations, Canada’s consumer price index is 10% higher than it would have been if inflation had remained at its pre-pandemic pace. Shelter and food inflation are both roughly 14% higher.

Prices rose at an annual rate of roughly 1.8% during the time the Bank of Canada introduced inflation targeting in the early 1990s and 2020.

According to the central bank, property prices in Canada have not been this high since the early 1980s.

Though an election isn’t due until 2025, Trudeau’s biggest adversary, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, has launched campaign-style advertising attacking the prime minister for rising housing, food, and energy costs. “After eight years, Justin Trudeau is not worth the cost,” Poilievre frequently states.

Majority of Canadians Can’t Afford a Home

Despite a rush of affordability announcements from Trudeau’s Liberals, including a $4-billion fund for cities to develop housing and competition-law revisions aimed at decreasing supermarket prices, most polls place the Tories roughly 10 points ahead.

“The Conservative party continues to vote against funding for housing,” Trudeau said Thursday in Toronto, where he unveiled $471 million to accelerate home building. “If it were up to them, we wouldn’t be here today.” But our Liberal strategy is to collaborate with municipalities. Our strategy is to invest in individuals. It is to invest for the future.”

Trudeau is not alone in facing an angry electorate frustrated by the loss of purchasing power. Many US voters do not appear to be buying President Joe Biden’s economic message, despite the fact that price rises have slowed since last year.

“Inflation kills governments,” said Mike Moffatt, senior policy director at the Smart Prosperity Institute and Trudeau’s former economic adviser from 2013 to 2015.

Moffatt stated in an interview that U.S. President Jimmy Carter lost his campaign for a second term by a landslide in 1980 when the Federal Reserve aggressively raised interest rates to combat inflation.

In the midst of recent price increases, voters in Australia and New Zealand ousted their incumbent administrations, and the ruling Conservative Party in the United Kingdom is now polling poorly.

“There is unrest. “People see costs going up and up, but they don’t see their paychecks going up,” he said. “It’s going to be a very difficult thing for the federal government to deal with because so many of these factors are global in nature.”

 

 

Bumble, a dating app that revolutionized the industry a decade ago by introducing the concept of women initiating talks, is now allowing males to engage in chats on its platform.

Bumble is introducing a new tool dubbed “opening moves” that allows female users to establish a prompt for male suitors to reply to to start a conversation. The function overturns the app’s long-standing mandate that women initiate the first message to their matches. Bumble claims this change empowers women by granting them greater control over their dating experiences.

Dating App Bumble Will No Longer Require Women To Make The First Move

Lidiane Jones, the new CEO of Bumble, unveiled the new feature on Tuesday as part of a comprehensive app redesign. Jones took over the reins from creator Whitney Wolfe Herd earlier this year. This decision comes at a time when dating apps are striving to maintain their relevance as some users are feeling fatigued from online dating and are craving more in-person interactions.

Jones perceives the Bumble redesign as an opportunity for the platform to respond effectively to the current situation.

“There is an increasing demand for genuine human connections,” Jones stated in an interview with CNN before to the launch. “I expect that the number of people using online dating will increase rather than decrease, but there is a higher standard…” Therefore, focusing our attention on our objective is a significant call to action.

According to Jones, adding the new “opening moves” feature is a means by which Bumble is progressing while remaining faithful to its initial objective of empowering women. Now, female users can either keep starting discussions with their matches or establish an initial move, such as asking a question about their match’s ideal dinner guest, to indicate that they prefer their match to make the first contact. (Non-binary users or those interested in same-gender pairings have the option for either person to initiate and reply to an initial action.)

Bumble’s makeover incorporates enhanced “dating intentions” badges that enable users to specify on their profiles whether they are seeking a “life partner” or simply “fun, casual dates.” Bumble has implemented a new policy mandating members to provide more photographs in their biographies.

Dating App Bumble Will No Longer Require Women To Make The First Move

The application will prioritize and emphasize shared interests at the beginning of potential matches’ profiles to facilitate connections between individuals and increasing the likelihood of finding compatible companions.

The modifications have the potential to be crucial in restoring Bumble’s profitability, as the company, which also possesses dating applications Badoo and Fruitz, recorded a net loss of $1.9 million in the previous year. The company’s stock price has experienced a significant decline of 86% since its first public offering in February 2021.

According to Wall Street experts, Bumble is projected to profit $12 million for the first quarter of this year when it releases its earnings on May 8. This is a significant improvement from the $2.3 million loss recorded during the same time last year. The company anticipates a 14% increase in paying consumers, reaching over 3.9 million.

Dating App Bumble Will No Longer Require Women To Make The First Move

“We are extremely fortunate to possess robust financials that enable us to invest in the company’s expansion while also ensuring profitability for our shareholders,” Jones stated. “We are currently at a significant turning point where we have achieved a substantial level of growth and have ample opportunities for further expansion. At this juncture, we can effectively pursue both objectives simultaneously.”

SOURCE – (CNN)