Do you have a link about this? Because he's shown hostility towards marijuana legalization, promised to veto it if it was sent to him, and in the past supported draconian drug laws.
Show me a policy document along with a bill from that office and I'll consider it more than an election year symbolic gesture.
0: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/how-to-resc...
It's reasonable to be cautious about a politician making a promise in anything but the most legally-binding possible way. It's not reasonable to straight-out call that politician a bald-faced liar if he hasn't demonstrated a propensity for such lies (unlike some I could easily name).
Obviously we can only wait to see what comes next, but I'm not sure what more you'd want? The review process has to occur, so there's no additional "policy" to be had at the moment. Obviously there's a possibility that rescheduling doesn't happen as a result of that review, but that hardly seems likely given the current political and social climate around marijuana.
Seemed like a pretty straight-forward way to communicate "and this is step 2, which is a work in progress".
(White House and executive offices don't produce "bills", other than signing the ones proposed and passed through Congress)
Edit: of course that’s temporary.
Now the president can pardon people for this before every election!
6000+ people were.
(Neither party has a monopoly on this BS.)
Presumably if you're caught with weed in DC then it's federal. But under what circumstances could you be found in possession with marijuana anywhere else and have it be a matter for the federal government, not the state one?
I wish you were correct. But there's a difference between doing something because you know it's right (implore congress to pass legislation on marijuana immediately) and because you need the votes. Only one of them is virtuous even though both ostensibly benefit the people.