Last week, the US Drug Enforcement Administration announced a move to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug, after the Biden administration requested a review in late 2022. For decades, cannabis has been classified as Schedule I alongside drugs like heroin and LSD—and research on its effects and medical use has been limited. While rescheduling could lead to more clinical research on marijuana, the future is currently hazy. Today on The Weeds: what rescheduling cannabis means for medical research, and why it still might not be enough to push past the barriers that still exist.  Read More: Marijuana could be classified as a lower-risk drug. Here’s what that means. - Vox  What marijuana reclassification means for the United States  Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Please take a second to help us learn more about you! vox.com/podcastsurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Something is happening in Connecticut. Back in 2021, the state legislature passed a measure that would create something called baby bonds: trust accounts for children receiving government assistance. It’s an idea that started decades ago and was championed by Darrick Hamilton, the founding director of the Institute on Race, Power and Political Economy at the New School. On this week's episode of The Weeds, host Jonquilyn Hill sits down with Hamilton to discuss how the idea came to fruition, how a race-neutral policy can close the racial wealth gap, and the way we define economic value.  Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Please take a second to help us learn more about you! vox.com/podcastsurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

If you’ve never used Amazon, you almost definitely know someone who has. Amazon is pretty much everywhere. In the three decades since its founding, Amazon has grown from a small startup to a trillion-dollar company, skirting rules, taxes, and accountability along the way. Then, in 2023, the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit against the company for monopolistic business practices. Reporter Dana Mattioli has covered Amazon for years, and chronicled their rise to power in her new book, The Everything War: Amazon’s Ruthless Quest to Own the World and Remake Corporate Power. Read More: The Everything War: Amazon's Ruthless Quest to Own the World and Remake Corporate Power  Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Please take a second to help us learn more about you! vox.com/podcastsurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is in the midst of a homelessness crisis. With little affordable housing and limited space at shelters, many people are instead sleeping outside. But as tent encampments become more common, particularly on the West Coast where the housing crisis is most acute, the pressure on local governments to address the problem has skyrocketed. Now, the Supreme Court has decided to weigh in. The issue at the center of it is whether cities can fine or jail unhoused people for sleeping outside. Vox senior policy reporter Rachel Cohen (X, Instagram) explains the case and the stakes.  Read More: Cities are asking the Supreme Court for more power to clear homeless encampments The Supreme Court will decide what cities can do about tent encampments Supreme Court Amicus Brief No. 23-175     Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Please take a second to help us learn more about you! vox.com/podcastsurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Since the Dobbs decision almost two years ago, reproductive rights have been at the center of our national consciousness. Two of the latest headlines come from Florida and Arizona: a six-week abortion ban, and a total abortion ban unless the life of the pregnant person is threatened, respectively. Both states have constitutions that name-check privacy rights, but both courts found that those rights don’t extend to abortion. What does privacy look like in the United States, and do we still have it in a post-Dobbs world?  Read more: Do Americans still have a right to privacy?  Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Patrick Boyd, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Please take a second to help us learn more about you! vox.com/podcastsurvey Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled frozen embryos have the same rights as children. The decision sent shockwaves throughout Alabama and raised serious questions about the future of IVF in the United States. While the Alabama legislature has since passed legislation protecting IVF in the state, that doesn’t address the big question behind the court’s decision: What does personhood mean, and what does it mean for the anti-abortion movement?   Read More: Fetal personhood laws, explained - Vox  Alabama’s Supreme Court IVF ruling is a warning to the country - Vox  Opinion | The Anti-Abortion Movement Is Gunning for Fetal Personhood - The New York Times  How America’s Two Abortion Realities Are Clashing - The New York Times  Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

What if you weren’t allowed to have more than $2,000 at any given time? Could you make it work? For people who receive Supplemental Security Income, this isn’t a what-if — it’s reality. SSI beneficiaries are subject to strict requirements and risk losing their benefits if they have more than $2,000 in financial assets, even if they exceed that by just a dollar. Why is the limit so low, and is anything being done to fix it? That’s today on The Weeds. Read More: Tyler (@tylerlimaroope) | TikTok The Case for Updating SSI Asset Limits | Center on Budget and Policy Priorities    Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

America is in the midst of a child care crisis. The cost of child care has skyrocketed to the point where, in some states, caring for kids in pre-k is more expensive than college tuition or a home mortgage. According to economist Kathryn Anne Edwards, it’s a market failure. So how do we fix it? That’s in today’s installment of our series exploring economic fanfiction and the stories we should be covering this election year. Read More: Kathryn's plan to fix child care Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Rob Byers, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Four years after a pandemic pause, some colleges and universities are again requiring applicants to submit standardized test scores. Inside Higher Ed’s Liam Knox and the University of Delaware’s Dominique Baker explain. This episode of Today, Explained was produced by Avishay Artsy, edited by Matt Collette, fact-checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Rob Byers, and guest-hosted by Jonquilyn Hill. It originally ran on March 8th, 2024. Transcript at vox.com/todayexplained Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

2024 is a big year for elections, not just in the US but globally: More than 50 countries will be holding elections this year. With rampant disinformation and polarization in politics, fast-moving technologies like AI pose a unique threat to democracy. On a scale from 1–10, how worried should we be about AI and the election? Host Jonquilyn Hill talks to New York Times reporter Tiffany Hsu to find out.  Learn More: The Black Box: Even AI's creators don't understand it - Unexplainable  Test Yourself: Which Faces Were Made by A.I.? - New York Times In Big Election Year, A.I.’s Architects Move Against Its Misuse - New York Times   Submit your policy questions! We want to know what you’re curious about. Credits: Jonquilyn Hill, host Sofi LaLonde, producer Cristian Ayala, engineer A.M. Hall, editorial director of talk podcasts Want to support The Weeds? Please consider making a donation to Vox: bit.ly/givepodcasts Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices