Clearing the Smoke: Clarifying the Process and Impacts of Cannabis Rescheduling
- Emma Amelia de Graaff
- 12 minutes ago
- 3 min read
Since 1970, with the establishment of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), cannabis has been classified as a Schedule I drug along with heroin, LSD, and MDMA (or “ecstasy”) (“Drug Scheduling,” n.d.; Small, 2024;). These substances are defined as “drugs with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse” (“Drug Scheduling,” n.d.). However, this definition seems to starkly contrast with public use, perception, and even some state laws.
In line with the trend of decriminalization, former President Biden called for the review of cannabis scheduling in 2022—though this would only mark the beginning of a long and complex process (“Federal Marijuana,” n.d.). Following the initiation process, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) must provide a scientific and medical evaluation. If the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) finds the rescheduling to be justified under the CSA, they will publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. At that stage, there is a public comment period in which the public can share feedback with the DEA, and all interested parties have the opportunity to request a hearing on the proposal. After considering all public comments and conducting any necessary hearings, the final rule is then published in the Federal Register, establishing the new scheduling status of the substance (“Federal Marijuana,”, n.d.). If rescheduling proves successful, cannabis will be reclassified as a Schedule III substance. At present, the federal cannabis rescheduling process is on hold and awaiting a hearing.
The length and complexities of the rescheduling process have only been exacerbated by the widespread public interest and contention surrounding the topic of cannabis. The record number of nearly 43,000 public comments submitted in response to the rescheduling proposal are a clear testament to this high level of scrutiny (DeAngelo, 2024). Many comments and opinions relate to concerns that rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III could reduce a perception of harm, leading to increased use. The Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education specifically cited health-related risks among youths, whereas other comments expressed concerns relating to driving under the influence (Nguyen et. al, 2024; “Schedules,” n.d.). While these concerns have merit, the impacts of rescheduling are yet to be determined. Rescheduling cannabis may influence state legalization policies; however, it would still not make cannabis federally compliant (Hauser, 2025; Small, 2024). As such, and contrary to what some may think, rescheduling is not expected to prevent nor erase the disparities seen in cannabis related arrests and convictions. As long as cannabis is not federally compliant, rescheduling will not eliminate criminal penalties, expunge past records, nor free those incarcerated on cannabis-related charges (Hauser, 2025).
While much discussion centers on potential consequences, the following points outline the direct and definitive effects of cannabis rescheduling.
Rescheduling would:
· Eliminate bureaucratic barriers to cannabis research, streamlining the process.
· Acknowledge and legitimize the use of cannabis in the medical industry.
· Remove the tax burden imposed by Section 280E of the Federal Tax Code on state-legal cannabis businesses, making them eligible for certain tax credits and deductions.
Works Cited
DeAngelo, A. (2024, August 12). Cannabis rescheduling: Record 43,000 public comments
submitted to the DEA. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewdeangelo/2024/08/12/cannabis-rescheduling-record-43000-public-comments-submitted-to-the-dea/
Drug scheduling. DEA. (n.d.). https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling
Hauser, S. (2025, August 25). Trump Signals Cannabis Rescheduling: Schedule III Marijuana
Decision Expected Soon. JD Supra. https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/trump-signals-cannabis-rescheduling-6149621/
Nguyen, N., Pravosud, V., Halpern-Felsher, B., Lempert, L. K., Bialous, S. A., & Ling, P. M.
(2024, July 22). Because perceived harms of cannabis affect youth use, regulators must consider the impact of rescheduling cannabis from schedule I to schedule III on youth perceptions and use and design appropriate communications describing health risks. Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. https://tobacco.ucsf.edu/because-perceived-harms-cannabis-affect-youth-use-regulators-must-consider-impact-rescheduling-cannabis-schedule-i-schedule-iii-youth-perceptions-and-use-and-design-appropriate-communications-describing-health-risks
The Ohio State University. (n.d.). Federal Marijuana Rescheduling: Process and Impact. Moritz
Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana. Regulations.gov. (n.d.).
Small, C. (2024, May 2). The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: DEA Rescheduling Marijuana to
Comments