Tens of thousands of people and organizations weighed in on the federal government’s marijuana rescheduling proposal ahead of the close of public comment on Monday night. That includes governors, members of Congress, medical professionals and advocacy groups on either side of the legalization debate, among many others.
Some, including a coalition of reform groups, called the recommendation to move cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) insufficient to address issues such as the state–federal conflict between marijuana laws and criminal justice matters related to prohibition. Others criticized the Biden administration plan as a political move they claimed is unsupported by scientific evidence. Additional commentators said Schedule III is an appropriate classification for cannabis.
In all, more than 40,000 submissions had been filed on the issue as of Monday evening. The 60-day public comment period kicked off in May, shortly after the president and the Justice Department (DOJ) confirmed the marijuana rescheduling plan.
DOJ officials have said they’ll take all public comments submitted by the deadline into consideration as they weighs the reform, but they’ve said they’re especially interested in hearing about the “unique economic impacts” of rescheduling, noting that state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.
Stakeholders across the political spectrum—both inside and outside of the marijuana industry—have submitted comments on the implications of rescheduling on state laws, enforcement, research, access to cannabinoid medicines, international treaties and more.
Now that the comment period is closed, there may be an administrative hearing to receive additional input before the rule is potentially finalized and formally adopted.
Read excerpts of some of the submitted comments below:
Politicians and lawmakers
Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D)
I’ve always questioned having marijuana labeled as a Schedule 1 controlled substance, as demonstrated in 2012 when I asked DEA Administrator Leonhart about restrictive scheduling, over a decade before the current rescheduling process began.
Colorado has had a medical marijuana program in place for almost a quarter of a century, going back to 2000. And we are the first state in the nation to have regulated use for adults over the age of 21, since 2014. During that time, we have learned a lot.
Our data shows that regulation works and is most certainly a preferable option over the failed notion of prohibition. Seizures are in decline, arrests are in decline, fewer people are incarcerated for cannabis.
We’ve learned we need more data and research on the perils of driving under the influence of potentially impairing and intoxicating substances for not just cannabis, but all substances including alcohol. But those realizations would not have come to be without the legalization and regulation of cannabis as we have done here in Colorado.
Importantly, YOUTH USE HAS NOT INCREASED POST LEGALIZATION. Colorado youth continue to use cannabis at lower rates than their peers nationally. While we acknowledge harms associated with illicit use, the overwhelming conclusions demonstrate that legalization is contributing to decreased youth use, not the opposite.
Our medical program has expanded, allowing recommendations for medical marijuana to be made by a wide array of professions and allowing recommendations for both disabling and debilitating conditions including anything for which an opioid may be prescribed. The value of this cannot be overstated.
This industry has contributed to well over 40,000 jobs of just those directly involved in the industry, not to mention the tens of thousands of professionals in ancillary industries that support the cannabis industry such as construction, security, financial institutions, accounting, legal, janitorial, etc.
Our Department of Revenue has collected over $2.7 billion tax dollars since 2014, providing money for building schools, investing in early childhood and higher education, affordable housing, public safety, investing in infrastructure, the list goes on and on…
Colorado has led the way to demonstrate what removing barriers and normalizing both medical and adult use of cannabis can look like in the United States. The State of Colorado eagerly supports the HHS recommendation of rescheduling marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 on the CSA.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D)
As Governor, my job is to move our state forward. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III is a significant, common-sense step forward for all Kentuckians, especially those with significant medical conditions.
The jury is no longer out on marijuana: it has medical uses and is currently being used for medical purposes. This recognition is overwhelming – and bipartisan. In Kentucky, for example, I signed a medical marijuana law that passed with support from Republican legislative supermajorities and a Democratic Governor.
A well-regulated medical marijuana market provides an alternative to opioids. Our sister states have shown that medical marijuana programs are safe. With age-restrictions, rigorous testing standards, packaging and labeling requirements, and advertising restrictions, state medical marijuana markets have provided safe, effective medical products to millions of Americans. We look forward to seeing how safe medical marijuana products will reduce the suffering and improve the lives of tens of thousands of Kentuckians when our Program launches in 2025.
Twenty-five Republicans in Congress
It is clear that HHS and DOJ chose the desired conclusion first and worked backwards, since the rule does not provide sufficient reason to move marijuana to schedule III.
DEA Administrator [Ann] Milgram did not sign the rule, and it states many times that DEA believes additional information is needed regarding the appropriate schedule for marijuana… The Proposed Rule references DEA’s findings from 2016, when it rejected two petitions to remove marijuana from schedule I. It seems that DEA stands by its findings from 2016—all the more reason why this rule should not have been published without sign off from the DEA Administrator.
National Conference of State Legislatures
While NCSL commends the administration on the decision to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, this is only the first step toward cementing nationwide cannabis reform. NCSL maintains that cannabis should be removed completely from the CSA, explicitly allowing states to set their own cannabis policies without federal interference. States have proven to be the laboratories of democracy, and since California legalized medical cannabis in 1996, state legislatures have nimbly established and maintained robust medical and recreational cannabis markets with minimal negative externalities. Further, state-regulated cannabis markets have helped curb the illicit market by replacing untested and adulterated products with tested, well-labeled, safe cannabis products. States have been able to direct cannabis sales tax revenue into underfunded areas such as education and drug rehabilitation programs. Descheduling cannabis completely will ensure these state efforts will not be wasted.
State cannabis regulators
Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA)
CANNRA remains committed to supporting our members in successfully implementing whatever the final rule on rescheduling is, and respectfully calls on the DEA, the [Department of Justice], and other engaged federal agencies to issue appropriate guidance to guide implementation. As a nonpartisan government association whose members are charged with administering state and territorial laws related to marijuana and cannabinoids, we are available to provide additional insight…
In addition, it will be important for federal agencies to issue clear guidance about any allowance and requirements for interstate commerce under a new schedule.
Regulators face a reality now where the same 200mg delta-9 THC chocolate bar can be scheduled if the THC was derived from Cannabis sativa L with >0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight (i.e., marijuana), or unscheduled if the delta-9 THC came from Cannabis sativa L with <=0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight (i.e., hemp) – even when the chocolates are identical. This creates an extremely difficult regulatory environment, particularly when certain hemp-derived products in the market contain higher THC levels than those allowed under state-regulated cannabis (i.e., ‘marijuana’) laws.
Regulators would benefit from federal clarity and guidance on how to assess and regulate the same molecules (often in the same quantity in finished products) differently based on whether they are from ‘hemp’ or ‘marijuana.’
New York State Office of Cannabis Management
The New York State Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) extends its support to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Department of Justice (DOJ) in reevaluating marijuana’s status under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This historic step reflects the growing consensus that cannabis should be regulated and accessible for both medical and adult-use purposes, aligning with the views of 88% of Americans who support cannabis legalization. New York State has had a state-run medical cannabis program for a decade and legalized adult-use cannabis in 2021, regulating the cannabis industry in a manner that protects public health and safety. Federal rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III acknowledges its medicinal value, consistent with recent recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
OCM requests additional guidance from the federal government, like the Cole Memorandum (2013) which signaled the federal government’s enforcement priorities and commitment to allow states to regulate cannabis by their state-run programs. New York’s cannabinoid hemp, adult-use, and medical cannabis programs include hundreds of licensees and over 100,000 medical cannabis patients, who depend on access to regulated cannabis. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would be a positive change, however state regulated cannabis programs need surety from the federal government that these programs will remain stable and accessible to consumers even as the federal government develops and issues guidance areas unaddressed by rescheduling alone.
Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III signals federal intent for substantial policy and practice change and opens the door for additional federal guidance to support state-run cannabis programs. Of several issues that persist, however, are federal criminalization of adult-use cannabis, limited interstate commerce, persistent banking challenges, and continuity of care for medical cannabis patients. While rescheduling may open pathways for prescription drug models, ambiguity remains for many adult-use cannabis products. In addition, the federal government should consider addressing and eliminating criminal penalties associated with the possession, cultivation, manufacture, and distribution of cannabis, in line with states’ frameworks. Further considerations should aim to expand equitable financial access and resources and solicit feedback from states on approaches whereby the federal government can best support state-regulated adult-use cannabis programs.
The State of New York strongly supports rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. In addition, OCM urges the federal government to provide clear guidance to protect state-level adult-use cannabis programs, improve financial access and resources, and expand the health and safety opportunities of cannabis study. These measures will ensure a thriving, equitable cannabis market that works in benefit of consumers, businesses, researchers, and local communities in kind.
Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission
The Commission strongly supports the DOJ and HHS’ acknowledgment of the accepted medical use of cannabis. This recognition aligns with extensive scientific research and the experiences of many states, including Massachusetts, where medical cannabis has been safely and effectively used to treat various medical conditions and improve patients’ lives. Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III may help facilitate further clinical research and broaden patient access to therapeutic treatments.
The Commission believes that rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III of the CSA will enhance research opportunities and deepen society’s understanding of the effects and benefits of cannabis. Currently, as a Schedule I substance, cannabis is classified alongside drugs considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. This classification imposes stringent regulatory hurdles on researchers, limiting the scope and scale of scientific studies. By rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III, barriers may be substantially reduced.
To ensure successful understanding of the new classification and its implications, the Commission emphasizes the need for the federal government to provide comprehensive training and educational resources. These resources should be tailored for healthcare providers, law enforcement, existing medical marijuana patients and caregivers, state regulators, existing cannabis business owners, and the general public, to ensure a thorough understanding of the changes and their impacts.
While rescheduling cannabis will continue to positively influence public perception around cannabis use and reduce existing stigmas, public education campaigns are also necessary to raise awareness about the rescheduling and its implications. These campaigns should provide clear information on the legal status of cannabis, its medical uses, and safe consumption practices. Public awareness initiatives, such as Massachusetts’ ‘More About Marijuana’ campaign, can help dispel myths and promote informed decision-making among citizens whether they are novice or seasoned consumers.
Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA)
The comments below are twofold: First, we are providing information and statistics about Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Program to assist the DEA in its understanding of whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use as determined using the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) two-part inquiry. Second, we are providing a list of considerations the DEA and other federal agencies should evaluate when determining whether to reschedule marijuana and how rescheduling should be implemented.
Rescheduling marijuana from schedule I to schedule III can have profound impacts on both the medical and adult-use markets, potentially transforming how these markets operate and are perceived, but will do little good—and could potentially wreak havoc on Michigan’s existing programs—without clear guidance from all areas of the federal government explaining the effects of rescheduling.
The CRA understands each federal agency has their own scope of responsibilities and the DEA does not exercise control over those agencies, but if rescheduling is going to have a meaningful, positive effect, the federal government must take a whole-of-government approach to implementation, messaging, and enforcement. Federal agencies should coordinate to publish as much information as possible to ensure a positive path forward in the legal marijuana space.
Nationwide, millions of individuals consume marijuana to treat their health problems or enjoy its recreational benefits legally under state law. Rescheduling does little good to states with active medical and adult-use markets if the federal government fails to provide clear and robust whole-of-government guidance on the implications of the rescheduling.
The DEA should also proactively seek the advice of the state regulators who have worked diligently—some for more than a decade—to create safe and successful state marijuana markets that generate tens of billions of dollars in economic activity nationwide each year.
Illinois Cannabis Regulation Oversight Office
Illinois supports the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Proposed Rulemaking, Docket No. DEA-1362, Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana.
Illinois’ experience with a legalized cannabis market demonstrates the benefits that a change in the treatment of cannabis in federal law could bring. Placing cannabis as a Schedule III substance is a positive development, but the final rule should also (1) allow and promote academic and independent research into state-legal products, (2) avoid harming state-designed programs, like Illinois’ social equity licensing, and (3) provide clear guidance to the broad range of impacted industries and fields.
To provide additional background on Illinois’ program, 13 different state agencies have responsibilities for implementation of the Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Program and the Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act. … These reports show that cannabis legalization has not had a harmful effect on the residents of Illinois. Instead, medical cannabis patients have been able to access cannabis to address 56 statutorily permitted medical conditions with licensed-health care practitioner certification, guidance, and advice. Instead of tens of thousands of cannabis arrests annually, criminal justice system involvement is down to under 3,000 arrests annually and impacts have been eliminated for cannabis consumers, allowing law enforcement to focus on violent and property crimes. Finally, millions of new tax dollars have been invested in critical violence prevention, substance abuse treatment and trauma services, and workforce development training that have been accessed by tens of thousands of Illinois residents.
Compared to the benefits of legal cannabis in Illinois, harmful consequences are insignificant. The attached annual reports show that consumption of cannabis by minors has not dramatically increased. Driving under the influence of cannabis has increased but, importantly, cannabis-involved accidents decreased by the second year of legalization by 75% and remain a small fraction of all traffic accidents in Illinois. Illinois Poison Center has similarly reported more calls about youth (<11-year-olds) ingestion from pre-legalization (up 283% in 2021 from 2019) but has fallen by 10% in the following year as consumers become more familiar with cannabis. Further, preliminary data do not show death or severe lasting harm related to the incidents.
Importantly, Illinois has not seen diversion from the legal cannabis market, largely because the regulatory structure requires strict chain of custody and thorough recordkeeping. When cannabis product or waste is destroyed, State inspectors watch or approve remote inspection to ensure full compliance. Of all referred prosecutions by the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, the agency that oversees cannabis dispensaries, pharmacies, doctors, and nurses, only 0.5% come from cannabis.3 Overall, Illinois’s consumer safety protections are working to protect against diversion or illicit activity in the cannabis market.
New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission
The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (“NJ-CRC”) respectfully submits this comment to express its strong support of the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) removing cannabis from the list of controlled substances in Schedule I under the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”), if not descheduling cannabis entirely. The rescheduling proposal is a step in the right direction for creating a more just, logical, and public-health centered approach to regulating a substance that the vast majority of states have considered medicine beginning almost 30 years ago. When nearly nine out of every ten Americans support some form of cannabis legalization, it is imperative that their government take this historic step to help fulfill the unending promise of a more perfect Union.
The NJ-CRC appreciates that the DEA’s Proposed Rule reflects an understanding that maintaining cannabis as a Schedule I substance is not sustainable and therefore must be rescheduled or removed from the CSA entirely. Using the DEA’s three-part analysis for determining the appropriate schedule for cannabis, the NJ-CRC respectfully submits the following evidence and analyses to support the proposal to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. As outlined below, while cannabis use involves the risk for abuse, the negative impacts are minimal when compared to other substances which are listed on less restrictive schedules or are completely unscheduled. Further, cannabis serves as an effective medicine with fewer negative side effects than many pharmaceutical options which are presently included on less restrictive CSA Schedules. While there are risks involved with cannabis use, states that have implemented programs to regulate cannabis have and will continue to effectively address and mitigate those risks.
NJ-CRC supports the DEA’s decision to revisit the restrictions on cannabis under the CSA and urges the DEA to implement changes that will offer far-reaching and meaningful opportunities for relief for people and communities negatively impacted by prior cannabis policies.
Maryland Cannabis Administration
State-level regulation has given the MCA the ability to establish standards for cultivation, manufacturing, and inventory control. These standards are likely a significant factor in the low levels of diversion and adverse health outcomes experienced in the State. In evaluating the rescheduling of cannabis, the DEA and DOJ should consider the benefits that Maryland patients have experienced due to cannabis. Similarly, the benefit of regulation and oversight is demonstrated when contrasting Maryland’s regulated market with the unregulated hemp-derived market.
As shown throughout this comment, data from Maryland exemplifies that cannabis use generally does not present adverse events for individuals. Instances of hospitalization due to cannabis use are exceedingly rare across both samples of the State’s patient survey. Additionally, the State’s public behavior health system has documented few treatment episodes due to cannabis use. Not only does cannabis use seldom present adverse events, but many patients in the State experience positive health outcomes from cannabis use. As discussed in the first section of this comment, 90% of the patients using cannabis to treat mental health conditions found it to be beneficial. It is additionally significant that these effects are consistent regardless of the methods of administration used by individuals, or their frequency of consumption. When considering the positive benefits experienced, the low-risk potential, and the clear benefits of a regulated market, the MCA encourages the DEA and DOJ to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III, which is much more consistent with the evidence gathered in Maryland.
Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission
The Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission (“GMCC”) supports and shares the viewpoint expressed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use.
The registered patients GMCC serves are the heartbeat of Georgia’s medical cannabis program. It is on behalf of those patients, in memory of those who have passed from their medical conditions, and in honor of those who still need access to medical cannabis for their health conditions, that the GMCC respectfully submits this letter for consideration.
Similar to any kind of over-the-counter medication, prescription medication, or other medical treatment, there are potential benefits and risks of using medical cannabis that physicians and patients should consider and discuss, especially those that pertain to each patient’s conditions, medical history, and other vulnerabilities. In Georgia, there have been no reports
of adverse events from patients who have used medical cannabis as regulated by the GMCC. GMCC has, and continues to be, committed to leading and maintaining a well-regulated medical cannabis program.
Whether on Georgia’s patient registry or not, we all know at least one person who has, or had, one of the medical conditions mentioned in this letter. And, every patient on Georgia’s registry represents a lived experience of how cannabis has an accepted–and necessary–medical use. This is a fact we must recognize whether or not we have lived it ourselves.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide a public comment on a historic proposed rulemaking process. Although the result of this process remains uncertain, the GMCC will continue to put Georgia’s patients first. It is our hope that the federal government will put them, and patients in other states, first too.
Six former state cannabis regulators
With rescheduling, the federal government has an opportunity to reassess its own approach and begin the long-overdue process of aligning policy with science. We commend the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for their careful evaluation of the evidence and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for initiating this rulemaking process. We strongly encourage the DEA to proceed with rescheduling cannabis, and we offer several considerations for this process and beyond.
As former regulators, it has been clear to us for a long time that cannabis does not meet the criteria for Schedule I. Schedule I is an overly restrictive classification that has failed to stop the formation of an illicit market or otherwise limited its existence. A reclassification to Schedule III would more appropriately consider the scientific evidence that cannabis has “a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence” and a “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” We acknowledge that it is not, however, the legalization of cannabis within and throughout the United States.
Individually and collectively, states have carried the burden, absent federal analysis and action, on what should be a common-sense approach to widely accepted, medically beneficial products that can also be consumed by responsible adults. The federal government must now act to recognize states’ significant work and experience over the past two and a half decades and bring marijuana policy and classification into alignment with present-day realities.
DEA’s rulemaking to reschedule cannabis, in response to HHS’s public health expertise and scientific analysis, is a positive step forward. We commend the public servants and countless advocates who have worked on this and have, undoubtedly, put in long hours and a great deal of energy into supporting this process. We acknowledge the progress that this signifies, while encouraging continued proactive action.
State and local government bodies
Denver, Colorado
Allowing marijuana businesses to claim normal federal tax deductions would provide relief to Denver’s cannabis businesses that are paying a higher federal tax rate than non-marijuana businesses, which creates additional financial pressure as marijuana businesses experience a sales and profit decline. The tax implications of rescheduling cannabis will especially benefit social equity marijuana businesses in Denver by reducing their federal tax liability. In turn, this would benefit Denver’s economy by empowering Denver marijuana businesses to invest the extra funds in their businesses, their employees, and the community.
It is unclear how transferring marijuana to Schedule III would impact existing marijuana businesses’ ability to operate under local and state regulatory frameworks. This depends on how the DEA intends to enforce the Controlled Substances Act following this change and how the FDA intends to implement systems to adapt to this change. Any change to medical or retail marijuana businesses’ ability to operate in Denver could have significant ramifications for Denver’s economy and tax revenue. In 2023, marijuana tax revenue and licensing fees totaled $48.1 million. This revenue covers expenditures related to regulation and enforcement, but most of the revenue is spent on marijuana education for youth, homelessness services, affordable housing, and small business support.
Maryland Office of Social Equity
We are writing on behalf of the Maryland Office of Social Equity (OSE) to express our strong support for the proposed transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This rescheduling represents a pivotal step forward in the ongoing cannabis reform efforts that are crucial to supporting our communities and businesses.
The proposed rescheduling action signifies timely progress and will support both current and new licensees by reducing business risks and unlocking financial opportunities, thus bringing cannabis businesses more in line with other regular businesses. Although rescheduling has its limitations, we view this action as a crucial component of comprehensive cannabis reform—a policy that Governor Moore has steadfastly advocated for and continues to support.
Rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III can complement the cannabis reform work that states like Maryland have prioritized. It can help reduce the stigma associated with cannabis, improve access to banking services, and facilitate more robust research on the medical benefits of cannabis. These changes are essential for the continued growth and success of the legal cannabis industry, particularly for social equity licensees who have historically been marginalized and excluded from economic opportunities.
We fully support the DEA’s decision to reschedule cannabis and look forward to continuing our mission to help Maryland communities grow, learn, build, and heal from the impacts of the war on drugs.
Reform advocates
NORML
Over the past five decades, NORML has been party to numerous cannabis rescheduling petitions. NORML is providing these comments today in support of the reclassification of botanical cannabis.
Clinical findings provide the basis for this widespread acceptance among practicing physicians and healthcare professionals. Specifically, a review summarizing the findings of several FDA-approved, randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing the safety and efficacy of botanical cannabis in various patient populations concludes, ‘Based on evidence currently available the Schedule I classification is not tenable; it is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that information on safety is lacking.’
This conclusion was affirmed by an exhaustive literature review by the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Committee on the Health Effects of Marijuana, which found ‘conclusive or substantial evidence’ that cannabis and its active constituents benefit specific patients, including those suffering from chronic pain, nausea, and spasticity.
Moreover, a recent review of the literature compiled by NORML highlights over 400 peer-reviewed papers documenting the efficacy of either cannabis or its constituents in more than 20 distinct patient populations.
The available data clearly shows that cannabis does not meet the necessary criteria of either a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance. While NORML strongly believes cannabis should be removed from the CSA altogether – thereby harmonizing federal cannabis policy with those of most US states – we do not dispute the factual basis underlying HHS’ recommendation to move botanical cannabis to Schedule III or lower. It would be arbitrary and capricious for the DEA to reject HHS’ findings of fact and maintain existing prohibitions of the cannabis plant.
Marijuana Policy Project (MPP)
We ask the Department of Justice and the DEA to promptly finalize this rule, rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III. In the alternative, please reschedule it to a less restrictive schedule, or deschedule it entirely.
Schedule I drugs must have ‘no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,’ a high potential for abuse, and there must be ‘a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.’ Cannabis does not meet any of those criteria.
Cannabis’ medical value is almost universally acknowledged, as is its lower potential for abuse than Schedule II drugs, including prescription opioids. Its Schedule I status is an embarrassment and an insult to millions of patients and healthcare practitioners.
Classifying cannabis as if it has no medical value does real harm, complicating research, increasing stigma and discrimination against patients who benefit from it, reducing health care practitioners’ education, and delaying federally legal access to medical cannabis—thus delaying standardization of lab testing, pesticide regulation, labeling and packaging rules, and regulatory harmonization.
We ask your Department of Justice and DEA to finalize this rule by (1) issuing the regulation, (2) confirming that cannabis is not required to meet the DEA’s five-factor test, and (3) rescheduling cannabis promptly into Schedule III or a less restrictive schedule, or deschedule it entirely.
Marijuana Justice Coalition
The [Marijuana Justice Coalition] urges you to publicly support the removal (“descheduling”) of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Only the descheduling of marijuana will truly decriminalize it at the federal level.
If the DEA determines that marijuana will remain in the CSA, your campaign pledge to decriminalize marijuana use will not have been fulfilled.
To take the next steps towards fulfilling this pledge, you must begin to explicitly support the descheduling of marijuana from the CSA. It is incumbent upon you to call on Congress to pass descheduling legislation…. Our coalition endorsed version of both of these bills because they seek to end federal penalties for marijuana and repair past harms of criminalization. Your support of this legislation could help us pass these bills into law.
Your administration can and should take immediate executive action—even while marijuana remains in Schedule I of the CSA—to lessen the harms of marijuana criminalization, such as the expansion of pardons and commutations for sentences beyond simple marijuana possession, ending marijuana-based deportations, and revising federal agency policies, particularly those involving the collateral consequences of a marijuana conviction.
Your administration has the opportunity to finally have federal marijuana policy catch up to public opinion and the state legal landscape that is increasingly rejecting marijuana criminalization. Pardons for simple possession cases are a good first step but as Vice President Harris recently said at the March 15, 2024 Roundtable Conversation about Marijuana Reform, “there still is much more to do.” As President and Vice President, the most important next step for you is to publicly and explicitly call for the descheduling of marijuana from the CSA.
Last Prisoner Project (LPP)
We urge the DEA to decontrol cannabis due to the grave public health consequences of cannabis-related incarceration.
At the Last Prisoner Project, we recognize the DEA’s decision to approve the Department of Health and Human Services recommendation to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III is historic. This announcement is the culmination of years of advocacy by groups like ourselves to push the federal government to better reflect the public’s view on cannabis. With this said, while the move is undoubtedly a step forward, it does not fulfill LPP’s goal to fully remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act, and we believe the failure to do so propagates significant risks to public health given the nature of cannabis-related incarceration.
Rescheduling is a peripheral change that signals the reevaluation of cannabis, but not the release of cannabis prisoners or relief for those who continue to be burdened by the lasting consequences of the carceral system, particularly as it relates to public health.
The research surrounding the relationship between incarceration and diminished life expectancies is unequivocal. Studies have shown that “each year in prison takes 2 years off an individual’s life expectancy.” And more broadly, “mass incarceration has shortened the overall US life expectancy by 5 years.” Even upon release, these impacts continue, given that mortality rates for individuals under any form of community supervision are two to three times higher than the general population. It is also worth noting that many incarcerated individuals already face increased health risks due to the disproportionate methods of policing. Cannabis is overcriminalized amongst communities of color, who already face diminished life expectancies. Furthermore, data shows that “people aged 55 years and older are among the fastest growing segments of the incarcerated population. Older adults have higher rates of chronic conditions and mental and physical disabilities.”
With these health crises in mind, LPP believes that the mere rescheduling of cannabis—which allows the continued criminalization of cannabis use and imprisonment for cannabis offenses—perpetuates the public health risks associated with incarceration. Therefore, we urge the DEA to go further, and to decontrol cannabis, thus reducing criminal penalties and creating avenues for individuals currently serving time for cannabis offenses to seek relief. We believe that this would significantly improve the nation’s public health in numerous ways. Not only would it improve the health crisis within prisons by mitigating overcrowding, but it would also improve the health outcomes of individuals incarcerated for cannabis offenses by shielding them from the fatal conditions of prisons, ultimately uplifting surrounding communities as well.
Parabola Center
While to some, rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III might appear to represent progress, it falls severely short of addressing the full scope of injustice caused by decades of prohibition.
This article examines the impacts of marijuana prohibition and makes the case that rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III does not constitute true justice and that true justice requires descheduling, along with policies that benefit marijuana patients, marijuana workers, and people who have been most harmed by the enforcement of marijuana laws.
While rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III gives the appearance of progress, it falls short of addressing the full scope of injustice caused by decades of prohibition.
Rescheduling marijuana is, at best, a symbolic change that does not fully acknowledge the extensive harm caused by prohibition. True justice requires more than reclassification; it demands a broad, inclusive approach that addresses the historical and ongoing injustices faced by those targeted by these punitive policies.
While rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III might appear to be a step in the right direction, it is not. In order to end marijuana criminalization and its harms, marijuana must be removed entirely from the CSA or descheduled. True justice demands a broader, more inclusive approach that fully addresses the racial, social, and economic injustices perpetuated by marijuana prohibition, while establishing guardrails that prevent monopolies and excessive corporate concentration.
Students for Sensible Drug Policy
While SSDP commends the Department of Justice for taking a much-needed step towards ending federal marijuana prohibition, rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule III drug simply is not sufficient.
Schedule III will not stop arrests, it will not release a single person from prison, it will not break the paper shackles of a criminal conviction, and it puts a target on the backs of every young person, who is now more likely to have their future destroyed by police intervention and arrests. It does not even fully recognize the state-legal dispensary model that the American people themselves want to see expanded.
It is not enough to simply treat the symptoms of bad cannabis policy; we must fix the problem at its root cause.
Industry groups
National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA)
We are pleased to submit the following comment in response to the proposed rule from the DEA (89 FR 44597) in support of the reclassification of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Marijuana’s current status as a Schedule I controlled substance has hindered critical research and criminalized millions of Americans. For these and many other reasons, NCIA strongly supports the rescheduling of marijuana to Schedule III or lower. For the avoidance of any doubt, NCIA continues to believe that marijuana and marijuana products are objectively safer for consumption than numerous other legal products currently available to consumers and regulated under federal statutes. Thus, marijuana should not be scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) at all; marijuana products should be regulated under uniform product safety standards that apply equally to all licensed marijuana businesses and protect consumers across the country, developed under new federal law that recognizes that cannabinoid products cannot be governed under the same regulatory pathways that currently apply to pharmaceutical drugs, food, dietary supplements, alcohol, or tobacco.
It’s clear: decades of scientific data, medical literature, and the experience of millions of American patients using it legally under the care of a physician all show that marijuana absolutely does not belong in Schedule I of the CSA. Reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III is a positive first step in aligning federal and state law, however, we continue to assert that removing marijuana from the CSA entirely would be the best and most appropriate action.
We again emphasize that any reclassification of marijuana should be accompanied by guidance to ensure successful state programs are not disrupted by inappropriate federal enforcement of the CSA. Public health and safety are best served by the elimination of the illicit market and the regulation of marijuana and marijuana products. We urge the relevant departments to move expeditiously in publishing the final rule related to this topic.
Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA)
Economic data indicates this Proposed Rule would positively impact all 42,125 state-issued marijuana licenses, and in particular small and minority-owned businesses. The excess tax payments imposed as a result of IRC § 280E currently prevent marijuana businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses, resulting in higher taxable income and federal tax expense.
This change would lead to substantial tax savings and increased profitability for marijuana businesses, including small and minority-owned businesses. Removing marijuana businesses from the effects of § 280E would also allow regulated marijuana businesses to more easily compete with the unregulated, untaxed market…
Without tax reform that comes with rescheduling, many small and minority marijuana licensees will go out of business, resulting in major economic losses and unemployment.
American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp
In partnership with its member organizations and entities, ATACH concurs with the Biden Administration’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM” or “Proposed Rule”) and related scheduling assessment that places marijuana in schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”).
The Proposed Rule represents a meaningful change in the federal government’s characterization of marijuana and, in turn, has a significant impact on the nation’s numerous state-regulated marijuana markets. Since Congress passed the CSA in 1970, marijuana has been classified as a schedule I controlled substance, subject to the most stringent controls and research limitations. Schedule I substances, according to DEA’s current classification, have a “high potential for abuse” and lack “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Some examples of schedule I drugs are heroin, LSD, ecstasy, and peyote. The characterization of marijuana as a schedule I controlled substance was unsupported by medical science, law, factual evidence, sound public policy, and common sense in 1970—and remains so today.
DEA will likely receive public comments from marijuana prohibitionists or others with political preconceptions or policy biases. These commenters will likely label botanical marijuana as “addictive” or “dangerous.” But these views are antiquated, unfounded, and unsupported by research. They also fail to credit the state-regulated marijuana industry that protects the very consumers those prohibitionists purport to safeguard. As DEA and DOJ review such comments, they must bear in mind the central role that the states play in protecting public health and safety generally and in overseeing the practice of medicine in particular. As the U.S. Supreme Court has emphasized, the CSA “presume[s] and rel[ies] upon a functioning medical profession regulated under the States’ police powers,” prohibits the federal government from making “anterior judgment[s]” about what constitutes accepted medicine or medical treatment, and “manifests no intent to regulate the practice of medicine generally.”
Our country’s leading drug enforcement agency now has an opportunity to (1) place marijuana in a schedule that comports with modern science and has parity with drugs that have far less abuse potential than opioids and other drugs in schedule II, (2) recognize that marijuana has a CAMU, making its current designation scientifically improper and unlawful, and (3) support highly regulated intrastate programs that promote public safety, prevent youth use, mandate consumer protection safeguards, and benefit the economy.
In addition to following the science, there is a public health and safety imperative to reschedule marijuana to schedule III. If the rule to reclassify is not finalized in a timely manner, the well-regulated intrastate industry will likely face insurmountable headwinds from unregulated synthetic IHDC products and the illicit market operating in interstate commerce without consumer protection–focused guardrails. The results could be catastrophic for the public health and safety of unwitting American consumers.
For the foregoing reasons, ATACH and its members agree with our leading health agencies and the Attorney General of the United States, that marijuana should be reclassified to schedule III. Marijuana has an established “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” and a lower abuse potential than any controlled substances in schedules I and II. The decision to reschedule marijuana to schedule III thus comports with the science, the law, and 21st-century realities.
Leaving marijuana in schedule I—or placing it in schedule II—would serve only to embolden those who sell dangerous illicit-market products and unregulated synthetic IHDCs. Public health and safety demand a schedule III placement for marijuana. So does the science.
National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR)
These comments are submitted by the National Cannabis Roundtable in support of the proposed rule by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify cannabis to Schedule III (89 FR 44597). Studies and data that support this conclusion have come out since the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made its Schedule III recommendation. Trends show that youth usage of cannabis and cannabis products has decreased in recent years. Cannabis is being chosen by individuals with greater frequency than ever to manage pain, and as a replacement for harmful opioid therapies. Further still, researchers who are currently receiving federal grants overwhelmingly support designating cannabis as a Schedule III controlled substance.
U.S. Cannabis Council
USCC applauds the historic action taken by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) to initiate rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. USCC is grateful for the historic shift away from the failed policies of the last 50 years. Cannabis never belonged on Schedule I alongside heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (ecstasy). These are dangerous drugs. But, as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) concluded—after a rigorous scientific review by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)—cannabis does have currently accepted medical use in treatment and much lower potential for abuse than these and other comparator substances—including unscheduled alcohol…
Given the broad scientific support in the administrative record, USCC urges the DEA to quickly move to publish a Final Rule cementing this historic reform.
Colorado Leads
DOJ specifically solicited comments on the economic impact of the proposed rule, recognizing it may significantly affect a substantial number of small entities, including state-regulated marijuana businesses that would no longer be subject to section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. It could also impact entities that engage in marijuana research, which may be subject to different protocols set by the DEA.
The proposed rule would reinforce widely supported Colorado laws regulating marijuana for medical and adult use. It would also underpin the state’s popular decisions to stop arresting and punishing medical marijuana patients and adult consumers, as well as actions taken by Colorado’s governor and local Colorado governments to expunge or seal past marijuana convictions that could pose collateral consequences to Colorado residents.
While the proposed rule would not resolve the conflict between federal and state marijuana laws, it represents a critical step toward creating federal guardrails for the safe and effective production and distribution of marijuana through state-regulated programs.
Every Colorado marijuana cultivator, product manufacturer, and retailer will significantly reduce their federal tax burden and retain substantial revenue if DOJ moves forward with transferring marijuana from schedule I to schedule III. Companies surveyed by Colorado Leads said they would reinvest these funds in a manner that would benefit their communities, other industries, and other sectors of the cannabis industry.
Law enforcement
Former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrators
Given the magnitude of the impact of the proposed rule and considering we face an unprecedented drug overdose crisis in this country, we write to emphasize that a hearing on this rulemaking is in the public interest.
As DEA made clear in the Proposed Rule, additional data and rigorous scientific analysis is needed to determine whether marijuana is appropriately placed into Schedule III,” the former drug enforcement officials wrote. “Sifting through the competing claims about marijuana’s pharmacological effects, potential for abuse, and implications for public safety, are best done at a hearing.
Eighteen GOP state attorneys general
“A public hearing is in the public interest, and therefore in the interest of our states,” says a sign-on letter led by South Carolina AG Alan Wilson (R). Other AGs who endorsed the message represent Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. All are Republicans.
Eleven GOP state attorneys general
Placing marijuana on Schedule III will send a tidal wave of legal marijuana flooding into Nebraska (and similarly situated States that have yet to legalize recreational marijuana but border States that have), that will make previous access expansions look like a drop in the bucket. States like Nebraska, that have no legal marijuana market and thus collect no tax revenue that could help defray the related torrent of increasing costs, shoulder a disproportionate share of the societal burden that flows from expansions of access to legal marijuana. We urge DEA to carefully consider the harms associated with rescheduling and give due consideration to the hardships it would impose on Nebraska and States similarly situated.
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin (D)
I write to express my strong support of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (“DEA” or “Administration”) proposed rule regarding “Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana,” 89 Fed. Reg. 44,597 (the “Proposed Rule”), and commend the DEA for its efforts in addressing this issue. New Jersey’s experience reforming its own cannabis regulatory framework provides strong evidence that cannabis should not be scheduled as a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (“CSA”). The Administration’s proposed rescheduling of cannabis1 is thus a welcome step toward a comprehensive legal framework that allows for common-sense regulation of a legal cannabis market for adults.
Focusing on responsible regulation of legal possession of cannabis for medical and adult recreational use undercuts and weakens the illicit cannabis market and many of the problems that come with it. As detailed below, the Administration’s much-needed action will help bolster the efforts New Jersey has undertaken at the state level to ensure that individuals and communities have access to comprehensive legal protections and benefits in connection with the State-sanctioned use of cannabis. Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III will continue the process of building an equitable framework of common-sense legal protections for all affected people and communities.
As the chief law enforcement officer in the State of New Jersey, I am charged with ensuring public safety, promoting business accountability, and protecting individual rights. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of CREAMMA and the NJ-CRC’s regulations, which have had immediate real-life impacts on the lives of New Jersey residents and brought equity and economic opportunity to our communities. CREAMMA and NJ-CRC’s regulations have brought a previously illicit, unregulated market into the light with transparency and proper oversight and established a regulated market for adult-use recreational cannabis. This new transparency helps protect consumers by maintaining quality controls for cannabis products and requiring licensing and standards for cannabis retailers. The recreational cannabis industry in New Jersey is still young, but the NJ-CRC’s licensing and regulatory scheme has cultivated the growth of a strong, transparent and responsible business sector that enjoys various legal protections generally afforded to businesses and workers in New Jersey.
Given the needs of the State of New Jersey and its people, I support the DEA’s proposal to promptly reschedule cannabis as Schedule III under the CSA.
Association of Federal Narcotics Agents
As President of the DEAFNA (Drug Enforcement Association of Federal Narcotics Agents), I am writing to urge the current Administration not to knowingly fail this country’s youth by rescheduling marijuana from the current and justified Schedule I classification.
Numerous independent studies exist which quantify hte steep rise in incidence of addiction, psychosis and mental illness directly resulting from increased marijuana use, especially among adolescents. The nexus between chronic use and mental illness is proven to increase homelessness effecting children and veterans the most. Related increases have been well-documented in marijuana-impaired driving incidents, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. The negative impact of marijuana is undeniable and, in many cases, permanent.
DEAFNA is comprised of retired and active DEA agents, who unquestionably understand this issue from every perspective. In fact, DEA agents are the only federal employees whose sole mission since 1973 has been to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States.
We are adamantly opposed to any intentional move that we predict will have such a drastically negative and permanent impact on public safety and health.
Healthcare
American Nurses Association
In these comments ANA agrees with the analysis that cannabis has numerous therapeutic qualities and should be moved to Schedule III. Further, ANA urges the Department of Justice and Drug Enforcement Administration to act expeditiously to have cannabis decontrolled under the CSA.
ANA strongly supports the currently accepted medical use of cannabis to alleviate disease-related symptoms and side effects. In September of 2023, ANA officially recognized cannabis nursing as a specialty nursing practice. The American Cannabis Nurses Association (ACNA) leads this practice developing the Scope and Standards and advancing the profession through advocacy, education, and research. ACNA also strongly supports this proposed rule as a critical first step needed to support cannabis nursing. Cannabis nursing supports and educates patients while they navigate underlying chronic conditions and work toward overall wellness. Yet due to cannabis being listed in Schedule I, research on its therapeutic uses have been stymied. By opening more research ability, providers and researchers will be able to fully study all possible uses dictated by scientific review principles.
Current evidence shows that alcohol consistently has a higher abuse rate than cannabis. HHS’ review to reschedule cannabis shows it has less risk to public safety than alcohol, and even with the limited amount of therapeutic research allowed at this time, the review confirmed at least three medical benefits. From a public health perspective, legalization of cannabis will remove it from the illegal market allowing proper regulation, testing, and safety procedures. Thirty-eight states have legalized medical cannabis and twenty-four states, as well as the District of Columbia and three territories, have legalized recreational cannabis. The current legal scheme for cannabis at the federal level and the differences across states has left providers and patients in many of these states in a constant place of fear when trying to utilize medical benefits. By removing cannabis from the CSA schedule, the agencies can focus on minimum public safety standards to advance public health and therapeutic access. ANA urges the agencies to follow the evidence as more research is finally allowed and funded, and to work with Congress to remove cannabis from CSA scheduling.
American Pharmacists Association
APhA supports regulatory changes to facilitate clinical research related to the clinical efficacy and safety associated with the use of cannabis and its various components. Additionally, APhA encourages health care provider education and pharmacist participation in furnishing cannabis and its components.
APhA supports the findings of the CAMU test, and strongly encourages health care providers to be involved in the clinical efficacy, safety, and management of patients using cannabis and its various components. If moved to schedule III, marijuana will likely be more incorporated into patients’ medication regimens. APhA believes this will require health care provider collaboration.
Despite certain products already being accessible to consumers in the states, federal regulations limit researchers’ ability to study cannabis and cannabis-derived products. APhA believes rescheduling marijuana to schedule III will improve research opportunities. Marijuana will be less burdensome to obtain and study. Marijuana’s current schedule I classification imposes strict regulatory requirements that make it difficult for researchers and scientists to obtain it for study. … A move to schedule III could allow for more DEA-approved suppliers of marijuana which will provide a more consistent research supply for scientists.
Rescheduling marijuana to schedule III will allow researchers to more easily secure federal funding for studies. Schedule I status limits the availability of federal grants for marijuana research due to the perceived risks and regulatory burdens.
Epilepsy Foundation
Our priorities are that people with epilepsy have access to safe, legal, reliable, and properly tested medical cannabis while also facilitating more research into the potential benefits and risks of cannabis for epilepsy and seizures. We believe that rescheduling cannabis from schedule I to schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) will help to achieve these objectives.
The Foundation is grateful that there is one Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved CBD product, Epidiolex, available to treat seizures associated with three rare forms of epilepsy. However, this product has a limited indication and some people with epilepsy cannot access it. The Foundation hopes that there will be broadened access and additional FDA-approved CBD products in the future.
The Foundation supports the DEA’s proposal to reschedule cannabis to schedule III, which would be an acknowledgement by the federal government that some forms of cannabis have possible medical uses. Rescheduling would be in alignment with the experiences of people with epilepsy who use cannabis and have found some forms of the product effective for controlling their seizures.
The Foundation supports rescheduling, but also wishes to highlight the possible limits of rescheduling for people with epilepsy. Rescheduling will not legalize cannabis, and there will still be conflicts between state and federal law on this issue. Due to these legal restrictions, people with epilepsy who use cannabis as a medical treatment may face difficulties in areas such as workplace drug testing or traveling to other states with their medication. If people with epilepsy stop taking cannabis due to these restrictions, then they could once again face uncontrolled seizures and related dangerous complications. If rescheduled, cannabis would still not be covered by insurance, and it could be costly for people with epilepsy.
Washington State Medical Association
On behalf of the Washington State Medical Association (WSMA) and our over 13,000 physician and physician assistant members, thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposal to transfer cannabis from schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to schedule III of the CSA.
The WSMA has policy on cannabis that aligns with this proposal: The WSMA supports reclassification of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I controlled substance to a more appropriate schedule.
Anti-cannabis advocates
Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM)
This proposed rulemaking could lead to the most significant rescheduling decision in the history of the Controlled Substances Act (the “Act” or “CSA”). 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. Marijuana has been controlled under Schedule I since Congress itself placed marijuana under Schedule I when it passed the Act in 1970. There has been no failure to revisit that judgment in the more than five decades since.
To change course now and reschedule marijuana, DEA (or the Attorney General) would have to provide a detailed justification explaining why the consistent analysis of the government over the past five decades holding that the statutory criteria require controlling marijuana under Schedule I is no longer accurate or applicable. It is well settled that when an agency changes course, it must provide a reasoned explanation for the change.
Nothing in the record, however, provides any basis for DEA to change its prior conclusions on these points. If anything, recent research confirms the serious adverse health effects of using marijuana. To give just one example, marijuana has been shown to have serious negative effects on the neurological development of adolescents, producing cognitive deficits that persist indefinitely.
HHS has not provided any sound justification for rescheduling marijuana under the criteria established by the Act, and the Administrator should conclude that marijuana must stay in Schedule I.
As the door closes on public comments, others are weighing in on the matter in different venues.
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) sent a letter to federal officials condemning the Biden administration over what he described as repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.
At the Republican National Committee convention last week, multiple GOP lawmakers also spoke with Marijuana Moment about their views on how cannabis policy issues such as rescheduling could be impacted if former President Donald Trump wins the November election. They generally deferred to the nominee, but there were mixed opinions about what they would like to see happen.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), for his part, said at the event that “I don’t care” whether rolling back the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling move under a potential Trump presidency would hurt the Republican party, because he feels more strongly that the modest reform would endanger public health.
Also, bipartisan congressional lawmakers are now seeking to remove a controversial section of a spending bill that would block the Justice Department from rescheduling marijuana—one of several cannabis- and psychedelics-related amendments to appropriations legislation that have been filed in recent days.
GOP senators have separately tried to block the administration from rescheduling cannabis as part of a standalone bill filed last September, but that proposal has not received a hearing or vote.
