Experts are examining the path to and implications of rescheduling cannabis. In a recent executive order, President Donald J. Trump directed the Attorney General to proceed with rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This shift underscores the need for federal support to enhance research into medical marijuana and cannabidiol.
This announcement follows a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden Administration, which suggested that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) consider rescheduling the drug. The CSA, enforced by the DEA, the U.S. Department of Justice, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, categorizes substances into five schedules according to their potential for abuse, scientific understanding, and risks to public health.
Understanding Schedules
Schedule I substances, defined by the CSA, are considered to have no accepted medical use and possess a high potential for abuse. In contrast, Schedule III substances, which include drugs like Tylenol with codeine and ketamine, are recognized as having accepted medical uses and a lower abuse potential. Marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I substance since the CSA was enacted in 1970.
The new executive order comes after extensive scientific and regulatory assessments. In 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services concluded that medical marijuana possesses “currently accepted medical use,” citing a survey of over 30,000 licensed practitioners. These practitioners have recommended marijuana for over 6 million patients across 43 jurisdictions for conditions such as pain, anorexia, and chemotherapy-induced nausea. This recommendation received backing from both the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the Food and Drug Administration, ultimately leading the Department of Justice to propose that marijuana be moved to Schedule III by May 2024.
Implications of Rescheduling
The recent executive order preserves Congress’s authority over federal drug policy. It does not decriminalize marijuana nationally nor override state laws. The rescheduling process will entail a 30-day public comment period, during which experts anticipate potential litigation from detractors. While many criticize the current classification of marijuana as one of the most dangerous substances, some opponents argue that reclassification may simply provide a tax benefit to the cannabis industry instead of fostering increased research. Drug policy experts suggest that this move could alleviate substantial federal tax burdens faced by state-based cannabis businesses.
In an insightful commentary, Scott Bloomberg from the University of Maine School of Law argues that the President has multiple pathways to move marijuana to a less restrictive schedule under the CSA. He highlights that the CSA’s rescheduling process allows the Attorney General the flexibility to redefine what constitutes “medical use” and “abuse potential.” A shift in these definitions could facilitate a reclassification or even descheduling of marijuana altogether.
Calls for Policy Reassessment
Matthew B. Lawrence from Emory University and David E. Pozen from Columbia Law School argue in an upcoming article that the CSA should be modified to eliminate the DEA’s authority to schedule substances and broaden participation in scheduling decisions. They advocate for a pragmatic regulatory approach that democratizes drug policy while maintaining necessary oversight.
Robert A. Mikos from Vanderbilt University Law School further contends that the current scheduling system complicates the pursuit of meaningful reform for marijuana. He emphasizes that the DEA is not legally bound to adhere to the Department of Health and Human Services’ recommendations and may reject rescheduling. Mikos concludes that lasting reform will likely necessitate congressional legislation rather than relying solely on administrative changes.
Research Opportunities
Rescheduling marijuana could create significant research opportunities, according to Lorraine Collins from the University at Buffalo. Currently, researchers can only utilize cannabis from a single federally-approved source, which restricts the range of commercially available products and hampers comprehensive study. Collins advocates that marijuana’s rescheduling would enhance research capabilities, allowing for a better understanding of its potential benefits and harms.
In the context of Mississippi, where the cannabis industry is evolving, these developments present unique opportunities for businesses and researchers alike. With the potential for increased research and a more supportive regulatory environment, Mississippi may see substantial growth in its cannabis sector as federal policies adapt to changing perceptions of marijuana.