Rescheduling Marijuana Would Leave Federal Prohibition Essentially Untouched
Although the HHS-recommended change would benefit researchers and the cannabis industry, it would not resolve the conflict between state and federal marijuana laws.

For half a century, reformers have been urging the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reclassify marijuana, which since 1970 has been assigned to Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the law's most restrictive category. Although the DEA has always rejected that proposal, it could change course in light of a recent recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Last week, HHS recommended that the DEA move marijuana from Schedule I, which includes illegal drugs such as heroin, LSD, psilocybin, and MDMA, to Schedule III, which includes prescription medications such as anabolic steroids and Tylenol with codeine. Although that reclassification would facilitate medical research and indirectly benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses, it would leave federal prohibition essentially untouched.
Schedule I supposedly is reserved for drugs with "a high potential for abuse" that have no recognized medical applications and are so dangerous that they cannot be used safely even under a doctor's supervision. Marijuana's Schedule I status never made much sense, and the justification for that designation has become steadily weaker over the years.
Back in 1985, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Marinol—a synthetic version of THC, marijuana's main active ingredient—as a treatment for nausea and vomiting caused by cancer chemotherapy. The FDA later extended that approval to AIDS wasting syndrome, and five years ago it approved Epidiolex, which contains cannabis-derived CBD, as a treatment for two forms of severe, drug-resistant epilepsy.
Research indicates that marijuana is effective at relieving various symptoms, including neuropathic pain and muscle spasms as well as nausea and epileptic seizures. Based on such findings, 38 states allow medical use of cannabis.
It is therefore hard to defend the proposition that marijuana has "no currently accepted medical use," as Schedule I requires. And since marijuana's side effects compare favorably to those of many prescription drugs, the idea that it cannot be used safely "under medical supervision"—another Schedule I criterion—is also at odds with reality.
If the DEA, which has the final say on scheduling decisions, ultimately agrees with HHS, that decision would not authorize medical use of marijuana, which still would be limited to FDA-approved products legally available only by prescription. But rescheduling would facilitate medical research that could pave the way for FDA approval of cannabis-based medicines.
"The moment that a drug gets a Schedule I [designation], which is done in order to protect the public so that they don't get exposed to it, it makes research much harder," National Institute on Drug Abuse Director Nora Volkow, whose agency participated in the HHS review of marijuana's classification, noted during congressional testimony in 2019. That designation, she explained, entails special regulatory requirements that deter scientists from studying marijuana's therapeutic potential.
Moving cannabis to Schedule III would benefit marijuana suppliers as well as researchers. Because of an Internal Revenue Code provision aimed at drug traffickers, companies that sell Schedule I or Schedule II substances without federal authorization are barred from deducting standard business expenses when they pay income taxes—a huge financial burden that rescheduling would eliminate.
State-authorized marijuana merchants nevertheless would still be committing federal felonies every day because they would still be selling controlled substances without federal permission. And they still would have trouble obtaining financial services—an obstacle that fosters a heavy reliance on cash, which invites sometimes deadly robberies—because banks would still be leery of serving a federally illegal industry.
The most straightforward way to address these problems would be to completely deschedule marijuana instead of merely reclassifying it. That reform, which two-thirds of Americans favor, would treat marijuana like alcohol and tobacco, recreational intoxicants that are not considered "controlled" substances at all.
The HHS recommendation, which resulted from a review that President Joe Biden ordered last October, shows that he has come a long way since his days as a zealous drug warrior. Unfortunately, he has not come far enough to resolve the longstanding conflict between federal and state marijuana laws.
© Copyright 2023 by Creators Syndicate Inc.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply.
Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome7.com
I am now making more than 350???? dollars per day by working online from home without investing any money.Join this link posting job now and start earning without investing or selling anything……. http://Www.Easywork7.com
Tech News give updates of mobiles, Tablets, earbuds and smartwatch rating, review and features that update you latest immersing technology.
The moment that a drug gets a Schedule I [designation], which is done in order to protect the public so that they don't get exposed to it, it makes research much harder.
Cannabis has been researched pretty well. Some of its components have limited, well-known applications and you can get them medically already. In its natural form, it is no more medicinal than tobacco.
Some of its components have limited, well-known applications and you can get them medically already.
Why pay for expensive refined components, giving your money to big pharma/insurance/medical/government for something you can grow for free in your back yard in it's natural form?
Foxglove (digitalis) grows in your backyard and you can take it in its natural form; you'd be a fool to try.
It's perfectly fine to grow medicine and supplements in the garden if the medicine is suitable for it: high therapeutic ratio, few side effects, simple mode of actions, etc. Examples are Aloe Vera, Calendula, Chamomile, Echinacea, and Lemon Balm.
Cannabis is a complex mixture of many different components with many side effects, complex modes of actions, and a low therapeutic ratio. If you just smoke or eat plants you grow yourself, it's pretty difficult to predict what effects you're going to get, or how to fine-tune it.
For example, most people who are looking for medicine against nausea prefer not to have psychoactive side-effects at the same time. This requires precise dosage of a subset of cannabis components. That requires at a minimum careful preparation and testing of standardized extracts, and, even better, separation of the components.
So individuals are not smart or free enough to decide for themselves what to put in their bodies? We need big pharma to refine it and big brother to approve it?
Well, you obviously aren’t smart enough since you didn’t even understand why “something you can grow for free in your back yard in its natural form” usually isn’t good medicine.
You need someone to refine it, test it, and develop protocols for it. I certainly do because it's not worth my time to do it myself, and unlike you, I am theoretically qualified to do this myself.
Big pharma is doing a good job at it.
Big pharma would be doing a better job at it in a free market, instead of operating in a near fascist economy where they need to do the bidding of politicians.
Not necessarily. In a free market, we wouldn’t have strict insurance regulations or mandates and stupid people like you would be receiving price signals instead of government regulations. That would be preferable to the system we have now.
you obviously aren’t smart enoughYou need someone to refine it, test it, and develop protocols for it
OK, so we need an authority to direct us….I rest my case.
and unlike you, I am theoretically qualified to do this myself.
Ahh, I see who you have in mind to be our benevolent authority.
As a libertarian, I really don’t care what you put in your body. I meant “need” only in the sense that you obviously lack the knowledge and competence to make these decisions for yourself. You know, just like I lack the knowledge and competence to pick out a good tie.
But, wait, I take that back: I do care after all. In fact, I encourage you to take as many drugs as you can get your hands on. Do the world a favor.
Here's a nice tie. https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B07VLHSFB5/reasonmagazinea-20/
Have a nice weekend.
Can't Biden just reduce the scheduling himself? He is, after all, the head of the DEA and all other federal agencies.
This 'leave it up to the DEA to decide,' seems like a cop out.
"oh well, the DEA said no way so I guess I have to obey their decision."
- Biden probably.
Technically no, only the DEA can do that.
Practically, yes. He can fire the head of the DEA and appoint a new one (he appointed the current one).
BUT...he needs to pass some statutory hurdles to fire the head of the DEA and needs congressional approval for his new appointment which gives him political wiggle room to pass the blame. I'm sure he could turn the screws on people to get it done if he really wanted to.
Actually it's the attorney general who has that power.
Which power?
The authority to schedule, de-schedule or re-schedule rests with the administrator of the DEA. Not the Attorney General. Congress gave (delegated) to the DEA this authority through amendments to the controlled substances act.
Of course, Congress could do it itself by their own amendment to the controlled substances act but good luck getting them to pass a soft on crime bill that involves ‘drugs’ even one as benign as cannabis.
Congress gave (delegated) to the DEA this authority through amendments to the controlled substances act.
But ONLY the Congress can make law. Even if they DID enact the CSA all on their own, they STILL lack the authority to delegate ANY lawmaking powers to any other entity. And "ammendments" are a form of making law. Specifically, an ammendment REMAKES law by changing it, DEA still do not have that authroty to delegate that power. The Freamers landed that job squarely in the collective lap of Congress. And that can't be changed without a full blown Constitutional Ammendment.
SO, while it LOOKS like DEA have that authority, they came by it in violation of Article Two.
I look forward to someone challenging every act of the DEA administrator as void. However, Congress can lawfully delegate some functions to administrative agencies of the executive branch when they give explicit authority to do so. Congress explicitly gave the DEA authority over scheduling of controlled substances. Other executive branch agencies sometimes are given some delegated authority but exceed it. This has come up recently with student loan forgiveness and the Dept of Education. You can look up cases and articles discussing the major questions doctrine to learn more.
Interesting.
Of course the whole thing comes down to the fact he "...could get it done if he really wanted to."
I thought the DEA inly enforces the law, they do not have the authority to MAKE law. That's Congress' call. Once made, DEA can only enforce it which they do rather selectively.
I do not understnd how the fed agency have the authority to enact what are essentially LAWS tht restrict so much who can swallow what when and why. I think the Controlled Substances Act was indeed passed into law by Cnigres and signed by a president. Can't reember who, Regan? This whole CSA thing is not right. Just one more gummit schtick to control US not substances. Justlike guns, substances can't DO anything until someone MAKES them do it. As in a human being.
I agree. The CSA is unconstitutional in many ways. It has been challenged up to the Supreme Court many times, but the justices always found a drug war exception to our freedoms.
So how it works now, a new designer drug hits the streets, the DEA holds some show hearings and declare it illegal. That's hard to reconcile to the constitution.
Wrong place
"no currently accepted medical use" is the excuse our government uses to wage war on Americans, to control them, to force them to support government. And it's not just marijuana, it is spread across the spectrum of freedoms the founding fathers of our country intended America to have, not this corrupted, militarized, intellectually inhibited bs we currently experience. Of course I say this because I am biased because I was arrested for saving a baby squirrel I found in my back yard, was subjected to excessive force by law enforcement because I saved a baby squirrel, lying of law enforcement to protect themselves from excessive force lawsuit, and a biased judicial system that sucks up to law enforcement lies and extremism. And what are my options? I'm going to vote, that will teach them a lesson they won't soon forget.
Sorry, you're reading that wrong.
The reason Americans support big government is because it gives them seemingly "free" stuff paid for by other people's taxes and printing money: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, disability insurance, SNAP, school lunches, student loans, etc.
Drug prohibition and other intrusions into people's lives are a consequence of these programs.
You need to get rid of the government handouts first, then the intrusions go away as well. You can't do it in the reverse order.
I wanted to share some expert insights from Doors Delivered, your go-to source for premium doors in the UK.Selecting the right door for your home can significantly impact its aesthetics, functionality, and overall appeal. It's not just about security; it's about enhancing your living space. That's why we're here to help you make informed choicesDoors Delivered specializes in offering a wide range of high-quality doors, including internal, external, and glazed options. Our goal is to help homeowners transform their spaces with top-notch doors while providing valuable advice along the way.In this discussion, I'd love to address any questions or concerns you might have about doors, whether you're looking to enhance the interior, boost curb appeal, or ensure security.
https://doorsdelivered.com/