Trump Orders the 'Expeditious' Reclassification of Marijuana
The long-awaited move will facilitate medical research and provide tax relief to the cannabis industry, but it falls far short of legalization.
On Thursday, President Donald Trump delivered on his promise to proceed with the reclassification of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act, a long-awaited step that recognizes the drug does not meet the criteria for Schedule I, the law's most restrictive category, where it has been listed since 1970. Instead of starting over with a new regulatory review, Trump's executive order instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to "complete the rulemaking process" that the Biden administration began last year "in the most expeditious manner" allowed by federal law.
Under a proposed rule that the Justice Department published in May 2024, marijuana would move from Schedule I, a category supposedly reserved for especially dangerous substances with a high abuse potential and no currently accepted medical applications, to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, anabolic steroids, and Tylenol with codeine. Trump presented that change as a boon to medical marijuana research with the ultimate aim of making cannabis-based medications legally available to patients who might benefit from them.
"We have people begging for me to do this, people that are in great pain for decades," Trump said. "This action has been requested by American patients suffering from extreme pain, incurable diseases, aggressive cancers, seizure disorders, neurological problems and more—including numerous veterans with service-related injuries and older Americans who live with chronic medical problems that severely degrade their quality of life."
Trump emphasized that his order "doesn't legalize marijuana in any way, shape or form, and in no way sanctions its use as a recreational drug." That is true, since state-licensed marijuana businesses will still be criminal enterprises under federal law. Those businesses nevertheless will benefit from marijuana's rescheduling because it will allow them to claim standard deductions on their income tax returns. Their inability to do that, the result of a law targeting businesses that illegally supply Schedule I or Schedule II drugs, results in staggeringly high effective tax rates that impose a huge financial burden on the cannabis industry.
"This monumental change will have a massive, positive effect on thousands of state-legal cannabis businesses around the country," cannabis lawyer Brian Vicente said in an emailed press release. "Rescheduling releases cannabis businesses from the crippling tax burden they have been shackled with and allows these businesses to grow and prosper."
Although the tax implications of moving marijuana to Schedule III will be the biggest and most immediate effect of that change, Trump did not mention that angle. He instead focused on the promise of research that aims to "better inform patients and doctors" about marijuana's medical benefits and risks. It is true that such studies will be easier to conduct once the special regulatory requirements that apply to Schedule I drugs are eliminated. But reclassifying marijuana will not legalize medical use unless and until the Food and Drug Administration approves specific cannabis-based products as prescription drugs—an iffier and more distant prospect.
Still, it is significant that Trump accepted the conclusions that led the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to recommend placing marijuana in Schedule III. His order notes that the 2023 HHS review "found scientific support for [marijuana's] use to treat anorexia related to a medical condition, nausea and vomiting, and pain." Based on that assessment and the practices of clinicians in states that recognize marijuana as a medicine, Trump notes, HHS concluded that it "has a currently accepted medical use," meaning it does not belong in Schedule I.
HHS also assessed marijuana's "potential for abuse," noting that "the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others." All things considered, it said, marijuana's dangers do not justify keeping it in Schedule I, the same category as heroin, or moving it to Schedule II, which includes fentanyl, PCP, and methamphetamine. While Trump's order does not mention that part of the HHS analysis, his endorsement of placing marijuana in Schedule III implicitly accepts the department's assessment of the drug's relative hazards.
Trump's order "validates the experiences of tens of millions of Americans, as well as those of tens of thousands of physicians, who have long recognized that cannabis possesses legitimate medical utility," said Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "It wasn't long ago that federal officials were threatening to seize doctors' medical licenses just for discussing medical cannabis with their patients. This directive certainly marks a long overdue change in direction."
Trump's move, in other words, acknowledges that the federal government has been exaggerating marijuana's dangers and ignoring its potential benefits for half a century. That concession counts as progress of a sort, although it falls far short of resolving the conflict between federal prohibition and state laws that allow medical or recreational use of marijuana.
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
The great majority of those who want to use cannabis want to do so in ways that the scheduling system of both the federal and model state systems don't contemplate. There simply is no category in the schedules for what people want. It's not a matter merely of reconciling the state and federal systems, but one of reconciling the "drug abuse control" systems at both the state and federal levels with actual practice. Without authorities' ever actually saying so, doing something just because you like to is considered an "abuse" — and it would be too embarrassing to ever come out and say, "Enjoyment is `abuse' and against the public policy of the world."
In today's world, only one reconciliation is possible: to consider enjoyment to be therapy. This would go for sexual activity too. Which means most people have to be considered sick.
This is why we need to outlaw booze, tobacco, coffee, etc.!!!
Just think of ALL the massive paychecks to the DEA, FBI, STASI, KGB, Gestapo, FDA, ATF, and other Government Almighty goons and jack-booted thugs!!! This would be a YUUUUGE boost to the economy!!!
Won't somebody PLEASE think of the DEA, FBI, STASI, KGB, Gestapo,FDA, ATF, and other Government Almighty goons and jack-booted thugs?!?!?
It should be left to each State.
There is no enumerated power for substance control by the Union of States.
Do the states have enumerated powers to set such policy? Read their constitutions, and you'll not find anywhere they say they have the power or obligation to outlaw fun.
So City or County. The more LOCAL the better.
Disagreed. Several thousand of regulations sort of runs afoul of the Commerce Clause. You want Newsom to decide what trucks are allowed in California?
We are a republic of states; some matters need to be regulated (if at all) at the republic level.
There is nothing about Individual consumption that fits into any need to be regulated by a Union of States?
State to State transportation is dealt with by Article IV.
"The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."
They don’t? So I can hunt Marxists at will, and they can’t stop me?
If the Feds don't have the power (and they don't), then it goes to the states. If the states don't claim it, then it goes to the people, per Amendment X:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
This. 100%. Amendments IX and X need revisiting.
States are not limited to enumerated powers unless their own state constitution says so. And most don't. So yes, states can (mostly) outlaw fun even though the feds cannot. That's why local elections matter, too.
Good point. And no Constitutional authority for a bureau of "alcohol, tobacco, and firearms" to exist.
"The great majority of those who want to use cannabis want to do so in ways that the scheduling system of both the federal and model state systems don't contemplate. "
I once smoked out of a bong that was 6 feet long that had 5 different styles of peculators going up the stem. I ain't never seen one of those rigs in any of the dispensaries in my city.
There simply is no category in the schedules for what people want.
This is a backwards (potentially a backwards backwards... backwards) interpretation of the law and a really bizarre conception of libertarianism. The schedules aren't to categorize the drugs based on what people want, they're to categorize the regulatory schemes on what the government can forbid/allow. Nominally, balancing the burden with the risk.
There *is* an argument to be had that any given formulation should be categorized a certain way (because several, just not necessarily cannibus products, are), but your assertion is essentially that "Because lots of people drive 10 mph over the speed limit in Teslas (or junkers or whatever), police shouldn't (or there is no compelling interest for them to) monitor or regulate traffic or have a schedule or system for doing so."
Combined with the second post, it's really kind of a bizarre take from a libertarian. Drugs and sex aren't illegal because people enjoy them. The drugs are illegal because they kill people, the way knowingly giving someone HIV, regardless of how you actually did it or whether anyone enjoyed it, is. Some people can/do bend the laws or categories in justification of their vendettas against vices but, you're backhandedly ceding their principle.
No, they're not. People know the risks of drugs, nothing hidden there. Selling drugs is no deception like knowingly deceiving someone about HIV status is.
Also, drugs are not fatal and inherently harmful like HIV is. The user has control over whether he or she overdoses. Use of drugs not necessarily mean death. But, untreated HIV means death.
Of course it "falls short of legalization". That would have to come from Congress. Even with the traditions of executive overreach, this is as far as an executive order could go. At least it's a step in the right direction.
Oh, no, the executive could go much farther. All the secretary of HHS and attorney general need is to declare one or more preparations of cannabis — they could be cultivars or just brands — to be exempt from the schedules by virtue of not having "potential for abuse". Since "abuse" is not defined, they can have it mean anything.
By all means, lets expand executive overreach so the next Democrat President can overreach in the opposite direction.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well, it's in the statute, and it's been used already. That's how we got such anti-diarrhea preparations as Lo-Motil and now Imodium. I don't hear anybody saying that was over-reach. So you tell me, where's the line between reach and over-reach? Is not cannabis just as eligible to be declared to be of low abuse potential and medically useful, same as anti-diarrhea drugs and cough medicine? Or should Congress have to step in every time such a change in status is in the offing?
Or should Congress have to step in every time such a change in status is in the offing?
Do you claim to be a libertarian by any chance?
Let me put it this way. Perhaps one sign of too many laws and regulations is when the legislature runs out of hands to juggle them.
Perhaps government SHOULD JUST FUCKING STEP BACK AND BUTT OUT.
Which would be facilitated by the government reclassifying marijuana.
Yeah, and I want a pony too, and a Libertarian POTUS and you are a towering ignoramus.
At least I don't believe in the Trump fairy.
By that standard, anyone arguing for anything even the slightest bit more libertarian than "the most libertarian President ever" is a towering ignoramus.
No wonder you live in San Franshitco. You couldn't tolerate a city with election choices more libertarian than Trump.
Who has the authority to add something to the Schedule?
The attorney general. Or Congress and the president by amendment.
THAT it is.
It’s all smoke and mirrors.
No, the EO had nothing to do with cocaine.
So far
You are looking at the law-changing clout of libertarian spoiler votes. The looter Kleptocracy cares only about votes--the things that toss them out or enable them to keep robbing and murdering.
Sure, sure; because reclassifying marijuana is robbing & murdering? /s
No Hank, you’re looking at the power of Trump. ‘Libertarian spoiler votes’ had nothing to do with it.
[R] De-Regulating? What an authoritarian! /s
We'll ignore that Obama campaigned on this and Reason was all gaga over him because of it.
Them Trump actually does something about it, amd all we get are snide, backhanded commentary with complaints about how it just isn’t enough.
Nothing Trump does can ever be enough for them. Reason serves the democrat party.
TDS-addled steaming pile of shit Sullum on seeing Trump walk across the Potomac:
'Trump can't swim!!!!!!!!!!!'
Trump can't walk across the Potomac.
"The long-awaited move"
He announced his intentions to do this 3 days ago and you shit all over the idea.
I think it's a good 'first step'. Not perfect, but better than the last 50 years or so of administrations. And, I don't use cannabis.
When did he shit all over the idea? Maybe I missed it, but all I saw was basically the same analysis as here. This is a good move in the right direction that should have happened a long time ago, but short of what most libertarians would really like to see.
Do Portuguese count as white?
Mostly? More than me. Unless they're from Brasil.
Donna Brasil?
Most libertarian president since Reagan. But then, the bar was very low.
The long running joke in the comment section is that the reason writer only care about drugs, but sex, and food trucks. Sullum reversing 12.years of increesing tds because he rescheduled pot shows that the jokes about reason are all too true.
Drugs, messicans, and ass sex unless...
unprecedentedly massive secret government regulation of the free speech of individuals directly,widespread, one-sided violent social upheaval,unprecedentedly deadly viral research programs,fundamentally dysfunctional figureheads propped up by war profiteers,concerted, top-down, global-level, redistributionist wealth and energy policy,massively subversive co-opting of basic education programs to rape and castrate children and turn scientific understanding back 3,000 yrs.Trump (...or non-Neocon Republican).
Weird innit?
Jacob, this is a direction in the right direction. Stop being they type of libertarian who is frozen into inaction because they are waiting for the "PERFECT".
The larger issue is that it is an executive order that can be easily undone by the next president. The only safe executive orders are the ones created by previous presidents that Trump attempts to eliminate. I suspect that history will expose the double standard as any executive order that Trump has made will be easily removed by future presidents.
Even so, and although imperfect (assuming that there is even anything that is "PERFECT", it's a step in the right direction. Even though I'm certain that Trump is using this to garner favor from former supporters who feel betrayed.
A good case could be made that Trump won because Libertarians and libertarians voted for him. If Republicans want to win in the future, it would help greatly if they could draw the Libertarian vote.
Libertarians tend to be anti-inflationists and drug legalizers. Trump has been pressuring the Fed to lower interest rates which is inflationary. Trump's been cranking up the drug war and foreign intervention by taking out those drug boats with no or few survivors. None of that is anything that libertarians like. Rescheduling cannabis has libertarians like me thinking, "Well ..maybe Trump's not all that bad". Where I live, there's not usually Libertarians on the ballot, except for President. I virtually always vote Republican, mainly out of fear of the Democrats. Until, Trump did the rescheduling, I was thinking no more voting Republican, just don't vote the office, just skip it, my vote is none of the above. But since Trump did the rescheduling of cannabis, I'll reconsider and maybe continue voting Republican.
Another victory for common sense, compassion and individual freedom provided for by Donald J Trump, the most libertarian President since Cal Coolidge a century ago.
Unfortunately, drug prohibitionists (including Christian fundamentalists, Fox News, Big Pharma, Drug Testing and Treatment Service providers) continue to vehemently oppose rational and responsible drug policies.
America's deadliest and most harmful drugs are:
- cigarettes (450,000 deaths annually),
- alcohol (150,000 deaths annually),
- prescription drugs (150,000 deaths annually),
- fentanyl (125,000 deaths annually),
- cocaine (30,000 deaths annually),
- heroin (15,000 deaths annually),
-
- LSD, ectasy, magic mushrooms & peyote (<10 deaths annually),
- marijuana (0 deaths annually).
Notice how many of the least harmful drugs have been Schedule 1 for many decades, while the deadliest drugs (cigarettes, alcohol, prescription drugs & fentanyl) have been deceitfully classified as less harmful).
A very objective and well written article by TDS inflicted Sullum, who must be going nuts acknowledge Trump's beneficial policies.
Hang in there Jacob, as Trump plans to further increase individual and corporate freedom in America.
More expeditious than lowering interest rates before an election. Give us a break.
Just out of curiosity, is Trump Doubling Down on Executive Overreach with this policy too? Or is this one good because Reason supports it?
Yes.