The Cannabis Rescheduling Debate: A Veteran's Take on Why It's a Step Forward, But Not Enough

Disclaimer:

I am a disabled veteran and have been a medical cannabis patient for over five years, I've also been growing cannabis for the past few years. While I appreciate any positive shift in cannabis regulation, my ultimate goal is for cannabis to be descheduled.

Plants should not be regulated like this, period.

However,

"Don’t Let 'Perfect' Be the Enemy of 'Good.'"

Is something to consider. Pretending or believing something good is evil can come from paranoia more than logic in my experiences. As an eternal skeptic, I understand what many people are thinking and feeling. I had the same opinion years ago, and I've changed my mind when presented with stronger evidence.

Someone from the U.S. Government said Cannabis has Medical Value

Yet the focus is on a number, "III?"

People, the U.S. Health and Human Services (the FDA's boss I believe?) has said Cannabis has medical value. That should be the news, until the DEA responds.

What did you expect? The government to make sense? Deschedule first time?

If the immediate and direct descheduling of cannabis was remotely realistic, then plaintiffs who sued over Cannabis access would have won by now. History shows us Schedule II was the closest prior recommendation, thank you NORML and Judge Young for the start. But, no thanks for:

"All Parties present stipulated, for the purpose of this proceeding, that marijuana has a high potential for abuse and that abuse of the marijuana plant may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence."

Source: United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. (1988). In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition: Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge (Docket No. 86-22). Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge. https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/young/young1.html

So, the HHS recommended Schedule III, so what... (and where is the letter?)

What the Recommendation Means (Foley Hoag, 2023):

1. Reduced Criminal Penalties: Transitioning cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III could significantly lighten criminal penalties for cannabis-related offenses. This is a step toward a more humane approach to cannabis regulation.
2. Tax Benefits: The infamous 280E tax issue would be completely eliminated, providing much-needed financial relief to cannabis businesses.
3. Regulatory Easing: Various other regulatory burdens, such as quota requirements and security regulations, could be relaxed, making it easier for businesses to operate.

What the Recommendation Does Not Mean (Foley Hoag, 2023):

1. Not a Law Yet: This is merely a recommendation, not a law. The DEA has historically listened to HHS but has also failed to act on cannabis rescheduling numerous times.
2. No Opening Up of Research: “Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act, H.R. 8454.” (Thanks Kevin Sabet and President Biden) More on this later...
3. No Guarantee of Reduced Enforcement: Rescheduling to Schedule III doesn't necessarily mean increased or decreased enforcement actions. It does mean it would be utterly ridiculous for the government at any level to recommit to the CSA. Many activists this author respects say any enforcement would lead to widespread protest and lawsuits of all kinds against the government. In the past, raids led to federal protections in fact, not more raids.
4. Not Full Legalization: Rescheduling is a step forward, but is not the same as full legalization, decriminalization (as Biden Campaigned) OR descheduling. Source: Hudak & Wallack, 2016

Personal Insights:

While many, including myself, would prefer the descheduling of cannabis altogether, getting flustered over a move to Schedule III seems counterproductive. There has been zero evidence of increased enforcement under Schedule III compared to Schedule I. Let's focus on the incremental change and what it signifies: a recognition of cannabis's medical utility. Getting out of Schedule I and Schedule II is the most significant hurdle, and we aren't through it yet.

Additional Considerations:

1. Big Pharma's Role: They already have FDA-approved cannabis-derived drugs. It's unlikely the FDA will approve botanical cannabis soon. Source: Hudak & Wallack, 2016
2. Homegrow and Recreational Use: These remain illegal under federal law. The CSA doesn't change that. Source: Hudak & Wallack, 2016
3. Research Challenges: A recently signed bill makes cannabis research more challenging, regardless of its schedule. Source: Thanks Kevin Sabet & President Biden (“I applaud bill sponsors Congressmen Andy Harris and Earl Blumenauer, as well as?Senators Brian Schatz, Dianne Feinstein, and Chuck Grassley for leading this charge on sensible marijuana research.” -Kevin Sabet)

From Shane Pennington (2023):

"The new H.R. 8454 imposes a special set of detailed registration requirements on marijuana in particular and regardless of its scheduling classification."

Pennington also opined via Vicente LLP blog:

This means even with the restrictions under Schedule I researchers could conduct research and help end the veteran suicide epidemic. There is also a law enforcement exemption highlighted in the same post. Both are very informative.

Conclusion:

This is a time for balanced perspectives.

Let's engage with lawmakers, study history, push for the research we legally can do, and most importantly, let's not jump to conclusions!

Incremental change is still change, and in the case of cannabis, it's a step in the right direction. Without clear evidence of regulatory capture, what action can even be taken?

We must also consider the international treaty the DEA has cited as an excuse not to change marijuana's status previously. Without changes there, they can continue to stifle change.

After all, the decision is in the DEA's hands now, unfortunately.

References

• DrugLibrary.org United States Department of Justice, Drug Enforcement Administration. (1988). In the Matter of Marijuana Rescheduling Petition: Opinion and Recommended Ruling, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Decision of Administrative Law Judge (Docket No. 86-22). Francis L. Young, Administrative Law Judge. https://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/library/studies/young/young1.html
• Foley Hoag, 2023
• Hudak & Wallack, 2016
• On Drugs - Shane Pennington
• Sessions Memorandum, 2020
• Vicente LLP 2023