“The only clearly understood consequence of moving cannabis to Schedule III is ending the unfair, excessive tax burden, providing a financial benefit for all marijuana companies and a windfall for the largest ones. The rosy prospect of this windfall is fueling dangerous myths: that rescheduling would legalize state cannabis programs, make research easier, or lead to insurance coverage for medical cannabis. These widely held misconceptions are wishful thinking at best and intentionally misleading at worst.”
That warning from Shaleen Title, longtime regulator, attorney, and founder of the Parabola Center, goes straight to the core of today’s rescheduling debate.
When the Department of Justice’s comment portal closed in 2024, nearly 42,925 people and organizations had weighed in. According to a report by the Drug Policy Alliance, close to 70% explicitly supported descheduling, which is a full removal of cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act. Only a fraction backed rescheduling. That split shows that the people most impacted by prohibition are not asking for half-measures but for full reform.
And yet the Biden administration put Schedule III on the table. A move that, after legal challenges and the return of Trump to the White House, remains stalled in limbo. Tax relief is still delayed for businesses, while federal criminalization remains intact.
In this context, a question is gaining increased attention: is cannabis better off in Schedule III, or does Schedule I, at least, keep the fight honest?
Why Schedule III Emerged
Although Biden campaigned on reform, his administration never aimed to fully end prohibition. Instead, Schedule III was crafted near the last elections as an incremental gesture to show that the administration that had promised legalization was finally doing something about that oath (and many cannabis-related others that were also broken). It let the White House claim progress without forcing Congress to confront …
Read More
Author: Rolando García / High Times
