How to Remove Cannabis from Schedule 1

Rule #1: Don’t leave cannabis scheduling up to faceless bureaucrats.

President Joe Biden made history going into the 2022 midterms when he announced a federal pardon for those convicted of simple marijuana possession. He also instructed the U.S. Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to begin the process of re-evaluating cannabis’s place as a Schedule 1 substance. Organic and synthetic compounds in this category are said to lack any accepted medical application and have a high likelihood of abuse. The arguments to keep cannabis in this category have worn thin over the years with the growing body of evidence to support not just one but multiple medical applications for cannabis. Not to mention that over 40 states in the US have a medical marijuana program (although very limited in some states). Removing cannabis from its current classification seems like a no-brainer, but like most things in D.C., the devil is in the details.

All too often, we confuse what we want to have to happen versus what is most likely to happen. The further you are removed from the decision-making which makes a thing happen or not, the more likely you are going to lean into wishful thinking. Especially if you have trained your brain to be optimistic, you will continuously seek out facts that validate your narrative and dismiss those that would tear it down. We are seeing this very phenomenon occur now with scheduling cannabis.

Yes, President Biden’s directive was the first of its nature because it came from a sitting U.S. President. However, it is not the first time cannabis has ever been up for review. The last time federal agencies looked at the possible reclassification of cannabis, the review took 5 years and ended with a rejection to reschedule by the DEA in 2016. The potential for abuse is what the DEA uses to determine how a drug should be scheduled. Comments from the DEA indicated the only potentially appropriate scheduling for cannabis would be Schedule II which includes drugs like cocaine, methamphetamine, and oxycodone. A move to this classification would make the already perilous regulatory environment even more insufferable.

The idea that cannabis will simply be rescheduled to a III or below is not founded in anything other than normative thinking, what ought to be vs what will be. Simply because something should be a certain way by no means guarantees it will happen the way you think it should. A childhood lesson that we all forget and fall victim to time and again. This surely isn’t to say that optimism is a trait that one should dismiss or temper down, but like all things, it should be met with a self-correcting realism. When you can combine these seemingly opposite perspectives, you can achieve the highest outcome. You’re actively reaching for the top while never forgetting the small obstacles that could derail the entire journey.

This should be the approach to the scheduling of cannabis. The directive to have the president use bureaucratic methods to bypass Congress seems like the obvious shortcut to achieving victory. But shortcuts rarely, if ever, come without a price. If cannabis regulation is left to the faceless heads of government agencies, it would be wise to remain extremely skeptical of a positive outcome. And the shorter the timeline, the more likely the outcome will be unwelcoming.

Through bureaucratic methods, the HHS, DEA, and FDA have to not only agree that cannabis should be rescheduled but also on where to accurately place it in the current scheduling apparatus. Do not confuse these agencies with the political chambers of Congress. These institutions are not subject to the whims of displeased voters. Their loyalties lie with their special interests they have far more power and influence than cannabis as an industry.

So where does that leave us? So far, I've painted a rather gloomy picture. But, I have good news for you. There is hope.

It’s with reasonable logic that Congress has deemed itself a lost cause concerning reform. After Democrats controlled the White House and both chambers of Congress and still failed to pass any meaningful reform, people’s disheartened views are understandable. But for the reasons mentioned before, it’s a risky bet to place reform in the hands of faceless bureaucrats from alphabet-soup agencies. There is still “power in the people” and it is the people of the industry that must give Congress more reason to act. That cannot and will not happen while the industry is at war with itself.

As more and more states roll out legal markets, the decades-long stigmatization will erode. New prejudices will arise, but that will be coupled with new perspectives as well. If the industry can present itself as a mature one that takes consumer health and safety seriously, you then push cannabis to be a mainstream issue for both political parties. As it stands, Republicans may be for the legalization of medical use, but it's hardly a top priority for them. However, opioid abuse and overdose deaths remain very close to their hearts as many rural communities have been ravaged by this epidemic. Cannabis can be a safe alternative to these communities, but Congress must find the political will to do so.

The cannabis community must unite behind a common goal. This doesn’t mean that we all need to get in a circle and sing Kumbaya, but there must be a higher principle or principles that we all agree to hold ourselves to. I propose these three pillars: care for the people, respect the plant, and validate the industry. As long as humans have gathered in groups and relied on one another, the betterment of a people has been accomplished through that higher, common purpose. And people with a united common goal can move mountains, especially in impacting the future of cannabis.