U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland has proposed loosening the illegal status of marijuana at the federal level, which would make it illegal for recreational and medical use in many states where the federal government has legalized marijuana. That doesn't mean it's condoned.
Moving marijuana from the government's list of most dangerous and least useful substances to a less serious category means the federal government will loosen regulations on the legalized drug, at least under President Joe Biden's administration. It was a clear sign that he wanted to do it. of the state for over a decade.
For years, the federal government has not pursued enforcement of state-legal marijuana operations, but recent moves appear to strengthen that approach.
But many thorny issues arising from the divide between what is legal in dozens of states and what is allowed by the federal government were not resolved.
It's unclear what exactly the schedule change means. The Justice Department has not released Garland's proposal. A Justice Department spokeswoman denied the State Newsroom's request for a copy this week, and state regulators said the proposal had not been shared.
Even if the proposal is made public, changes are expected to take months of rulemaking.
Here are some questions that cover what we know at this early stage about what rescheduling will and won't do.
Q: Is marijuana currently legal?
A: No.
Even in states that have legalized recreational use, the federal government is likely to still consider the state's system illegal under federal law.
Other Schedule III drugs, such as Tylenol and anabolic steroids, which contain codeine, are highly regulated and available only by prescription at a pharmacy.
Medical marijuana dispensaries under state law do not fit that description, and recreational dispensaries are even further from what the Food and Drug Administration requires for Schedule III drugs.
“This does not make marijuana legal to operate in the state,” Shawn Hauser, a partner at Denver-based marijuana law firm Vicente LLP, said in a May 3 webinar. “They do not sell FDA-approved drugs, are not licensed, and do not meet Schedule III control requirements. Therefore, cannabis and state-law dispensaries will continue to violate federal law.” .”
Q: What is the difference between Schedule I and Schedule III?
A: The most important thing is the recognition that the drug may have some medicinal effect.
Under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, the Drug Enforcement Administration has five levels of drug classification.
Schedule I is the most restrictive level and consists of the most abusable drugs with no medicinal properties. Other drugs on the list include heroin and LSD.
The definition of Schedule I substances does not include medical uses, so it is illegal to even study substances on the list.
Schedule III is the most stringent level that allows for some efficacy, and some hope that research on the drug could improve.
The Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Commission said in a May 1 statement: “Moving marijuana to Schedule III is a major step toward recognizing the medical uses of marijuana, which voters here approved by a wide margin in 1998. Deaf,” he said. “And we can say very clearly that the federal government no longer considers marijuana to be one of the most dangerous drugs.”
Q: How are states preparing?
A: Amanda Volup, a senior policy analyst with the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission, said in an interview that state regulators can't do much until more details are known.
“We'll really have to wait and see what they come out with,” she said, referring to DEA rulemaking.
Other states are considering what the implications will be.
A statement from the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Commission said the rescheduling “is expected to ease” restrictions on cannabis research while allowing companies under state law to take advantage of tax credits available to other industries. He said the possibility was “possible.”
Q: Why is research important?
A: Due to limited research, marijuana proponents have a hard time presenting evidence of marijuana's benefits, making it even harder to show that restrictions should be lifted. .
It also helps establish industry guidelines regarding ancillary issues. For example, due to restrictions on research, there is a lack of data on which pesticides can be safely used in marijuana cultivation.
Q: How will this affect tax, banking, and criminal justice policy?
A: A date change alone would likely not address some of the grievances that marijuana industry members and advocates have about federal prohibition.
But some are hopeful that signals from the Biden administration may spur momentum for other changes.
Most businesses can deduct costs from their income and pay taxes on their net profits. Marijuana businesses are not eligible for the exemption, known as 280E, according to the Marijuana Policy Project, an advocacy group.
Schedule I status also makes it difficult to access the U.S. banking system.
Some complain that legalizing marijuana in some states isn't fair to communities of color, where enforcement has been most aggressive.
While changing the date alone won't solve these problems, advocates hope it is a sign of momentum toward full legalization.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Democratic Sens. Cory Booker of New Jersey and Ron Wyden of Oregon reintroduced a bill last week that would completely lift the drug's expiration date. The measure includes several provisions aimed at expanding the 280E tax deduction and addressing social justice.
Q: Is there any chance that this situation could be reversed if Trump wins in November?
A: Probably, although there is no indication that it is on his agenda.
It is unclear what the status of the schedule change will be as of January 20, the date of the next inauguration.
If former President Donald Trump regains office and the date change is still pending, he could direct the DEA and Justice Department to reverse the change.
President Trump has not commented on the issue.
