In August 2023, the cannabis industry received the biggest news yet on ending the federal prohibition of cannabis. In response to the Biden administration's request to evaluate whether marijuana's current Schedule I classification under the Controlled Substances Act (the CSA) was appropriate (White House, Oct. 6, 2022, Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform, https://bit.ly/3Ps5lPB), the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III, a lower classification used for drugs with "a moderate to low potential for drug abuse." (See, "US health officials look to move marijuana to lower-risk drug category" Reuters, Aug. 30, 2023, https://reut.rs/47KXUuv)
While this announcement was undoubtedly good news for the industry, many questions remain as to how a federal Schedule III classification could benefit, or further complicate, the struggling multibillion dollar industry. But will reclassification allow the industry to mature like other regulated industries or continue the uncertainty that perpetuates its stunted growth? Alas, an industry, interrupted.
Where we've been
The term "interruption" means to stop a continuation of progress. Over the past 50-plus years, starting with the founding of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) by Keith Stroup in 1970, cannabis advocates have slowly marched toward the reform of federal marijuana laws. While the movement started with the goal of ending the criminalization of cannabis, the passage of cannabis initiatives and legislation has evolved the "legalize it" movement into the development of a massive industry, national and international in scope.
Cannabis advocates and industry participants will tell you Schedule III is a drug classification they can live with, although it's not ideal. With so few federal successes after half a century of trying, we will take what we can get. Reclassification to Schedule III will come with many desperately needed benefits for the industry, but also some (continued) costs.
Read more at reuters.com