This post was originally published on this site.
The potential rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III has been met with a mix of celebration and skepticism within the industry. While many view this as a significant step forward, I find myself in the camp of cautious observers. As someone who has closely followed and written about cannabis policy, I’ve long maintained that Schedule III is less about progress and more about creating a sweet spot for Big Pharma to dominate the cannabis market, leaving smaller players and consumers at a disadvantage.
However, the path to rescheduling is far from clear-cut. Depending on who you ask, you’ll hear vastly different predictions about the likelihood and timeline of this potential shift. The waters are murky, with legal experts, industry insiders, and politicians all weighing in with their own perspectives and agendas.
In this article, we’ll dive deep into the opinions of various stakeholders. We’ll examine the insights shared by legal experts at a recent conference in Chicago, who emphasized the uncertainty surrounding the rescheduling process. Their cautious approach stands in contrast to the more optimistic outlook of a prominent cannabis businessman with significant skin in the game.
By presenting these diverse viewpoints, my aim is not to push a particular narrative, but to provide you with a comprehensive overview of the current landscape. I invite you to consider the evidence, weigh the arguments, and form your own conclusions about the likelihood and potential impacts of cannabis rescheduling.
As we navigate through these expert opinions, keep in mind that the cannabis industry is no stranger to unexpected turns and political maneuvering. What seems certain today may shift dramatically tomorrow. So, let’s embark on this exploration of the complex and often contradictory world of cannabis policy reform, and see what insights we can glean about the potential future of marijuana’s legal status in the United States.
The International Cannabis Bar Association recently convened in Chicago, bringing together a cadre of legal experts to discuss the intricacies of cannabis law and policy. Among the hot topics at this gathering was the potential rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III, a move that could dramatically reshape the industry landscape.
Kelly Fair, a San Francisco-based cannabis attorney, set the tone for the discussions, emphasizing the prevailing uncertainty: “We don’t know what’s going to happen. The only thing we’re certain about today is that we’re uncertain about what’s going to happen.” This sentiment echoed throughout the conference, with experts grappling with the complexities of the rescheduling process and its potential outcomes.
While some experts entertained the possibility of swift action, most remained cautious about the timeline. Fair suggested that in a best-case scenario, “there’s a final rule that gets announced in August.” However, this optimistic view was tempered by Robert Tobiassen, president of the National Association of Beverage Importers, who called such a six-month timeframe “unbelievably ambitious.”
The legal experts identified several potential hurdles that could impede the path to Schedule III:
-
Political Uncertainty: The looming presidential election adds a layer of complexity. As Michael Joseph Heaton, a cannabis attorney and lobbyist, pointed out, “A Harris-whoever administration… would probably be, I think, more aggressive than the current Biden administration” in supporting federal cannabis reform. Conversely, “a Trump-Vance administration, where we probably will see most of this go away.”
-
Administrative Processes: The DEA has nearly 43,000 public comments to digest before proceeding, which could significantly slow the process.
-
Potential Legal Challenges: Cannabis opponents, such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), have promised to attempt to block rescheduling through legal action.
-
Congressional Interference: Heaton highlighted attempts by Republican opponents to use backdoor methods through Congressional appropriations to halt rescheduling, including introducing amendments to withhold funding for the move.
-
International Treaty Obligations: The experts noted that U.S. obligations under international treaties could impact the final rule.
Despite these challenges, there seemed to be a cautious consensus among the legal experts that rescheduling to Schedule III is more likely than not to occur. However, the timeline remains a point of contention. While some optimistically pointed to the possibility of a final rule by August, most experts viewed this as highly ambitious.
Tobiassen refused to speculate on specific timing, emphasizing the multitude of unknowns in play. He suggested that the outcome of the November election could significantly impact the process, potentially leading to either accelerated reform or a complete reversal of progress.
Overall, the legal experts at the Chicago conference painted a picture of a complex, uncertain process with high stakes for the cannabis industry. While they generally believed that rescheduling to Schedule III is on the horizon, they stressed that the path forward is far from straightforward. They urged industry stakeholders to remain vigilant and engaged in the political process, as the coming months and years could bring significant changes to the federal status of cannabis.
While legal experts express caution, Jason Vedadi, CEO of Story Cannabis, offers a more bullish perspective on cannabis rescheduling. Vedadi is no newcomer to the industry; he’s a real estate developer and cannabis industry pioneer who served as executive chairman of Harvest Health and Recreation. He took Harvest Health public in 2018 and was its largest shareholder until the company was acquired in a $2.1-billion deal with Trulieve in 2021.
Vedadi’s optimism about rescheduling is palpable. “I understand why people are completely skeptical and that they think the rug’s going to get pulled out from underneath them,” he acknowledges. “I also can relate to that kind of mentality in this industry, but if you ask me where my true gut instinct is on this, this is kind of a done deal.”
His confidence stems from the process itself. Vedadi points out that the rescheduling initiative has been ongoing since 2022 and has progressed exactly as expected. This consistency in the process fuels his belief that rescheduling is more than just a possibility—it’s a near certainty.
However, Vedadi isn’t blind to the potential risks. He acknowledges that if rescheduling isn’t completed before the end of Biden’s term, particularly if Democrats lose the White House, there’s an element of uncertainty. “If Democrats are reelected, then I would say there’s zero risk to Schedule III. If Republicans are elected, it adds an element of risk and, I think, some discomfort for people,” Vedadi explains.
The ideal scenario, according to Vedadi, would be for rescheduling to occur before the November elections. This would eliminate the risk of a potential Republican administration halting or reversing the process. However, he also notes that even during the Trump administration, there wasn’t active opposition to state-level cannabis reforms: “If you go back to Trump, he didn’t do anything for four years. He didn’t stop anything. He didn’t prosecute anybody. He didn’t push any agenda.”
Despite his optimism, Vedadi recognizes that completing the rescheduling process before November is unlikely. The DEA still has to review over 43,000 public comments, and there’s potential for administrative law hearings or legal challenges that could extend the timeline.
This delay in the process lends credence to the theory that the push for Schedule III rescheduling is, at least in part, a political maneuver. By keeping the issue alive through the election cycle, Democrats can position themselves as progressive on cannabis reform, potentially swaying voters who prioritize this issue.
Vedadi doesn’t directly address this political angle, focusing instead on the business implications of rescheduling. He emphasizes that for EBITDA-positive companies, rescheduling “changes everything,” potentially providing more cash flow, growth capital, and improved relationships with lenders.
While Vedadi’s optimism provides a counterpoint to the cautiousness of legal experts, it’s clear that the path to Schedule III is not without its hurdles. Whether his confidence is well-founded or overly optimistic remains to be seen as the rescheduling process continues to unfold in the coming months.
Despite the optimism of industry insiders and the cautious analysis of legal experts, the truth remains that nobody can predict with certainty how the cannabis rescheduling saga will unfold. My gut feeling, however, is that Schedule III may be a pipe dream—or if achieved, it could be short-lived.
A significant hurdle emerged with the recent rescinding of the Chevron Doctrine by the Supreme Court. This doctrine, which previously gave federal agencies like the DEA broad authority to interpret ambiguous statutes, has been overturned. Its absence opens the door for anti-cannabis groups to wage legal battles against rescheduling, potentially tying up the process in courts for years.
Moreover, with the November elections looming and Trump’s popularity seemingly unscathed—or even boosted—by recent legal challenges, the political landscape remains unpredictable. This uncertainty makes it increasingly likely that cannabis will remain in a state of limbo, caught between progressive promises and conservative resistance.
But here’s the crux of the matter: Schedule III is not what the cannabis community truly desires. It’s a half-measure, a “bread and circuses” approach that fails to address the core issues. What we really want—and need—is full deregulation. We want the freedom to grow our own plants, to have access to this plant without government interference or corporate monopolization.
The push for Schedule III feels like a political ploy, a way for politicians to appear progressive on cannabis without truly committing to comprehensive reform. It’s a compromise that ultimately serves neither the industry nor the consumers effectively.
So, regardless of whether cannabis ends up in Schedule III or remains in its current classification, our focus should remain unwavering. We must continue to push for full decriminalization and legalization. We should advocate for policies that allow home cultivation and remove government oversight from personal cannabis use.
The sticky bottom line is this: don’t be distracted by the promise of incremental change. Keep your eyes on the prize—complete cannabis freedom. Anything less is just smoke and mirrors in the grand scheme of drug policy reform.
RESCHEDULING CANNABIS WINNERS AND LOSERS, READ ON…
WHO ARE WINNERS, WHINERS, AND LOSERS FROM CANNABIS RESCHEDULING?