Marijuana set to become 鈥榣ess dangerous鈥� in the US. What does that mean?
| Washington
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration聽is moving toward reclassifying聽marijuana聽as a less dangerous drug. The Justice Department proposal would recognize聽the medical uses of cannabis, but wouldn鈥檛 legalize it for recreational use.
The proposal would move marijuana from the 鈥淪chedule I鈥� group to the less tightly regulated 鈥淪chedule III.鈥�
So what does that mean, and what are the implications?
What has actually changed? What happens next?
Technically, nothing yet.聽The proposal聽must be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget, and then undergo a public-comment period and review from an administrative judge, a potentially lengthy process.
Still, the switch is considered 鈥減aradigm-shifting, and it鈥檚 very exciting,鈥� Vince Sliwoski, a Portland, Oregon-based cannabis and psychedelics attorney who runs well-known legal blogs on those topics, told The Associated Press when the federal Health and Human Services Department recommended the change.
鈥淚 can鈥檛 emphasize enough how big of news it is,鈥� he said.
It came after聽President Joe Biden asked聽both HHS and the attorney general, who oversees the DEA, last year to review how marijuana was classified. Schedule I put it on par, legally, with heroin, LSD, quaaludes, and ecstasy, among others.
Mr. Biden, a Democrat, supports legalizing medical marijuana for use 鈥渨here appropriate, consistent with medical and scientific evidence,鈥� White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said April 25. 鈥淭hat is why it is important for this independent review to go through.鈥�
If marijuana gets reclassified, would it legalize recreational cannabis nationwide?聽
No. Schedule III drugs 鈥� which include ketamine, anabolic steroids, and some acetaminophen-codeine combinations 鈥� are still controlled substances.
They鈥檙e subject to various rules that allow for some medical uses, and for federal criminal prosecution of anyone who traffics in the drugs without permission.
No changes are expected to the medical marijuana programs now licensed in 38 states or the legal recreational cannabis markets in 23 states, but it鈥檚 unlikely they would meet the federal production, record-keeping, prescribing, and other requirements for Schedule III drugs.
There haven鈥檛 been many federal prosecutions for simply possessing marijuana in recent years, even under marijuana鈥檚 current Schedule I status, but the reclassification wouldn鈥檛 have an immediate impact on people already in the criminal justice system.
鈥淧ut simple, this move from Schedule I to Schedule III is not getting people out of jail,鈥� said David Culver, senior vice president of public affairs at the U.S. Cannabis Council.
But rescheduling in itself would have some impact, particularly on research and marijuana business taxes.
What would this mean for research?聽
Because marijuana is on Schedule I, it鈥檚 been very difficult to conduct authorized clinical studies that involve administering the drug. That has created something of a Catch-22: calls for more research, but barriers to doing it. (Scientists sometimes rely instead on people鈥檚 own reports of their marijuana use.)
Schedule III drugs are easier to study, though the reclassification wouldn鈥檛 immediately reverse all barriers to study.
鈥淚t鈥檚 going to be really confusing for a long time,鈥� said Ziva Cooper, director of the University of California, Los Angeles Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoids. 鈥淲hen the dust has settled, I don鈥檛 know how many years from now, research will be easier.鈥�
Among the unknowns: whether researchers will be able to study marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries and how the federal Food and Drug Administration might oversee that.
Some researchers are optimistic.
鈥淩educing the schedule to schedule 3 will open up the door for us to be able to conduct research with human subjects with cannabis,鈥� said Susan Ferguson, director of University of Washington鈥檚 Addictions, Drug & Alcohol Institute in Seattle.
What about taxes (and banking)?聽
Under the federal tax code, businesses involved in 鈥渢rafficking鈥� in marijuana or any other Schedule I or II drug can鈥檛 deduct rent, payroll, or various other expenses that other businesses can write off. (Yes, at least some cannabis businesses, particularly state-licensed ones, do pay taxes to the federal government, despite its prohibition on marijuana.) Industry groups say the tax rate often ends up at 70% or more.
The deduction rule doesn鈥檛 apply to Schedule III drugs, so the proposed change would cut cannabis companies鈥� taxes substantially.
They say it would treat them like other industries and help them compete against illegal competitors that are frustrating licensees and officials in聽places such as New York.
鈥淵ou鈥檙e going to make these state-legal programs stronger,鈥� says Adam Goers, an executive at medical and recreational cannabis giant Columbia Care. He co-chairs a coalition of corporate and other players that鈥檚 pushing for rescheduling.
It could also mean more cannabis promotion and advertising if those costs could be deducted, according to Beau Kilmer, co-director of the RAND Drug Policy Center.
Rescheduling wouldn鈥檛 directly affect another marijuana business problem: difficulty accessing banks, particularly for loans, because the federally regulated institutions are wary of the drug鈥檚 legal status. The industry has been looking instead to a聽measure called the SAFE Banking Act. It has repeatedly passed the House but stalled in the Senate.
Are there critics? What do they say?聽
Indeed, there are, including the national anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. President Kevin Sabet, a former Obama administration drug policy official, said the HHS recommendation 鈥渇lies in the face of science, reeks of politics鈥� and gives a regrettable nod to an industry 鈥渄esperately looking for legitimacy.鈥�
Some legalization advocates say rescheduling weed is too incremental. They want to keep the focus on removing it completely from the controlled substances list, which doesn鈥檛 include such items as alcohol or tobacco (they鈥檙e regulated, but that鈥檚 not the same).
Paul Armentano, the deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said that simply reclassifying marijuana would be 鈥減erpetuating the existing divide between state and federal marijuana policies.鈥� Minority Cannabis Business Association President Kaliko Castille said rescheduling just 鈥渞e-brands prohibition,鈥� rather than giving an all-clear to state licensees and putting a definitive close to decades of arrests that disproportionately pulled in people of color.
鈥淪chedule III is going to leave it in this kind of amorphous, mucky middle where people are not going to understand the danger of it still being federally illegal,鈥� he said.
This story was reported by The Associated Press. Jennifer Peltz reported from New York. AP writers Colleen Long in Washington and Carla K. Johnson in Seattle contributed to this report.
