Body
President Donald Trump issued an order Thursday reclassifying state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, a change that supporters said could bring federal tax relief, ease some research barriers, and potentially open the door to future expansions. The order does not legalize marijuana for medical or recreational use under federal law, but it alters how marijuana is categorized and regulated within the federal drug scheduling system, moving licensed medical marijuana into a less strictly regulated tier.
A key consequence for industry operators, particularly in states that already allow medical cannabis through licensing, is the shift in federal treatment of the drug. The change moves medical marijuana away from Schedule I, a category reserved for drugs with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, to Schedule III, which federal regulators treat as less strictly controlled.
Jesse Alderman, a Boston-based cannabis industry attorney, framed the move as part of a broader federal effort. Alderman said, “This is a signal that this administration means business on getting this done.” He pointed to the order as a first step that could lead to additional policy outcomes affecting the wider cannabis market.
The administration’s action also comes with legal uncertainty. The order, while significant, is described as likely to face legal challenges and it stops short of federal legalization, leaving marijuana’s status under federal law unchanged in the sense that the change reflects a different regulatory posture rather than permission to use or sell it broadly nationwide.
The order’s immediate implications for the medical market are significant in part because of the longstanding federal prohibition, even as states have moved in different directions. According to the article, since California became the first state to approve medical marijuana in 1996, all but two states—Idaho and Kansas—have approved cannabis in some form, and dozens of states have authorized adult recreational use, producing billions in tax revenue, while others have medical systems or allow low-THC products or CBD oil for medical use.
Federal and state experience with medical licensing has evolved, and the order itself described that medical marijuana regulation has advanced, with comprehensive licensing policies in many states covering cultivation through sales. Douglas Hiatt, a longtime Seattle marijuana defense attorney, looked back at a period when patients faced raids and limited access during the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s and 1990s, when police regularly raided grow operations meant to support patients. Hiatt also recalled a specific case involving disabled medical marijuana activist JoAnna McKee and said it reflected the lengths required at the time to obtain marijuana after police raids.
Hiatt said, “We were watching all these guys die from this horrible disease, and the only thing that helped them keep their pills down was marijuana, and the cops were going after anyone who helped them get it.” He added, “It was crystal clear from the beginning that it had medical uses. For the feds to admit that now is great. It’s surreal.” His comments were offered in a phone interview Thursday.
Critics of the schedule change pointed to public-health concerns and the scientific and medical implications of moving marijuana into a category that indicates it may have accepted medical uses. Dr. Smita Das, an addiction psychiatrist at Stanford University, said that taking marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III implies that it is useful as a treatment but that there are not “massive medical indications for cannabis.” Das also said cannabis use disorder, which she linked to U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data that affects about 3 in 10 people who use pot, has been on the rise.
Das said, “We’ve already had kind of a decrease in risk perception related to cannabis over the years with the state legalization,” and she said, “This will probably just add to that.” Her concerns reflect a larger critique that the direction of federal policy may not match the evidence required to assess how cannabis products and use patterns are changing across the country.
The order also raised questions for some businesses operating under both medical and recreational frameworks in states that allow both markets. The article noted that with the change, state-licensed medical operators can deduct business expenses on their federal taxes, a benefit described as crucial, but that dispensaries that serve both markets could face an accounting challenge in determining which expenses connect to medical activity and which to recreational activity.
Sociology professor Josh Meisel, who co-founded the Humboldt Institute for Interdisciplinary Marijuana Research at California State Polytechnic University, Humboldt, said the policy design leaves “artificial distinction between medical and recreational” in place. Meisel said, “If this artificial distinction between medical and recreational is maintained, it raises all sorts of questions,” highlighting the practical compliance difficulties for mixed-market operators.
The article also described how Trump told his administration in December to work quickly to reclassify marijuana, following up on stalled efforts that began during the Biden administration. It said that on Saturday, as the Republican president signed an unrelated executive order about psychedelics, he expressed frustration that it was taking so long.
Industry supporters and opponents offered contrasting reactions. Michael Bronstein, president of the American Trade Association for Cannabis and Hemp, called the order “the most significant federal advancement in cannabis policy in over 50 years.” Kevin Sabet, CEO of Smart Approaches to Marijuana and a legalization opponent, said that research is necessary but argued against federal tax benefits to cannabis businesses, saying, “there are many ways to increase our knowledge without giving a tax break to Big Weed.”
Behind the order’s immediate effects, the next step could come through an administrative process. A new administrative hearing is scheduled for the end of June, and the article says that process could result in reclassification of marijuana more broadly, potentially granting tax and other benefits to state-licensed recreational markets as well.