For years, the cannabis industry has viewed federal rescheduling as a finish line for operational normalcy. Brands, retailers, and other operators have hoped that moving cannabis to Schedule III would unlock mainstream banking access, open the door to major payment processors like Visa and Mastercard, and reduce the everyday headaches that have defined the industry for over a decade.
That expectation is overly optimistic, especially when it comes to banking and payments.
RELATED: Cannabis investors stay on sidelines despite rescheduling momentum
Rescheduling may help cannabis operators in some ways, particularly around taxes, but it could also create an entirely new layer of complexity for operators, banks, and payment providers who are already navigating one of the most compliance-heavy industries in the country.
Rescheduling isn’t the same as legalization
The biggest misconception is that Schedule III would somehow make cannabis federally legal. It would not, and that reality is where many of the industry’s financial challenges stem from. The risk calculations financial institutions make today do not suddenly disappear because the federal government changes cannabis from one schedule to another. If anything, those concerns are likely to increase as new federal oversight and medical compliance requirements are introduced.
Banks servicing cannabis businesses already face extensive obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering regulations. Every operator must be vetted continuously. Ownership structures, licensing, source of funds, transaction activity, and state compliance all require ongoing oversight. That process is expensive, time-consuming, and operationally intensive for financial institutions.
A move to Schedule III could introduce additional layers of scrutiny tied to interstate commerce, pharmaceutical oversight, and federal medical regulations. Instead of simplifying compliance, rescheduling could make the process even more taxing for banks and payment providers.
RELATED: Federal hemp law is changing soon – here’s what operators should do today
While relief from 280E would certainly improve profitability for operators, it is unlikely to radically entice banks to invest in the infrastructure required to serve the cannabis industry. The economics simply do not align the way many people assume.
Cannabis businesses move money quickly. Operators are constantly paying taxes, vendors, payroll, expansion costs, investors, and inventory expenses. Funds often enter and leave accounts almost immediately, leaving little opportunity for banks to generate meaningful returns. Combined with the expensive compliance burden that would still exist under rescheduling, the industry remains an unpredictable space for traditional financial institutions.
This is one reason why cannabis banking today is largely handled by small community banks and credit unions rather than major national institutions. Smaller financial institutions were willing to build niche compliance programs and work directly with operators, while larger banks stayed on the sidelines.
Visa and Mastercard still face obstacles
On the payments side, many people assume Visa and Mastercard would immediately enter the cannabis space under Schedule III. However, the reality is far more complicated. These companies operate nationally and globally, and cannabis would still exist in a legally gray area federally. In some international markets, involvement could still trigger concerns around drug trafficking exposure and regulatory liability, and the opportunities may not justify the operational and legal risk for major payment networks.
RELATED: United front: Trade organizations bridge the cannabis–hemp divide
Some believe it is too early to be cynical, but the early regulatory signals are not especially encouraging. Guidance remains vague, and many stakeholders are concerned about litigation or the possibility that only medical cannabis receives federal accommodation while adult-use markets remain effectively unchanged. That uncertainty is causing many operators and financial institutions to wait before making major decisions.
280E relief could come with new costs
On the positive side, the clearest benefit of Schedule III is relief from IRS Code 280E, which currently prevents cannabis businesses from deducting most ordinary operating expenses. However, even that benefit could come with tradeoffs.
Medical operators could face DEA licensing requirements, annual registration costs, additional oversight, and new reporting obligations that have not yet been fully defined. Businesses operating both medical and recreational programs may eventually decide the medical side no longer makes financial sense if compliance becomes too expensive or cumbersome. That puts operators back at Schedule I.
Everyone is trying to determine what the rules will ultimately look like and whether participation will still make economic sense once additional federal requirements arrive.
SAFE Banking may not change as much as people think
The same confusion exists around SAFE Banking legislation, another long-discussed solution for cannabis finance. Many people believe SAFE Banking would suddenly open the floodgates for the industry. In reality, the current legislation primarily protects the financial institutions already serving cannabis businesses. It does not eliminate compliance burdens, require major banks to participate, or force payment networks into the space, so it is unlikely to make institutions like Bank of America eager to enter cannabis.
That is why cannabis operators should continue prioritizing relationships with experienced financial partners who already understand the industry’s operational realities. The cannabis payments ecosystem evolved separately from traditional finance for a reason. Operators need partners who understand compliance, regulatory risk, cash management, and the unique pressures cannabis businesses face every day.
RELATED: From policy shift to prescription boom: Inside Germany’s rapidly scaling medical cannabis market
Rescheduling could absolutely help cannabis economically, but operators should not expect it to suddenly make banking simple. It is important for the industry to understand that rescheduling is not the same thing as legalization. Operating a cannabis business is unlikely to suddenly feel like operating a traditional CPG brand.
The banking and payments challenges facing cannabis are deeply structural and stem from the federal illegality of the plant. Schedule III may shift some of those challenges, but it will not erase them overnight. If anything, the transition period may prove even more complicated than the system operators are already navigating today.
*This article was submitted by an unpaid guest contributor. The opinions or statements within do not necessarily reflect those of GreenState or HNP. The author is solely responsible for the content.