The federal government is currently debating what could become one of the biggest U.S. drug policy changes in decades. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is holding hearings on whether cannabis should be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. While the proceedings, which began on June 29, are expected to last around two weeks, the question being discussed is fairly straightforward:
Does cannabis meet the legal criteria of Schedule III?
By the government’s own admission, the answer is “yes.” Here’s why.
RELATED: New study challenges widely repeated claim about cannabis
Cannabis has accepted medical use
Schedule I substances are defined as having “no currently accepted medical use” and “a high potential for abuse.” Other Schedule I drugs include heroin, LSD, and MDMA.
Schedule III substances, on the other hand, have at least one currently accepted medical use and a low-to-moderate potential for dependence. Drugs in this classification include Tylenol with codeine and anabolic steroids.
Federal agencies have previously acknowledged evidence supporting therapeutic uses for cannabis—on multiple occasions. One example is the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of Epidiolex, a CBD-based prescription medication used to treat certain seizure disorders. The agency recently fast-tracked a THC-based drug for pain, another example of accepted medical use.
RELATED: Supreme Court rejects broad gun ban for cannabis consumers
The feds made a broader concession on the potential of cannabis in a 252-page report filed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2023. The document supported HHS’s recommendation to move cannabis to Schedule III.
The report said cannabis does have therapeutic value in easing three specific conditions: anorexia associated with AIDS, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, and pain. It also cited the widespread adoption of state medical marijuana programs serving millions of patients.
There’s also the fact that the Department of Justice already moved “state-legal medical marijuana” to Schedule III earlier this year. That in and of itself indicates a shifting perception of cannabis on behalf of the feds.
Cannabis only has a moderate risk of dependence
As a Schedule I substance, cannabis is considered to have a “high potential for abuse.” However, the HHS report reviewed the evidence and concluded that, while some people may develop a psychological dependence on the plant, “the likelihood of serious outcomes is low.”
Meanwhile, roughly 7.6 million Americans misuse prescription drugs, the most common being opioid painkillers. Side effects of painkiller addiction may include cardiovascular damage, seizures, and death.
Cannabis poses lower public health risks than some controlled substances
Tens of thousands of people die every year from overdoses; more than three-quarters of those are opioid-related. Fentanyl, a potent opioid painkiller, is a Schedule II substance.
RELATED: How a little-known federal rule could make cannabis seeds illegal
The HHS report concluded that cannabis produces fewer harmful consequences than other substances.
“The risks to the public health posed by marijuana are lower compared to other drugs of abuse (e.g., heroin, oxycodone, cocaine),” the report states.
Flash forward to the current DEA hearings, where one of the agency’s witnesses testified in favor of this finding. Dr. Corey Burchman, a retired physician, discussed how he helped thousands of chronic pain patients transition from opioids to cannabis.
During cross-examination, DEA counsel asked Burchman to compare the two drugs, focusing on withdrawal symptoms and adverse effects instead of potential benefits. Given the data, the Burchman may be able to confirm what is already evident: that cannabis is likely less risky than opioids.
Where the evidence points
While the DEA cannabis hearings continue to unfold, it appears the government has already confirmed that the plant belongs on the Schedule III list. While the proceedings will include testimony and cross-examination from those opposing the change, the arguments may be futile. Only time will tell which way the government will ultimately rule.
