Biden’s Risky Marijuana Play: Is He Putting Politics Over Public Safety?

With just three months left until the 2024 election, the Biden administration’s sudden push to loosen federal restrictions on marijuana has sparked intense debate. While the move may appeal to progressive voters, critics argue that it is a calculated political maneuver designed to score last-minute points, rather than a well-considered policy change grounded in science.

In doing so, the Biden-Harris administration could be playing a dangerous game, risking both public health and the rule of law.

The Biden administration’s latest attempt to reschedule marijuana comes at a time when cannabis reform is a hot-button issue for many voters. President Biden, who has remained largely neutral on the matter for most of his political career, made a decisive shift in October 2022. He called on Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Merrick Garland to expedite a review of marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance—the highest classification under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

This classification, which currently places marijuana alongside drugs like heroin and LSD, is based on the drug’s supposed high potential for abuse and lack of accepted medical use. Over the years, several attempts to downgrade marijuana to a lower classification have failed, most recently in 2016 under the Obama administration, which concluded that cannabis did not meet the standards for rescheduling.

However, as the 2024 election looms, the political landscape has changed. Progressive voters, a key demographic for the Biden-Harris ticket, increasingly demand marijuana reform. In response, the administration has ramped up its efforts to downgrade marijuana to a Schedule III drug, which would reduce federal restrictions and potentially allow for broader medical use and tax deductions for cannabis businesses.

But critics argue that this sudden policy shift is less about good governance and more about rallying support from the left as Election Day nears.

One of the most significant concerns about the Biden administration’s marijuana move is its apparent disregard for the legal and scientific processes that have historically governed drug classification. Under federal law, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is responsible for making the final decision on drug scheduling, with input from scientific experts at HHS. However, in this case, the process appears to be heavily influenced by political pressure.

In August 2023, HHS recommended rescheduling marijuana, citing new criteria that critics claim were designed to achieve the administration’s political goals. Notably, the DEA has not endorsed this change. In fact, DEA Administrator Anne Milgram did not sign off on the proposed rule.

Instead, Attorney General Garland intervened, overriding DEA objections and moving forward with the proposed rescheduling despite "sharply different views" within the administration.

This deviation from established protocol has raised alarm among those who argue that rescheduling marijuana should be based on rigorous scientific evidence, not political convenience. The 2016 HHS report, issued under the Obama administration, concluded that marijuana has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use in the U.S.

Since then, the scientific data supporting that conclusion has not fundamentally changed. THC concentrations, a key factor in marijuana’s potency and potential for abuse, have only increased in recent years, making the drug even more potent and addictive.

Rescheduling marijuana may have political benefits for the Biden-Harris administration, but public health experts warn that it could have dangerous consequences. Marijuana is widely regarded as a "gateway drug"—while not all users go on to use harder drugs, the vast majority of those who do started with marijuana.

The addiction potential for cannabis is also higher than many assume. Studies show that one-third of people who used marijuana in the past year met the criteria for addiction, and half of daily users become dependent on the drug.

Beyond addiction, long-term marijuana use has been linked to a range of negative mental health outcomes, including increased risks of psychosis, schizophrenia, suicidal ideation, and paranoia. The drug is particularly harmful to children and teenagers, for whom it has become increasingly popular. With these risks in mind, critics argue that the Biden administration’s push to reschedule marijuana is a reckless public health gamble.

Moreover, the lack of FDA approval for the use of cannabis as medicine remains a significant hurdle. While some synthetic compounds derived from marijuana have been approved for specific medical purposes, the FDA has not approved cannabis itself or its derivatives for the treatment of any disease. This is a crucial distinction, as FDA approval is based on rigorous scientific trials that determine a drug’s safety and effectiveness—criteria marijuana has not met.

Yet, the Biden administration seems intent on bypassing these established standards. HHS’s latest argument for rescheduling points to the fact that some states have legalized marijuana for medical use, suggesting this alone is enough to establish its legitimacy as a medicine.

However, this reasoning undermines the federal regulatory system, which is designed to ensure that only drugs proven safe and effective through scientific research are made available for medical use.

The broader implications of the Biden-Harris marijuana move go beyond public health concerns. By sidestepping established legal processes and scientific rigor, the administration risks undermining the rule of law. The Controlled Substances Act was created to protect Americans from dangerous drugs based on scientific evidence, not political popularity. Yet, in its rush to reschedule marijuana, the administration appears to be prioritizing political expediency over evidence-based policy.

A major practical outcome of rescheduling marijuana would be financial: cannabis businesses could begin to claim tax deductions, a move that critics say would essentially amount to taxpayers subsidizing the industry. In this context, rescheduling could be seen as a victory for marijuana lobbyists and a financial boon for the industry, but at what cost to public health and safety?

Amid an ongoing drug crisis that claims over 100,000 American lives each year, facilitating access to a substance that is known to be addictive and potentially harmful raises serious ethical questions. While not all marijuana users move on to harder drugs, the fact that most hard drug users started with marijuana cannot be ignored.

By pushing this change through without proper scrutiny, the Biden administration is arguably playing fast and loose with the health and safety of the American people—all in the name of political gain.

In its push to reschedule marijuana, the Biden-Harris administration is walking a fine line between political strategy and public health risk. While the move may energize progressive voters, it raises serious questions about the administration’s commitment to science, the rule of law, and the health of American citizens.

As the 2024 election approaches, the rescheduling debate will continue to ignite controversy, with voters left to decide whether this is a bold step toward reform or a reckless gamble for political advantage.

Is the Biden administration putting public health at risk by pushing to reschedule marijuana for political gain?