Rescheduling Cannabis: A Step Toward Social Justice and Equity?

The public comment period for the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) proposal to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III drug has concluded with nearly 43,000 submissions. This marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over federal cannabis regulation. While the proposal aims to shift marijuana from the same category as heroin to one that includes substances like anabolic steroids, many advocates argue that this move doesn't go far enough. Instead, they call for full descheduling to rectify the social injustices perpetuated by decades of marijuana prohibition.

State regulators, health experts, and everyday citizens contributed to the deluge of comments, which the DEA will now review before making a final decision. The comments reveal a strong public sentiment favoring more comprehensive reform. According to the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), 69% of the comments supported complete descheduling, highlighting the alignment with a 2023 Gallup poll indicating that 70% of U.S. adults back cannabis legalization.

A significant portion of the comments also emphasized the need for federal marijuana reform to advance racial justice and social equity. Historical data shows that communities of color have been disproportionately affected by cannabis criminalization. In a bid to address these inequities, grassroots organizations like United for Marijuana Decriminalization (UMD) mobilized public input, resulting in over 10,000 comments advocating for decriminalization.

Cat Packer, Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation for the DPA, underscored the public's demand for broader reforms. "Participation in public comment processes gives the American public a chance to speak from personal experience and provide feedback on proposed legal changes," Packer said. "The people are demanding the Biden administration do more to deliver on the marijuana reforms that communities deserve."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated the proposed rescheduling, but the DEA has yet to formally endorse it. The absence of DEA Administrator Anne Milgram's signature on the 92-page notice has fueled speculation about internal hesitations. Despite this, the U.S. Health and Human Services Department (HHS) has affirmed that cannabis has accepted medical use, a critical criterion for rescheduling.

Comments from various state agencies provided robust data to support the medical and economic benefits of cannabis. The Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency highlighted the state's successful medical cannabis program and its potential as a model for federal rescheduling.

In Massachusetts, regulators stressed the importance of equity in any rescheduling efforts. The Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission called for regulatory changes that would include expunging criminal records for cannabis-related offenses and providing training for stakeholders to understand the new legal landscape.

The National Cannabis Roundtable (NCR), representing a coalition of cannabis businesses and advocates, also supported the proposed rule. Their comments emphasized the positive economic impacts of rescheduling and the alignment of federal policy with state-level legalization.

As the DEA deliberates, the collective voice of nearly 43,000 commenters sends a clear message: rescheduling cannabis is a step in the right direction, but comprehensive reform that includes descheduling and addressing social justice issues is essential for meaningful progress.

Should the DEA go beyond rescheduling cannabis and fully legalize it to address social justice issues?