After years of delays and political wrangling, the federal government’s long-awaited hearing on whether to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act is finally underway. On Jun. 29th, the DEA began proceedings. These are scheduled to run through July 15th. The Clark Hill Cannabis Industry Group has followed this issue closely for years, and we believe what happened on the opening day is monumental for the marijuana industry because, for the first time in the agency’s history, the government itself is arguing in favor of cannabis.
For more than fifty years, the DEA has defended marijuana’s Schedule I status; the same legal category as heroin, reserved for drugs deemed to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That changed dramatically on day one. DEA counsel opened the hearing by stating plainly that the agency is the formal proponent of the rule to move marijuana to Schedule III, is advocating for that change and that it would be presenting two witnesses to support that position: a scientist from the Food and Drug Administration and a physician with decades of pain-management experience.
The agency’s lawyer was careful to frame the scope of the proceeding. This hearing, he explained, is not about recreational marijuana use and is not about legalization; it is about whether cannabis meets the legal standard for a “currently accepted medical use,” or “CAMU”, a threshold that, if proven, would make it impossible for marijuana to remain in Schedule I. That framing matters enormously for the cannabis industry because it narrows the entire proceeding down to a single, utilitarian, scientifically grounded question rather than a broader politically motivated debate.
What the FDA’s Witness Told the Tribunal
The DEA’s first witness, Dr. Dominic Chiapperino, director of the controlled substance staff at the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, walked the tribunal through how federal health officials arrived at their 2023 recommendation that marijuana be rescheduled. He testified that the FDA found credible scientific support for cannabis’s medical use in treating several conditions, including chemotherapy-related nausea, appetite loss tied to medical conditions, and pain. A position well established in formal medical literature. He also addressed marijuana’s comparative safety profile, telling the tribunal that while all controlled substances carry risk, cannabis withdrawal symptoms are comparable to those of tobacco, whereas alcohol withdrawal can be far more severe and even life-threatening.
A second witness, Dr. Corey Burchman, a New Hampshire physician with more than three decades of pain-management experience, is expected to testify about transitioning his own patients away from opioids and toward medical marijuana; testimony the DEA says will highlight cannabis’s role as a safer alternative to opioids for chronic pain patients.
Opponents of rescheduling, including several states and advocacy organizations, were given the opportunity to cross-examine the FDA’s witness and will continue to do so as the hearing progresses. Their arguments largely center on disputing the scientific basis for the FDA’s two-part medical-use test and raising concerns about cannabis’s health risks. But the dynamic in the room has changed: the federal government itself is now defending cannabis’s medical legitimacy, a posture that would have been unthinkable even a few years ago.
Why This Matters for the Marijuana Industry
If marijuana moves to Schedule III, the implications for the industry are substantial; from relief under Section 280E of the federal tax code, which currently bars cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses, to easier pathways for research, banking, and interstate commerce planning. Yet, rescheduling will also create a new and complex regulatory landscape, one that touches FDA oversight, state licensing structures, employment law, and corporate transactions alike.
This is exactly the kind of inflection point where experienced counsel makes the difference between businesses that are positioned to capitalize on change and those left scrambling to catch up.
Clark Hill Is Watching This Hearing So You Don’t Have To
Clark Hill’s Cannabis Industry Group has been tracking the rescheduling process since it began, and we’ll keep following it as the hearing moves forward. Our attorneys advise cannabis businesses, investors, and ancillary companies on licensing, regulatory compliance, tax strategy, corporate transactions, and the evolving federal-state legal landscape.
Whether you are planning for life under Schedule III or simply trying to understand what this hearing means for your business, Clark Hill is ready to help you plan ahead with confidence.
Contact Clark Hill’s Cannabis Industry Group today to discuss how the DEA rescheduling hearing could affect your business.
This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author(s) only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC or Clark Hill Solicitors LLP. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.
Subscribe for the latest
Subscribe