Cannabis Rescheduling: Why Schedule III Isn’t Enough

The federal government’s move to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act marks a long-overdue shift in U.S. drug policy. For decades, cannabis has been grouped alongside substances considered to have “no accepted medical use” and a high potential for abuse, a classification increasingly at odds with science, public opinion, and state-level legalization.

Rescheduling to Schedule III signals progress. It acknowledges that cannabis has medical value and opens doors for research, tax relief, and broader clinical acceptance. But let’s be clear: this is not the finish line. It’s a step forward, but a limited one.

Emerging research, including a 2026 study¹ published in Addiction Journal, reinforces what advocates, patients, and industry leaders have been saying for years, that rescheduling is not enough. The majority of public sentiment points toward something bigger: descheduling cannabis entirely.

Public Opinion on Rescheduling Cannabis

A recent study led by Vijay M. Tiyyala and colleagues analyzed over 42,000 public comments submitted to regulations.gov in response to the DEA’s proposed cannabis rescheduling. Using a combination of human review and large language model (LLM) analysis, the researchers uncovered a powerful trend.  While many Americans support rescheduling cannabis, most believe it does not go far enough.

Here’s what the data shows:

• 28.85% of comments supported rescheduling to Schedule III
• 6.74% opposed the change entirely
• 63.50% said rescheduling was insufficient and called for further reform or full descheduling

That last number is the most telling. Nearly two-thirds of commenters were not satisfied with Schedule III. They see it as a compromise, one that still leaves cannabis trapped in a regulatory framework that does not reflect reality.

Why Schedule III Still Falls Short

At first glance, Schedule III may seem like a major win. Substances in this category, such as ketamine or certain anabolic steroids, are recognized for medical use and subject to less restrictive controls than Schedule I drugs. But cannabis is not technically like other Schedule III substances and forcing it into that category creates new problems while failing to solve old ones. Here are some of the primary reasons rescheduling falls short:

Cannabis is Still a Controlled Substance

Rescheduling does not remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act. It remains federally illegal outside of tightly regulated medical contexts. This means patients can still face barriers to access, businesses remain constrained by federal oversight, and state-legal markets continue operating in a legal gray area.

True reform requires removing cannabis from the scheduling system altogether, not just moving it down a tier.

Criminal Justice Harms of Cannabis Prohibition

One of the most compelling arguments for cannabis reform has always been the disproportionate impact of prohibition on marginalized communities. While rescheduling may ease some regulatory burdens, it does little to repair past harms.

The study found that 26.5% of those calling rescheduling insufficient specifically cited criminal justice reform as a key concern. That includes expungement, equitable licensing, and reinvestment in communities most affected by the war on cannabis. Schedule III does not deliver what is needed for true criminal justice reform.

A Confusing Medical Framework

If cannabis is placed in Schedule III, it would technically become a federally recognized prescription drug. But unlike FDA-approved medications, cannabis is currently sold through state-regulated dispensaries, not pharmacies.

This raises major questions:

• Will doctors need to prescribe cannabis instead of recommend it?
• Will dispensaries need to transform into pharmacies?
• How will existing state programs adapt?

Without descheduling, these contradictions remain unresolved.

The Case for Descheduling Cannabis

Descheduling cannabis, as in removing it entirely from the Controlled Substances Act, is the logical next step. It would allow cannabis to be regulated more like alcohol or tobacco, with oversight focused on safety, labeling, and age restrictions rather than criminalization.

Public sentiment strongly supports this direction. According to the study, those who viewed rescheduling as insufficient cited their reasoning to be due to:

• Therapeutic benefits (37.8%)
• Economic impacts (28.6%)
• Criminal justice reform (26.5%)

These are not fringe concerns. They reflect a growing consensus that cannabis policy should align with science, public health, and economic opportunity.

The Medical Benefits of Cannabis

One of the most consistent themes across public comments was the recognition of cannabis as a legitimate therapeutic tool. Among those who supported rescheduling, 56.7% cited medical benefits as a primary justification. This aligns with a growing body of research showing cannabis may help manage a range of illnesses including chronic pain, epilepsy, multiple sclerosis symptoms, as well as anxiety and PTSD.

Yet under Schedule III, cannabis would still face regulatory hurdles that limit research and access. Descheduling would remove many of these barriers, enabling more robust scientific study and broader patient access.

Economic Impact: A Missed Opportunity Without Full Reform

Cannabis is already a multi-billion-dollar industry in the United States, supporting jobs, generating tax revenue, and driving innovation in agriculture, retail, and technology. However, federal prohibition continues to hold the industry back. Even with rescheduling, many challenges remain including limited access to banking services, interstate commerce restrictions, and complex tax burdens (though Schedule III may ease some IRS constraints).

The study found that 27.8% of supporters cited economic benefits as a reason for reform. Descheduling would unlock the full potential of the cannabis economy, allowing it to operate like any other legal industry.

Addressing Concerns Without Overregulation

Opposition to rescheduling, while relatively small, focused heavily on public health risks. Among those who opposed the change:

• 100% cited public health concerns
• 71.4% raised concerns about addiction
• 57.1% worried about underage use

These concerns deserve attention, but they don’t justify maintaining an outdated and punitive framework. In fact, regulated markets often provide better safeguards than prohibition. Age restrictions, product testing, labeling requirements, and public education campaigns are more effective tools for protecting public health than criminalization.

Descheduling would allow for smarter, evidence-based regulation, rather than blanket control.

A Turning Point in Cannabis Policy

The DEA’s moving medical cannabis to a Schedule III represents a significant shift in federal thinking. It signals that the government is beginning to catch up with science and public opinion. However, the data is clear: most Americans are ready for more.

Rescheduling is not the destination; it’s a transition. A stepping stone toward a more rational, equitable, and effective cannabis policy.

Final Thoughts: Progress Shouldn’t Be Mistaken for Completion

There’s no denying that moving cannabis out of Schedule I is a meaningful victory. It validates decades of advocacy, research, and lived experience from patients and consumers alike. But stopping at Schedule III risks institutionalizing a half-measure, one that acknowledges cannabis’s value while still restricting its potential.

The findings from the study make one thing unmistakably clear: what the public truly wants is ahead of policy. The majority of the United States understands that cannabis does not belong in the Controlled Substances Act at all. If we’re serious about aligning law with science, promoting public health, and correcting past injustices, then the conversation must go beyond rescheduling.

Now, it’s time to talk about descheduling and building a framework that treats cannabis not as a controlled substance, but as a regulated, respected, and fully legal part of modern society.

References:

^{1. Tiyyala VM, Dubois C, Madar C, Vandrey R, Thrul J, Dredze M, et al. Characterizing public comments via Regulations.gov in response to proposed cannabis rescheduling in the United States. Addiction. 2026. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.70410}