Government Argues Marijuana Safer Than Opioids as DEA Hearing Opens

The federal government opened its hearing on broader marijuana rescheduling on June 29, 2026, by making an argument it spent half a century resisting: that cannabis poses a lower risk of serious harm than opioids and, by several measures, alcohol — and that it has a legitimate medical use. With the Drug Enforcement Administration cast as the official sponsor of the proposal, the agency’s lawyers spent the first day laying out the scientific case for moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.

The proceeding in Arlington, Virginia, is the formal evidentiary step in a process that could extend federal tax relief and lighter regulatory treatment to the entire state-licensed cannabis industry — including adult-use operators. It is separate from the order Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed in April 2026, which already moved state-licensed medical marijuana and FDA-approved cannabis products into Schedule III. This hearing concerns everything else: whether the rest of the marijuana plant, recreational use included, belongs in the lower-control category.

The government’s safety case

The argument the government is defending traces back to a scientific review that federal health regulators completed in 2023 and that the Justice Department adopted when it first proposed the reclassification in May 2024. Under federal law, a Schedule III drug must have a lower potential for abuse than substances in Schedules I and II, an accepted medical use, and no more than moderate risk of physical dependence.

The Department of Health and Human Services found marijuana met that standard. In its recommendation to the DEA, the department compared cannabis with heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone, cocaine, benzodiazepines and alcohol across federal databases tracking emergency-room visits, hospitalizations, poisonings and deaths. Marijuana consistently ranked at or near the bottom for serious harm. For overdose deaths specifically, the review placed it “in the lowest ranking group” of the drugs studied, while alcohol and heroin typically ranked at or near the top.

Federal regulators also found that the dependence heavy cannabis use can create is mild for most people — a sharp contrast with the substances cannabis was measured against. That comparative analysis is the core of the government’s filing, and it is the case its witnesses laid out for the administrative law judge as the hearing opened.

An unusual hearing

The structure of the proceeding has drawn as much attention as its substance. The DEA — which spent decades defending marijuana’s Schedule I status — now carries the legal burden of proving that the drug belongs in Schedule III. The agency has not formally stated its own view of where marijuana should sit; it is presenting the proposal because a December 2025 executive order directed the Justice Department to finish the rescheduling process quickly.

Adding to the imbalance, every party invited to participate as a designated opponent is on record against the reform. DEA Administrator Terrance Cole admitted only organizations and individuals who oppose rescheduling, on the grounds that reform supporters are not harmed by the proposed rule and so do not qualify as interested parties. Reform groups including NORML were turned away, and the agency declined to livestream the proceedings despite calls for public access. The result is a hearing in which the government argues for rescheduling and its only formal opponents argue against it.

On the opening day, those opponents began cross-examining the government’s expert witnesses. They have signaled they will challenge the test the government used to establish an accepted medical use, arguing it departs from the standard federal regulators applied in earlier reviews. Groups such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana, an invited participant, contend the government is overstating cannabis’s safety.

What it means for operators

For cannabis businesses, the stakes are concrete. A Schedule III classification would lift the federal tax penalty that currently bars state-licensed marijuana companies from deducting ordinary business expenses — a disallowance that does not apply to lower-scheduled drugs and that has cut deeply into operator margins. The April order already opened that door for medical operators; a broader rescheduling would extend the same relief to the adult-use market, which makes up the bulk of legal sales.

Reaching that outcome is far from guaranteed. The rescheduling effort is already being challenged in federal court by state attorneys general, prohibitionist groups, and a pharmaceutical company, in cases consolidated before the D.C. Circuit. A congressional committee has also moved to block the reform through spending legislation, though lawmakers from both parties have said they doubt that provision will become law.

The hearing is set to conclude no later than July 15, 2026, with a recess over the Independence Day holiday. After it ends, the judge will review the record and send a recommendation to the DEA administrator, who will issue the final scheduling decision — the step that determines whether the rest of the cannabis industry joins medical operators in Schedule III.