Would you like cannabis moved or moved at the federal level? (And the big difference between the two!)

President Biden took two historic actions to “end” the federal government’s “failed approach” to marijuana just before last year’s interim periods. He granted mass pardons for state convictions for simple marijuana possession and urged governors to take action on state-level crimes. He also directed Xavier Becerra, Secretary of Health and Human Services, to quickly initiate the administrative process to review the classification of marijuana under federal law.

Many called the announcement primarily political, rather than a significant change in policy towards a government that has never fully backed marijuana reform (which is what we expected ahead of the 2020 election). Unfortunately, since then, no public action has been taken to reschedule or downgrade marijuana’s classification. The Controlled Substances Act continues to list it as a Schedule I substance. Despite the FDA’s approval of Epodiolex, the federal government continues to view marijuana as a drug with high abuse potential and no therapeutic value.

The legal difference between rescheduling and postponing

Cannabis is in the Schedule I drug category, a sub-category of the Controlled Substances Act. It implies that cannabis has no recognized medical purpose and a high risk of abuse. Therefore, the rescheduling and unscheduling of marijuana have serious consequences.

If the federal government lifts cannabis from the schedule, it means cannabis will be removed from the subsequent list of prohibited substances, meaning it would no longer be illegal under federal law. This would allow each state to independently decide how to control cannabis, such as how alcohol is already being handled. This could result in states having marijuana laws with some federal oversight and control, similar to how alcohol is regulated.

On the other hand, moving cannabis to a different schedule under the Controlled Substances Act is called rescheduling. This would change its classification and impose new restrictions and regulations. Marijuana’s rescheduling would keep it under the Controlled Substances Act, but allow consumers access based on certain criteria.

For example, moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule II would recognize its medicinal potential and encourage more drug research. Most controlled substances require a prescription from a licensed physician. However, it can also increase regulatory hurdles and costs for cannabis producers.

The practical difference between rescheduling and determination

This is a crucial matter. Existing marijuana operators have a strong preference for de-scheduling over re-scheduling. If the termination were lifted, these operators would likely continue to operate much like they do now, with a legal framework similar to that of alcohol.

Regulations for the newly de-planned cannabis industry would be based primarily on current state laws, and the interstate trade in marijuana would likely become legal in fifty years. In addition, federal oversight could provide much-needed consistency and certainty in this industry nationwide, especially around advertising restrictions, labeling, testing regulations and food-related items.

If marijuana is reclassified as a controlled substance, it could require stricter FDA regulations for marijuana companies to comply with. Additionally, doctors can still be unsure about prescribing marijuana.

Compliance with FDA requirements can be expensive, including costs associated with research, development, and testing, and this could potentially drive existing marijuana operators out of business. If marijuana is reclassified to a Schedule II or Schedule III substance, it’s possible that it will be brought to consumers by larger drug companies. For example, AstraZeneca could introduce Kush Kontrol!

Depending on who you ask, there could be pros and cons to the possibility of Big Pharma gaining control of the marijuana industry. The positive aspect is that large pharmaceutical companies have the resources to conduct advanced clinical trials and produce mandatory products that are safe and efficient for consumers. However, this may have negative repercussions for current marijuana operators, as handing over the industry to drug companies would run counter to how it has been evolving and could threaten the survival of numerous existing operators.

Not the only player

Big Pharma wouldn’t be the only significant player in a cannabis industry that has been postponed or postponed. A week ago, the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America (WSWA) publicly stated that “it’s about time Congress fully legalized and regulated adult cannabis use at the federal level.” WSWA lays out the case for federal legalization and regulation by outlining the “Four Principles of Safe and Responsible Adult Cannabis Regulation” in its memo. These four principles include:

• Authorizing the production, importation, testing and distribution of cannabis

• Regulation and approval of cannabis products

• Efficient and effective facilitation of federal consumption tax collection

• Implementation of measures to ensure public safety

While the Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America proposal recognizes the existence of a “joint state and federal regulatory structure,” it places a more significant portion of the regulatory responsibilities for a federally legal cannabis industry within the control of the federal government rather than the individual states.

Ultimately, many cling to the belief that this may just be an academic exercise in the short term. It seems that neither Congress nor the White House are inclined to change the legal status of marijuana. However, this perception is wrong, any possible changes could have far-reaching and significant effects.

Diploma

President Biden’s announcement ahead of the 2020 election that he would review the classification of marijuana under federal law was met with skepticism because there has been no significant change in policy since then. For current operators and users, the dichotomy between rescinding and reclassifying cannabis under the Controlled Substances Act has important practical implications.

Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America’s recent bill to state-regulate and legalize adult-use cannabis could shift legal roles to the federal government rather than individual states, although rescheduling could see big pharma gain control of the cannabis industry. Current political stagnation notwithstanding, anticipated changes in the status of marijuana legalization could have profound and far-reaching implications.

CAN THE PRESIDENT LEGALIZE WEED READ MORE…

CAN THE PRESIDENT LEGALIZE WEED WITH AN EXECUTIVE ORDER?