One Signature Could Remove Marijuana From Schedule I
The debate over federal marijuana reform has been ongoing for years, with many advocating for a change in the drug’s classification. However, a crucial fact has been overlooked: the Attorney General (AG) has the power to reschedule marijuana without the need for Congressional approval or a lengthy review process.
According to the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the AG can unilaterally reschedule marijuana to better align U.S. drug policy with international treaty obligations. Specifically, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires that cannabis be controlled for medical, scientific, and industrial purposes, rather than prohibited.
The AG’s authority to reschedule marijuana is outlined in 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1), which states that the AG can move marijuana to a different schedule if they believe it better serves U.S. treaty obligations. This provision bypasses the need for a lengthy review process, medical or scientific review, or Congressional approval.
In other words, the AG could reschedule marijuana tomorrow by issuing a press release and signing a document. This would not only align U.S. drug policy with international obligations but also provide immediate benefits to the marijuana industry.
One of the potential benefits of rescheduling marijuana is the elimination of IRC § 280E, which applies a 280E tax to state-legal marijuana businesses. This tax is a significant burden on the industry and would be removed if marijuana were rescheduled.
However, rescheduling marijuana through the AG’s authority is not without its drawbacks. It would likely invite lawsuits, and a future AG could reverse the decision and reschedule marijuana back to its current status.
Ultimately, while the AG’s authority to reschedule marijuana provides a potential path forward, it is not a long-term solution. Congressional action is still necessary to provide stability and certainty to the industry. The States Reform Act 2.0 is currently the most viable legalization proposal in Congress, but it does not eliminate the AG’s authority to reschedule marijuana.
The marijuana industry has spent millions on traditional lobbying in recent years, but it has failed to produce meaningful results. It is time for the industry to adopt a new strategy, one that acknowledges the political reality of the situation and is grounded in practicality. This may involve reassessing who gets paid and for what, and navigating the political system as it is, rather than as we wish it were.
In conclusion, the power to reschedule marijuana already exists, but it is not a panacea.
