BGM: The Rescheduling of Cannabis: A Turning Point for Cannabis Industry Regulation

As the conversation surrounding the rescheduling of cannabis gains momentum, it is clear that we are at a pivotal moment in the history of cannabis regulation in the United States. Recent developments signal a potential shift in federal policy that could have significant implications for the cannabis industry. Recently, U.S. Senators sent a letter to the Department of Justice (DOJ) urging the rescheduling of cannabis. The DEA delayed its decision on marijuana rescheduling until December 2, following the election. This postponement means that any potential rescheduling and its subsequent impact on the cannabis industry will be pushed into 2025.

The push for rescheduling cannabis is driven by the growing recognition of its medicinal benefits, as well as the need to align federal law with the realities of state-level legalization. Currently, cannabis is classified as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a designation that implies a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This classification has long been a barrier to research, access, and the overall growth of the legal cannabis industry.

The Role of the Department of Justice

U.S. Senators, led by Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, sent a letter to the DOJ urging action and the reclassification of cannabis under the CSA. This move could potentially shift cannabis to a lower schedule, such as Schedule II or III, where substances like cocaine and methamphetamine are listed. While this would not remove all federal restrictions, it would mark a significant step forward in recognizing the medical value of cannabis and could open the door to further reforms.

The DOJ’s response to this request will be closely watched, as it could set the stage for a more rational and science-based approach to cannabis regulation. Rescheduling cannabis could facilitate more extensive research into its therapeutic benefits, ultimately leading to more informed policy decisions.

Implications for the Cannabis Industry

The rescheduling of cannabis would have wide-ranging effects on the cannabis industry. For one, it would likely ease some of the regulatory burdens that cannabis businesses currently face. This includes challenges related to banking, taxation, and interstate commerce, which are all impacted by cannabis’s Schedule I status.

Moreover, rescheduling could encourage more mainstream investment in the cannabis sector. Many institutional investors have been hesitant to enter the market due to the legal risks associated with cannabis’s current classification. Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule II or III could reduce these risks, making the industry more attractive to a broader range of investors.

What Lies Ahead?

As the public comment period for the proposed rescheduling closes, industry stakeholders are keenly awaiting the DOJ’s next steps. While rescheduling is complex and involves multiple federal agencies, the momentum behind this initiative suggests that change is on the horizon.

However, it is essential to note that rescheduling alone will not address all the challenges facing the cannabis industry. While it would be a significant step forward, additional reforms, such as federal legalization or decriminalization, will be necessary to integrate cannabis into the U.S. legal framework fully.

In the interim, cannabis businesses must stay informed and prepared for potential changes. At BGM, we are committed to helping our cannabis clients navigate the industry’s ever-evolving regulatory landscape. Whether it’s understanding the implications of rescheduling or planning for the future, BGM’s dedicated cannabis team is here to provide the guidance and expertise cannabis business owners need to succeed in this dynamic industry.

“Reclassifying Marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would probably eliminate 280E, which is the top issue that our clients in the cannabis space face today. We are excited about the probability of this development happening and will continue to track the updates and collaborate with well-versed attorneys on this subject. We regularly speak with our clients about what this means to them and the potential ramifications on current and future filings.” – Cory Parnell, CEO of BGM

Conclusion

The potential rescheduling of cannabis represents a critical moment for the cannabis industry. As federal policy begins to catch up with state-level legalization and public opinion, cannabis businesses must be ready to adapt to new opportunities and challenges. By staying informed and proactive, the cannabis industry can continue to grow and thrive in this ever-changing environment.

For more information on how these developments might impact your cannabis business, contact BGM for expert advice and support. We are here to help you navigate the complexities of the cannabis industry and achieve your business goals.

Source:

The Rescheduling of Cannabis: A Turning Point for Cannabis Industry Regulation

 

Top 200 Cannabis Lawyers

We Support

Cannabis Law Journal – Contributing Authors

Editor – Sean Hocking

Author Bios

Canada
Matt Maurer – Minden Gross
Jeff Hergot – Wildboer Dellelce LLP

Costa Rica
Tim Morales – The Cannabis Industry Association Costa Rica

Nicaragua
Elvin Rodríguez Fabilena

USA

General
Julie Godard
Carl L Rowley -Thompson Coburn LLP

Arizona
Jerry Chesler – Chesler Consulting

California
Ian Stewart – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Otis Felder – Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP
Lance Rogers – Greenspoon Marder – San Diego
Jessica McElfresh -McElfresh Law – San Diego
Tracy Gallegos – Partner – Fox Rothschild

Colorado
Adam Detsky – Knight Nicastro
Dave Rodman – Dave Rodman Law Group
Peter Fendel – CMR Real Estate Network
Nate Reed – CMR Real Estate Network

Florida
Matthew Ginder – Greenspoon Marder
David C. Kotler – Cohen Kotler

Illinois
William Bogot – Fox Rothschild

Massachusetts
Valerio Romano, Attorney – VGR Law Firm, PC

Nevada
Neal Gidvani – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder
Phillip Silvestri – Snr Assoc: Greenspoon Marder

Tracy Gallegos – Associate Fox Rothschild

New Jersey

Matthew G. Miller – MG Miller Intellectual Property Law LLC
Daniel T. McKillop – Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

New York
Gregory J. Ryan, Esq. Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Tim Nolen Tesser, Ryan & Rochman, LLP
Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

Oregon
Paul Loney & Kristie Cromwell – Loney Law Group
William Stewart – Half Baked Labs

Pennsylvania
Andrew B. Sacks – Managing Partner Sacks Weston Diamond
William Roark – Principal Hamburg, Rubin, Mullin, Maxwell & Lupin
Joshua Horn – Partner Fox Rothschild

Washington DC
Teddy Eynon – Partner Fox Rothschild