Hyman Phelps & McNamara pc: Schedule III Marijuana Would Still Be Regulated Marijuana

Schedule III Marijuana Would Still Be Regulated Marijuana

In August 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), based on the federal Controlled Substances Act’s (“CSA’s”) Eight Factor Analysis…

In August 2023, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), based on the federal Controlled Substances Act’s (“CSA’s”) Eight Factor Analysis, recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) reschedule marijuana from schedule I to schedule III. The U.S. Department of Justice subsequently conducted a separate Eight Factor Analysis and concurred with HHS’ rescheduling recommendation. DEA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”), signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, proposing to reschedule marijuana in May 2024 that elicited over 43,500 comments. In January a public hearing began to receive factual evidence and testimony on whether marijuana should be rescheduled. The hearing is currently on hold pending an appeal by several of the parties.

There exists confusion as to what rescheduling marijuana to schedule III would mean so we thought we would clear up some of the misunderstanding about schedule III requirements.

Even scheduling to less restrictive schedule III would continue to have significant implications for marijuana-related businesses. The NPRM states that if marijuana is rescheduled to schedule III, “the regulatory controls applicable to schedule III controlled substances would apply, as appropriate, along with existing marijuana-specific requirements and any additional controls that might be implemented, including those that might be implemented to meet U.S. treaty obligations.” Schedules of Controlled Substances: Rescheduling of Marijuana, 89 Fed. Reg. 44,597, 44,621 (May 21, 2024).

Unless marijuana is descheduled, that is decontrolled entirely, or there are marijuana-specific exemptions, even after rescheduling to schedule III, marijuana cultivators, producers, and processors, distributors, importers, exporters, dispensers, and practitioners, will be subject to specific regulatory requirements under the CSA and DEA regulations. Requirements will vary depending on the registered business activity.

If rescheduled to schedule III, marijuana businesses would be required to obtain DEA registrations, take initial and biennial inventories of marijuana on-hand, maintain transaction records, file theft and significant loss reports, and label and secure products appropriately. Dispensing marijuana to patients, as required for other schedule III substances, would require a prescription issued for legitimate medical purpose by a DEA-registered and state licensed practitioner. 21 U.S.C. 829(b). Pharmacists would be required to exercise their corresponding responsibility under the CSA to ensure that marijuana is prescribed and dispensed for legitimate medical purpose. 21 C.F.R. § 1306.04(a).

Marijuana activities would be subject to CSA criminal prohibitions under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841-844. Schedules of Controlled Substances, 44,621. Marijuana would also remain subject to applicable provisions of the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Id.

Marijuana down-rescheduled to schedule III would still be regulated for legitimate medical, scientific and industrial use. Rescheduling would not authorized marijuana for adult recreational use.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Source: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/cannabis/1602718/schedule-iii-marijuana-would-still-be-regulated-marijuana

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