DEA Launches Historic Hearing on Moving Cannabis to Schedule III
The DEA begins reviewing its proposal to move cannabis to Schedule III, even as reform advocates criticize their exclusion from the hearing process.
The Drug Enforcement Administration opened its formal hearing on June 29, 2026, to consider a proposal first announced on May 21 that would shift cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). If approved, the change would mark the most significant federal adjustment to cannabis policy in roughly fifty years.
What a Schedule III Move Would Mean
Under the CSA, Schedule I substances are deemed to have a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. Moving cannabis to Schedule III would acknowledge its recognized medical value while still imposing certain regulatory controls. For the adult‑use cannabis industry, the shift would eliminate the punitive Section 280E tax restriction that currently applies to businesses handling Schedule I drugs, potentially lowering federal tax burdens and improving access to banking services.
The DEA’s own medical‑cannabis rescheduling in April 2026—which allowed FDA‑approved cannabis‑derived medicines and state‑licensed operators to remain under existing controls—set the stage for this broader review.
Reform Advocates Raise Concerns About Hearing Structure
Because the rescheduling proposal originated with the DEA, the agency acts as the proponent in the administrative hearing. Consequently, only parties opposing the move are permitted to present testimony. This arrangement has prompted criticism from reform groups who argue that the process lacks balance.
The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) sought to testify, insisting that cannabis should be removed from the CSA altogether rather than merely rescheduled to Schedule III. NORML board chair Joseph A. Bondy stated, “Marijuana cannot lawfully remain in Schedule I… Schedule III is not the end of the road. It is, at most, an interim correction.”
Similarly, Adam Rosenberg, board chair of the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), noted that the exclusion of pro‑cannabis voices overlooks “the unique and valuable perspective that state‑licensed cannabis businesses deserve to have represented process.” NCIA= state‑licensed operators who are already complying with rigorous state regulations.” He added that NCIA will continue to pursue reform through congressional engagement, agency dialogue, and other avenues.
Industry Voices Call for a More Inclusive Process
Ryan Hunter, chief revenue officer at cannabis product manufacturer Spherex, wrote in an emailed statement that the list of invited participants—including groups with historically anti‑cannabis positions such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana and the National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association—does not reflect the spectrum of stakeholder views. “Though this is the standard for DEA hearings, it does not feel balanced,” Hunter said, warning that critical data and perspectives could be under‑represented.
Some Reform Supporters See Procedural Benefits
Other advocates contend that limiting testimony to opponents could actually expedite the hearing. Sasha Kalcheff‑Korn, executive director of the medical‑cannabis advocacy group Realm of Caring, argued that the scientific and medical evidence supporting rescheduling has already been thoroughly vetted through prior federal reviews. “The goal of this hearing is to hear from those who claim they would be adversely affected,” Kalcheff‑Korn explained, “so the process can move forward without unnecessary delays and reach a decision grounded in evidence, public health, and the growing research on cannabis’s therapeutic value.”
Public Access and Next Steps
The DEA has scheduled the hearing to run from June 29 through July 15, 2026. Sessions are open to the public and members of the press, although the presiding administrative law judge has declined requests to livestream the proceedings, according to Marijuana Moment. Interested parties may submit written comments during the comment period, and the judge will issue a recommended decision after the hearing concludes.
Stakeholders on all sides of the debate agree that the outcome will shape the future of cannabis regulation in the United States, influencing everything from tax policy to research opportunities and consumer access.
Source: Here
