Cannabis has been a DEA Schedule I drug since the initiation of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970. Schedule I drugs are those classified as having a high potential for abuse and no known medical benefit. Cannabis has remained a schedule I drug despite the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicines (2017) publication entitled The Health Effects of Cannabis and Cannabinoids, where NASEM concluded that there is substantial evidence for cannabis effectiveness in treating chronic pain, chemotherapy induced nausea and vomiting, and multiple sclerosis spasticity; moderate evidence around cannabis improving sleep with short term outcomes related to sleep apnea, fibromyalgia, chronic pain, and multiple sclerosis; and limited evidence around cannabis’s effectiveness with anxiety, PTSD, Tourette’s, IBS, TBI outcomes, dementia, glaucoma, and other neurodegenerative diseases.
Because cannabis has remained a Schedule I drug, research has been greatly hampered, and the NASEM (2017) report called for the development of a national cannabis research agenda focusing on clinical and observational research, health policy and health economics research, and public health and public safety research.
The NASEM report can be accessed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK423845/
Additionally, in 2003, the federal government issued a patent on cannabinoids related to the drug’s ability to help with healing from brain trauma and age-related brain changes.
There is a lot of excitement in the medical cannabis world around the potential rescheduling of cannabis related to the US president’s December 18, 2025, executive order 14370 to reschedule cannabis. However, in 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated a rulemaking process to begin the rescheduling process, and President Biden issued an executive order in 2022 directing the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice to review the rescheduling of cannabis. The DHHS in 2023 recommended that cannabis be moved to Schedule III, and in May 2024, the Attorney General signed off on a proposed rule to reschedule cannabis, which was also published in the Federal Register. This can be accessed here: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/21/2024-11137/schedules-of-controlled-substances-rescheduling-of-marijuana
However, an administrative law hearing is needed to formalize the process, and it has been stalled over the past year due to lawsuits alleging bias and procedural misconduct in the rescheduling process. Lawsuits include those from Doctors for Drug Policy Reform that allege they were excluded from the list of 25 designated hearing participants due to supporting rescheduling, Panacea Plant Sciences has sued the federal government because small cannabis businesses have been excluded from the hearings, Attorney Matt Zorn has claimed in a law suit that collusive communications occurred between the DEA and the anti-cannabis group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (focuses on the Freedom of Information Act), and a group of pro-rescheduling entities has been granted an interlocutory appeal based on the DEA being a proponent of the proposed rule. The interlocutory appeal has indefinitely stayed the rescheduling hearing process. Essentially, all of these lawsuits are focused on the concern that the DEA has stacked the witness selection process to ensure that cannabis remains a Schedule I drug in direct opposition to the DHHS recommendation that cannabis be rescheduled to Schedule III. The DEA and the DHHS have historically had differing views of DEA/ CSA scheduling. The current 2025 executive order does not address this issue; it does not provide a defined means to bypass the existing legal process, and the CSA of 1970 does not permit a President to unilaterally reschedule a drug.
The only other approaches toward timely rescheduling of cannabis include an act of congress, which may be required to address the issues of banking concerns, research processes, and address the current conflicts between federal and state laws regarding cannabis. Additionally, Attorney General Bondi could expedite the process by bypassing the notice-and-comment process.
There is a clear need for more medical cannabis research, and moving the drug to a schedule III would bypass researchers’ requirement to have a Schedule I license and the requirement to only access cannabis from a handful of government cannabis sources that may not provide access to quality cannabis products. Rules will need to be changed, and funding for cannabis research as a national public health agenda item will be initiated, with the goal of USFDA treatments being developed. By rescheduling, the reduced stigma associated with the prohibition of the cannabis plant may help to encourage academics, pharmaceutical companies, and cannabis businesses to engage in more cannabis research. Still, again, Congress will likely need to clarify or revise previous laws. For instance, Biden’s 2022 Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Act has not led to greater cannabis research because of the lack of access to the product, high costs associated with the security of cannabis products, lack of funding sources for research, and issues with federal law prohibiting the transfer of cannabis across state lines.
Additionally, implications around what rescheduling means for cannabis producers, medical cannabis patients, and healthcare providers remain unclear. Cannabis being rescheduled does not change the federal legality of cannabis. It would still be a federally controlled substance, and currently, whether or not patients will be able to have cannabinoid therapeutics covered by insurance remains in question. While dronabinol, a synthetic THC medicine, is a Schedule III drug, it is only approved for CINV when other methods have failed, and loss of appetite and weight loss with anorexia and cachexia. It is not a first-line treatment for any health condition, although prescribing in pediatric settings appears to have increased over the years. Additionally, dronabinol may not be as therapeutically effective as whole-plant cannabis due to its lack of various cannabinoids, terpenes, and flavonoids that are found in whole-plant cannabis and may support optimal functioning of the body’s master regulator, the endocannabinoid system.
While this process of rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III comes with a great deal of uncertainty and legal concerns, it is part of the process of ending the prohibition era of cannabis and entering into an era of cannabis regulation. Ideally, the patients who could benefit from access to cannabis and cannabinoid therapeutics are always at the forefront of benefits in the political process. Patients’ access to safe, tested, effective cannabinoid therapeutics remains a social justice issue, a research priority, and an advocacy concern for nurses. Nurses are ethically obligated to support patients’ autonomous right to access cannabinoids and to ensure that beneficence and nonmaleficence are upheld.
Resources
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Health and Medicine Division; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Committee on the Health Effects of Marijuana. (2017). An evidence review and research agenda. The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research.National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK423845/

