State Marijuana Regulators Push Feds To Explain How Rescheduling Will Impact Enforcement, Banking, Research And More

A group representing state-level cannabis regulators is calling on the Biden administration and the nation’s top drug enforcement official to provide a clear explanation of how rescheduling marijuana would affect federal enforcement priorities and the U.S. government’s interaction with jurisdictions that regulate cannabis products.

In comments to Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Administrator Anne Milgram about government’s proposed rescheduling move, The Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA)—a nonpartisan organization that represents marijuana and hemp regulators in more than 45 U.S. states and territories—does not take a position on the rescheduling proposal itself. Rather, the group calls for robust federal guidance on how the change would affect policy, enforcement priorities and interactions with state and local officials.

Without that guidance, wrote CANNRA leaders, “state and territorial government agencies will be left to guess and hypothesize about federal–state dynamics and the potential impacts on state-regulated programs, the state populations affected by these programs, and the states in which those programs operate.”

“CANNRA remains committed to supporting our members in successfully implementing whatever the final rule on rescheduling is,” the group said, “and respectfully calls on the DEA, the [Department of Justice], and other engaged federal agencies to issue appropriate guidance to guide implementation. As a nonpartisan government association whose members are charged with administering state and territorial laws related to marijuana and cannabinoids, we are available to provide additional insight.”

The proposed rule to federally reschedule marijuana was officially posted in May, kicking off a public comment period that ends on Monday. While prohibitionists and some GOP lawmakers have pushed back against rescheduling and some reform advocates have called on the government to remove cannabis completely from the CSA, CANNRA instead identifies six areas where it says rescheduling-related guidance is necessary.

“Our public comment on the proposed federal rule reflects the fact that CANNRA is not an advocacy group, but rather a nonpartisan association of government agencies,” Gillian Schauer, CANNRA’s executive director, told Marijuana Moment in an email.

“Our members have made it clear that they need to understand the implications rescheduling will have on their jurisdictions and those engaged with their state-regulated markets,” she said. “In drafting our public comment, CANNRA members came together to discuss the questions that state and territorial government officials will need answered—and the areas where additional guidance will be needed—in order to implement a final rule on rescheduling.”

The first area where further clarity is needed is how rescheduling would affect federal enforcement priorities, CANNRA said. “Guidance is needed,” its comment says, “to clarify federal enforcement priorities so states and territories understand how rescheduling of marijuana may impact state regulated programs and the various participants in those programs.” CANNRA also wants clearer guidance on federal agencies will interact with states and territories themselves.

Another area lacking clarity is how state governments could interact with one another under the rescheduling plan. “Under the current federal Schedule 1 designation, a state-run reference lab cannot send a marijuana sample to a state-run reference lab in another state for analysis, confirmatory testing, or additional non-target analyte screening,” CANNRA’s comment notes, recommending that any rescheduling move “be coupled with federal approval for state governments to coordinate the interstate exchange of specific cannabis-related materials for product safety and testing purposes.”

“In addition,” it continues, “it will be important for federal agencies to issue clear guidance about any allowance and requirements for interstate commerce under a new schedule.”

Further federal guidance is also necessary to flesh out how rescheduling would affect banking for the cannabis industry as well as obstacles that currently hinder marijuana research, the regulators group says.

Yet another area in need of further explanation is how to regulate cannabinoids “that appear in two different places on the schedule due to the federal legalization of hemp.”

“Regulators face a reality now where the same 200mg delta-9 THC chocolate bar can be scheduled if the THC was derived from Cannabis sativa L with >0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight (i.e., marijuana), or unscheduled if the delta-9 THC came from Cannabis sativa L with <=0.3% delta-9 THC by dry weight (i.e., hemp) – even when the chocolates are identical,” CANNRA’s comment says. “This creates an extremely difficult regulatory environment, particularly when certain hemp-derived products in the market contain higher THC levels than those allowed under state-regulated cannabis (i.e., ‘marijuana’) laws.”

“Regulators would benefit from federal clarity and guidance on how to assess and regulate the same molecules (often in the same quantity in finished products) differently based on whether they are from ‘hemp’ or ‘marijuana,'” CANNRA’s comment continues.

Various questions about the impacts of rescheduling have arisen since the government’s announcement that it would reevaluate the categorization of marijuana under the CSA. While the change itself would not legalize state-level medical marijuana or adult-use markets, it could have a variety of effects on research, taxation, government employees and more.

Meanwhile in Congress, bipartisan lawmakers are seeking to remove a controversial section of a spending bill that would block the Justice Department from rescheduling marijuana—one of several cannabis- and psychedelics-related amendments to appropriations legislation that have recently been filed.

Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) announced on Wednesday that she introduced the amendment to strike the rescheduling restriction that’s currently included in the 2025 Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) spending bill.

In a video filmed with cannabis lobbyist Don Murphy at the Republican National Committee (RNC) convention, Mace said that “we want to make sure rescheduling happens,” even if her preference would be to fully deschedule marijuana as would be accomplished under her States Reform Act.

“We’re doing all we can,” the congresswoman said.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) also introduced an amendment to the CJS measure that would similarly strike the scheduling restriction section, which was adopted by the House Appropriations Committee earlier this month. That GOP-led panel also rejected a separate amendment to remove the section.

GOP senators have separately tried to block the administration from rescheduling cannabis as part of a standalone bill filed last September, but that proposal has not received a hearing or vote. All of this comes as the public comment deadline on the DOJ’s proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is set to close next week.

Also, as part of pending appropriations legislation for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies (Ag/FDA), there’s a proposed amendment from Rep. Morgan McGarvey (D-KY) to strike another contentious provision that would effectively ban most consumable hemp products.

Hemp industry stakeholders have rallied against the proposal, which was included in the base bill from the relevant subcommittee last month. It’s virtually identical to a provision of the 2024 Farm Bill that was attached by a separate committee in May via an amendment from Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL).

Dozens of other GOP lawmakers, meanwhile, sent a public comment letter earlier this month opposing the rescheduling recommendation, alleging the proposal was based on politics rather than science. Led by Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), the letter opposing the move of cannabis to Schedule III was signed 23 other House and Senate GOP congressional lawmakers.

“It is clear that HHS and DOJ chose the desired conclusion first and worked backwards, since the rule does not provide sufficient reason to move marijuana to schedule III,” the letter says, further alleging that DEA “was not properly consulted in the drafting of the Proposed Rule.”

In a report attached to separate legislation, the House Appropriations Committee also called on the Biden administration to account for how it arrived at the decision to reschedule marijuana, while additionally expressing concerns about cannabis-impaired driving and the market for intoxicating hemp-based cannabinoids.

GOP senators have separately tried to block the administration from rescheduling cannabis as part of a standalone bill filed last September, but that proposal has not received a hearing or vote.

Meanwhile, the House Rules Committee last month rejected multiple marijuana-related amendments to a series of spending bills, including proposals to ban certain federal agencies from testing job applicants for cannabis and prevent border patrol agents from seizing marijuana from state-licensed businesses.

The Appropriations Committee separately passed another spending bill last month that was amended to remove provisions safeguarding banks that work with state-licensed cannabis businesses. Members also reattached a section blocking Washington, D.C. from legalizing marijuana sales that was omitted from the base bill.

Read the full public comment from CANNRA below:

Senators Will Vote On ‘DOOBIE Act’ To Prevent Agencies From Using Past Marijuana Use To Deny Employment And Security Clearances Next Week