From Schedule I to III: What the U.S. Cannabis Rescheduling Really Changes

Written by Hannah Barnett

In late April, the Donald Trump administration announced plans to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III substance.

The move is a significant departure from decades of federal drug policy, with immediate consequences for research. As a Schedule I substance, cannabis is defined as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse - classifications that have made cannabis long difficult to study by placing significant administrative burdens on researchers.

Building on an executive order signed in December to expand research into medical cannabis, the reclassification legally protects researchers who obtain products approved by the Food and Drug Administration or permitted under state medical cannabis systems.

The policy also introduces an expedited pathway for state-licensed medical cannabis operators to register with federal authorities, bringing parts of an already extensive state-level system into closer alignment with federal regulation. Around 40 U.S. states have medical cannabis systems, while eight others permit low-THC cannabis or CBD products for medical use.

Beyond research, one of the other consequential changes lies in taxation. Businesses involved with Schedule I substances are legally prohibited from deducting standard business expenses. Reclassification to Schedule III removes this restriction, delivering a significant financial benefit to state-licensed cannabis companies.

The policy does not federally legalise cannabis for medical or recreational use or resolve the other numerous tensions that exist between state and federal law. As with recent developments in psychedelic policy, the trajectory is one of incremental reform rather than structural transformation, as it loosens constraints at the margins while leaving the broader system largely intact.

Many advocates argue that full descheduling is necessary to create a coherent regulatory framework. As Morgan Fox of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws told BBC, moving cannabis to Schedule III may ease certain constraints, but it does not resolve the fundamental contradictions at the heart of U.S. cannabis policy.

However, the Trump administration has implied that this move is only the first of a broader federal agenda to reform cannabis. Alongside the announcement, the Department of Justice outlined plans to hold an administrative hearing on June 29 to “fully” reschedule cannabis at the federal level.

The Biden administration had previously initiated a formal review process to reclassify cannabis, which stalled amid legal disputes and delayed Drug Enforcement Administration hearings.

In contrast, the current DOJ is relying on executive authority to advance their policy agenda by drawing on provisions of federal law that allow the Attorney General to determine the appropriate drug classification in line with international treaty obligations.

While this approach may expedite change, it also introduces uncertainty. Reforms advanced through executive mechanisms remain vulnerable to legal challenge and political reversal in the absence of legislative consensus.

Once the rule change is published in the Federal Register, it has 30 days until it takes effect. During this time, it can be legally challenged and potentially delay implementation for months or longer.

What this means for the UK

Developments in the United States often shape the direction of travel for drug policy and research in other nations. The reclassification’s implications for research access and commercial viability may increase pressure on regulators from other countries to reconsider existing barriers to cannabis research and prescribing.

For the UK, which already permits medical cannabis in limited circumstances but has struggled to expand, it raises questions about competitiveness and regulatory alignment.

However, the recent policy developments in the U.S. are largely driven by political momentum and reform. Without similar pressures at the legislative level, the UK is likely to continue progressing through more cautious, incremental pathways.