How To Comment On The Federal Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal Ahead Of Monday’s Deadline

The window to weigh in on the federal government’s proposal to move marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA) closes soon, but there’s still time to file comments on what could be the most significant federal cannabis policy change in decades.

The 60-day public comment period kicked off in May, shortly after President Joe Biden and the Justice Department (DOJ) confirmed the marijuana rescheduling plan. The deadline to file comments is Monday, July 22.

Submissions can be filed directly with the government by clicking the “Comment” button on the proposed rule page on Regulations.gov or by submitting a formal comment through the Federal Register’s website. Comments are public but may be filed anonymously.

DOJ will take all public comments submitted by the end of July 22 into consideration as it weighs the reform, but officials have said they’re especially interested in hearing about the “unique economic impacts” of the rescheduling proposal. It said state-level legalization has created a “multibillion dollar industry” that stands to benefit from possible federal tax relief under the reform.

Stakeholders across the political spectrum—both inside and outside of the marijuana industry—have submitted comments on the implications of rescheduling on state laws, enforcement, research, access to cannabinoid medicines, international treaties and more.

For people who need a bit more direction on what to say, a number of advocacy groups have also set up tools to help their supporters craft comments.

On the pro-reform side, a coalition of advocacy groups—including the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Parabola Center, Marijuana Justice and others—say moving marijuana to Schedule III isn’t enough of a meaningful change. Together the groups have formed United for Marijuana Decriminalization, urging the government to remove cannabis completely from the CSA.

The coalition has a pre-prepared comment form that supporters can edit to their liking before signing and submitting directly through DPA’s website.

“The problem,” a representative wrote in an op-ed published in Marijuana Moment last month, “is that rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule III drug under the CSA, while not entirely insignificant, would continue federal marijuana criminalization—not end it. In order to address the racist legacy of Nixon’s criminalization of marijuana and war on drugs, marijuana must be decriminalized, meaning it must be removed from the schedules of the CSA, or descheduled.”

The cannabis reform group NORML, meanwhile, has also launched an online guide to help supporters craft comments in support of moving marijuana out of Schedule I.

“Our political opponents are encouraging their members to weigh in with negative comments urging administrators to keep cannabis in Schedule I,” NORML says. “We must push back against their scare tactics and sensational claims.”

Opponents of cannabis rescheduling have also set up tools to facilitate the filing of public comments. The prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), for example, has put up a comment page that includes a bevy of critical talking points about the impact of changing cannabis’s current Schedule I status.

Not everyone filing comments has taken a strong stance on rescheduling itself. State-level marijuana officials at the Cannabis Regulators Association (CANNRA), for example, are instead urging the government to provide clarity on what rescheduling would mean for existing state marijuana markets, federal law enforcement and matters such as interstate cannabis trade. The group doesn’t have a formal position on rescheduling, but its 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,” CANNRA head Gillian Schauer told Marijuana Moment this week.

As of Friday afternoon, nearly 35,000 comments had been submitted on the rescheduling proposal.

After the close of the comment period, there may be an administrative hearing to receive additional input before the rule is potentially finalized.

Prohibitionists, law enforcement and former DEA leaders have led the charge for the administrative hearing, asserting that the government’s review process that led to the Schedule III recommendation was deeply flawed, overstates the medical benefits of marijuana and glosses over what the groups say are significant public health risks of rescheduling.

Earlier this month, more than two dozen GOP lawmakers in Congress also came out against the scheduling change, with Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX), Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), and 23 other House and Senate Republicans sending a critical letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland.

Separately, bipartisan congressional lawmakers are seeking to remove a controversial section of a spending bill that would block DOJ from rescheduling—one of several cannabis- and psychedelics-related amendments to appropriations legislation that have been filed recently. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) announced this week 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.

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.

Rescheduling opponents have also amplified rumors that current DEA officials might oppose the proposed change—rumors that a top Biden administration official appeared to acknowledge last month.

In early May, SAM President Kevin Sabet said he’d heard rumors that DEA Administrator Anne Milgram “did not sign off” on the landmark decision, suggesting that the agency wasn’t on board. As it turned out, Milgram did not put her name on the proposed rescheduling rule, leaving it to Attorney General Merrick Garland to sign the document.

GOP lawmakers in Congress questioned Milgram about the matter during a hearing, but she replied it would be “inappropriate” to comment.

Indications that DEA might not be on board came alongside the rescheduling move itself, with the proposed rule in the Federal Register noting several times that the agency believes “additional information” needs to be collected via public comment or a possible administrative hearing could influence the final scheduling decision.

“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” the document said.

Even before the formal announcement, it had been reported that certain DEA officials had been “at odds” with the Biden administration over the rescheduling push.

Asked about the status of the proposed move of cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act at a recent event in Sacramento, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra said his agency made its recommendation based on available science and evidence.

Asked whether there was resistance at DEA, he responded, “Talk to the DEA.”

“Our scientists reviewed the evidence,” Becerra added. “FDA bases its action on the science and the evidence before us. We took action.”

GOP Lawmakers Discuss Marijuana Rescheduling Impact Of Another Trump Presidency In Interviews At RNC