Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act

This article is about cannabis rescheduling in the United States. For other uses, see Cannabis rescheduling (disambiguation).

In the United States, the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use", is a proposed legal and administrative change in cannabis-related law at the federal level. After being proposed repeatedly since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice initiated 2024 rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. The majority of 2024 public comments supported descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing marijuana at the federal level.^[1]

Background

Schedule I is the only category of controlled substances not allowed to be prescribed by a physician. Under 21 U.S.C. § 812, drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I:

1. The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse.
2. The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.
3. There is a lack of accepted safety for the use of the drug or other substances under medical supervision.

In 1970, Congress placed cannabis into Schedule I on the advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg. His letter to Harley O. Staggers, Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional:

Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication is concerned with the proposed classification of marijuana.

It is presently classed in schedule I(C) along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other psychotropic drugs.

Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still a considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and the effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue.^[2]

In 1972, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse released a report favoring decriminalization of cannabis. The Nixon administration took no action to implement the recommendation, however.^[3]

Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I and so the government is required by law to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The US government, on the other hand, until the August 2023 HHS determination to the contrary, maintained that cannabis is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute was based on differing views on both how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision.

The Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration. The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, but a synthetic pill form of cannabis's psychoactive ingredient, THC, was rescheduled in 1986 to allow prescription under schedule II.^[4] In 1999, it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III.

A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition filed by medical cannabis advocates was in 2002, but it was denied by the DEA in July 2011. Subsequently, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access filed an appeal, Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration in January 2012 with the District of Columbia Circuit, which was heard on 16 October 2012^[5] and denied on 22 January 2013.^[6]

As of April 2023, 38 states, 3 territories, and Washington, D.C. have legalized the use of medical marijuana.^[7] At a congressional hearing in June 2014, the deputy director for Regulatory Programs at the FDA said the agency was conducting an analysis on whether marijuana should be downgraded, at the request of the DEA.^[8] In August 2016 the DEA reaffirmed its position and refused to remove Schedule I classification.^[9] However, the DEA announced that it will end restrictions on the supply of marijuana to researchers and drug companies that had previously only been available from the government's own facility at the University of Mississippi.^[10]

Advocates of marijuana legalization argue that the budgetary impact of removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and legalizing its use in the United States could save billions by reducing government spending for prohibition enforcement in the criminal justice system. Additionally, they argue that billions in annual tax revenues could be generated through proposed taxation and regulation.^[11]

Arguments for and against

For rescheduling

Jon Gettman, former director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, has argued that cannabis does not fit each of the three statutory criteria for Schedule I. Gettman believes that "high potential for abuse" means that a drug has a potential for abuse similar to that of heroin or cocaine.^[12] Gettman argues further that since laboratory animals do not self-administer cannabis, and because cannabis' toxicity is virtually non-existent compared to that of heroin or cocaine, cannabis lacks the high abuse potential required for inclusion in Schedule I or II.^[13]

Gettman also states: "The acceptance of cannabis' medical use by eight (now thirty-eight and DC) states since 1996 and the experiences of patients, doctors, and state officials in these states establish marijuana's accepted medical use in the United States."^[14] Specifically, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Washington DC, and West Virginia, have enacted legislation allowing the medical use of cannabis by their citizens.^[15] A minimum of 4 million patients are currently using medical cannabis legally in these states.^[16]

In his petition, Gettman also argues that cannabis is an acceptably safe medication. He notes that a 1999 Institute of Medicine report found that "except for the harms associated with smoking, the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications." He points out that there are a number of delivery routes that were not considered by the institute, such as transdermal, sublingual, and even rectal administration, in addition to vaporizers, which release cannabis' active ingredients into the air without burning the plant matter.^[17]

A study published in the March 1, 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that "there are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis overdose in humans" and attributed this safety to the low density of cannabinoid receptors in areas of the brain controlling breathing and the heart.^[18][19] Gettman claims that the discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system in the late 1980s revolutionized scientific understanding of cannabis' effects and provided further evidence that it does not belong in Schedule I.

In 2003, the United States government patented cannabinoids, including those in marijuana that cause users to get "high" (such as THC) based on these chemicals' prevention of trauma- and age-related brain damage.^[20]

In January 2008, the American College of Physicians called for a review of cannabis's Schedule I classification in its position paper titled "Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana" It stated therein: "Position 4: ACP urges an evidence-based review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance to determine whether it should be reclassified to a different schedule. This review should consider the scientific findings regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions as well as evidence on the health risks associated with marijuana consumption, particularly in its crude smoked form."^[21]

From 2008 to 2012, the American Patients Rights Association, in cooperation with Medical Marijuana expert Kim Quiggle, lobbied the federal government over what is now known as the "Mary Lou Eimer Criteria" based on a medical study performed by Quiggle on over 10,000 chronically ill and terminally ill patients' use of medical marijuana in Southern California. This study provided conclusive evidence that medical marijuana provided a safer and alternative application to many current pharmaceutical products available for patients, especially those with cancer and HIV/AIDS. The "Mary Lou Eimer Criteria" were instrumental in the issuance of the Cole Memorandum, which has set federal guidelines over states with medical marijuana laws and has urged the federal government to reschedule marijuana to a Class IV or Class V controlled substance based on the results of the Quiggle Study.^{[citation needed]}

Against rescheduling

In 1992, DEA Administrator Robert Bonner promulgated five criteria, based somewhat on the Controlled Substances Act's legislative history, for determining whether a drug has an accepted medical use.^[22] The DEA claims that cannabis has no accepted medical use because it does not meet all of these criteria:^[23]

• The drug's chemistry is known and reproducible;
• There are adequate safety studies;
• There are adequate and well-controlled studies proving efficacy;
• The drug is accepted by qualified experts; and
• The scientific evidence is widely available.

These criteria are not binding; they were created by DEA and may be altered at any time. Judicial deference to agency decisions is what has kept them in effect, despite the difference between these and the statutory criteria. Cannabis is one of several plants with unproven abuse potential and toxicity that Congress placed in Schedule I. The DEA interprets the Controlled Substances Act to mean that if a drug with even a low potential for abuse — say, equivalent to a Schedule V drug — has no accepted medical use, then it must remain in Schedule I:^[23]

When it comes to a drug that is currently listed in Schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse sufficient to warrant control under the CSA, the drug must remain in schedule I. In such circumstances, placement of the drug in schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug would not meet the criterion of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." 21 USC 812(b). Therefore, even if one were to assume, theoretically, that your assertions about marijuana's potential for abuse were correct (i.e., that marijuana had some potential for abuse but less than the "high potential for abuse" commensurate with schedules I and II), marijuana would not meet the criteria for placement in schedules III through V since it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States—a determination that is reaffirmed by HHS in the attached medical and scientific evaluation.

The U.S. Government argues that human studies are more relevant than studies showing animals do not self-administer cannabis.

The Department of Health and Human Services rejects the argument that laboratory animals' failure to self-administer cannabis is conclusive proof of its low potential for abuse:^[23]

The Secretary disagrees with Mr. Gettman's assertion that "[t]he accepted contemporary legal convention for evaluating the abuse potential of a drug or substance is the relative degree of self-administration the drug induces in animal subjects." As discussed above, self-administration tests that identify whether a substance is reinforcing in animals are but one component of the scientific assessment of the abuse potential of a substance. Positive indicators of human abuse liability for a particular substance, whether from laboratory studies or epidemiological data, are given greater weight than animal studies suggesting the same compound has no abuse potential.

The Food and Drug Administration elaborates on this, arguing that the widespread use of cannabis, and the existence of some heavy users, is evidence of its "high potential for abuse," despite the drug's lack of physiological addictiveness:^[23]

[P]hysical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors to consider in determining a substance's abuse potential. A large number of individuals using marijuana on a regular basis and the vast amount of marijuana that is available for illicit use are indicative of widespread use. In addition, there is evidence that marijuana use can result in psychological dependence in a certain proportion of the population.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) also considers the fact that people are willing to risk scholastic, career, and legal problems to use cannabis to be evidence of its high potential for abuse:^[23]

Throughout his petition, Mr. Gettman argues that while many people "use" cannabis, few "abuse" it. He appears to equate abuse with the level of physical dependence and toxicity resulting from cannabis use. Thus, he appears to be arguing that a substance that causes only low levels of physical dependence and toxicity must be considered to have a low potential for abuse. The Secretary does not agree with this argument. Physical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors that are considered in determining a substance's abuse potential. The actual use and frequency of use of a substance, especially when that use may result in harmful consequences such as failure to fulfill major obligations at work or school, physical risk-taking, or even substance-related legal problems, are indicative of a substance's abuse potential.

Process

Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively, through Congress, or through the executive branch. Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis. However, it is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, the 105th Congress, in its second official session, passed Public Law 106-172, also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000,^[24] adding GHB to Schedule I.^[25] On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 2306,^[26] legislation that would completely remove cannabis from the federal schedules, limiting the federal government's role to policing cross-border or interstate transfers into states where it remains illegal.

The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited the lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal.^[12] The first petition took 22 years to review, the second took 7 years, the third was denied 9 years later. A 2013 petition by two state governors is still pending.

Rulemaking proceedings

The United States Code, under Section 811 of Title 21,^[27] sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule cannabis. However, the Controlled Substances Act gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as the successor agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, great power over rescheduling decisions.

After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary "a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as a controlled substance." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA.^[28] The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: "[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." 21 U.S.C. § 811(b).

Factors

Unless an international treaty requires controlling a substance, the Attorney General must, in finding whether the drug meets the three criteria for placement in a particular schedule, consider the following factors:^[29]

• The drug's actual or relative potential for abuse.
• Scientific evidence of its pharmacological effect, if known.
• The state of current scientific knowledge regarding the drug or other substance.
• Its history and current pattern of abuse.
• The scope, duration, and significance of abuse.
• What, if any, risk there is to the public health.
• Its psychological or physiological dependence liability.
• Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a controlled substance.

International treaty scheduling

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs requires governments to regulate cannabis cultivation, but does not ban medical use.

Main article: Removal of cannabis and cannabis resin from Schedule IV of the Single Convention on narcotic drugs, 1961

The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is the main international treaty establishing international law provisions related to marijuana. It was ratified by the United States in 1967.^[30] When a treaty ratified by the U.S. mandates that a drug be controlled, the Attorney General is required to "issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations" without regard to scientific or medical findings, per 21 U.S.C. § 811d. Under the United Nations' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, cannabis and cannabis resin were traditionally classified under Schedule IV (treaty's most strictly controlled category of drugs^[31][32]) since 1961.

However, in 2020, world nations voted to lower the scheduling status of marijuana to the less-restrictive Schedule I. The decision became legally-effective worldwide in April 2021, taking "cannabis and cannabis resin" out of Schedule IV to leave it only in Schedule I.^[33] After "cannabis and cannabis resin" have been removed from Schedule IV, further steps to reschedule or deschedule marijuana (such as taking it out of the treaty's Schedule I) would now require amendment of the treaty.^[33] The principal features of the international legal regime of Schedule I are:

• Limitation to medical and scientific purposes of all phases of trade (manufacture, domestic trade, both wholesale and retail, and international trade) in, and of the possession and use of, drugs, except drugs that are used in industry for other than medical and scientific purposes (article 2(9)^[30]);
• Requirement of governmental authorization (licensing or state ownership) for the participation in any phase of the production or trade, specific import and export authorization for each individual international transaction;
• Obligation of all participants in the trade to keep detailed records of their transactions;
• Requirement of a medical prescription for the supply or dispensation of drugs to individuals;
• A system of limiting the quantities of drugs available, by manufacture or import or both, in each country and territory, to those needed for medical and scientific purposes.

Status of scheduling of cannabis and cannabis resin under the Single Convention on narcotic drugs, 1961^[34]

Schedule	Period in effect	Description
IV	1968–2021	Corresponds to drugs that are deemed to be particularly liable to abuse and to produce ill effects, and such liability is not offset by substantial therapeutic advantages – article 3(5)[35]
I	2021–present	"Constitute the standard regime under the Single Convention"[36] corresponding to drugs deemed liable to abuse and productive of ill-effects – article 3(3)[35]

In the United States, 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(2)(B) of the Controlled Substances Act states that if the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs proposes rescheduling a drug, the HHS Secretary "shall evaluate the proposal and furnish a recommendation to the Secretary of State which shall be binding on the representative of the United States in discussions and negotiations relating to the proposal".^[27]

However, "[s]cheduling pursuant to international treaty obligations does not require the factual findings that are necessary for other administrative scheduling actions, and may be implemented without regard to the procedures outlined for regular administrative scheduling."^[37] For this reason, some have argued that changes in cannabis scheduling at the U.S. federal level may be fast-tracked after the change in treaty scheduling, on these grounds.^[38][39]

History

1972 petition

In 1972 the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) (now the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) to transfer cannabis to Schedule II so that it could be legally prescribed by physicians. The BNDD declined to initiate proceedings on the basis of their interpretation of U.S. treaty commitments.

In 1974, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the government and ordered them to process the petition (NORML v. Ingersoll 497 F.2d 654). The government continued to rely on treaty commitments in their interpretation of scheduling-related issues concerning the NORML petition. In 1977, the Court issued a decision clarifying that the Controlled Substances Act requires a full scientific and medical evaluation and the fulfillment of the rescheduling process before treaty commitments can be evaluated (NORML v. DEA 559 F.2d 735). On October 16, 1980, the Court ordered the government to start the scientific and medical evaluations required by the NORML petition (NORML v. DEA Unpublished Disposition, U.S. App. LEXIS 13100).

Meanwhile, some members of Congress were taking action to reschedule the drug legislatively. In 1981, the late Rep. Stuart McKinney introduced a bill to transfer cannabis to Schedule II.^[40] It was co-sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of 84 House members, including prominent Republicans Newt Gingrich (GA), Bill McCollum (FL), John Porter (IL), and Frank Wolf (VA).^[41] After the bill died in committee, Rep. Barney Frank began annually introducing nearly identical legislation.^[42] All of Frank's bills have suffered the same fate, though, without attracting more than a handful of co-sponsors.

On October 18, 1985, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to transfer "Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules" — a pill form of Δ⁹-tetrahydrocannabinol, the main psychoactive component of cannabis, sold under the brand name Marinol — from Schedule I to Schedule II (DEA 50 FR 42186-87). The government issued its final rule rescheduling the drug on July 13, 1986 (DEA 51 FR 17476-78). The disparate treatment of cannabis and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency.^[43][44]

In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6, 1988, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet the legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II".^[45]

Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against rescheduling cannabis based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992. This statement was quoted by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in its membership drives.^[46]

In 1994, the D.C. Court of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision (Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131). The petition was officially dead. "Each of the doctors testifying on behalf of NORML claimed that his opinion was based on scientific studies, yet with one exception, none could identify, under oath, the scientific studies they relied on," DEA Administrator Thomas A. Constantine remarked in 1995.^[47]

1980 congressional hearings

On May 20, 1980, Representative Sam Neal (D-NC) convened hearings on Schedule I drugs.^{[citation needed][48]}

1995 petition

On July 10, 1995, Jon Gettman and High Times Magazine filed another rescheduling petition with the DEA. This time, instead of focusing on cannabis' medical uses, the petitioners claimed that cannabis did not have the "high potential for abuse" required for Schedule I or Schedule II status. They based their claims on studies of the brain's cannabinoid receptor system conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) between 1988 and 1994. In particular, they claim that a 1992 study by M. Herkenham et al.,^[49] "using a lesion-technique, established that there are no cannabinoid receptors in the dopamine-producing areas of the brain".^[19] Other studies, summarized in Gettman's 1997 report Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana, showed that cannabis has only an indirect effect on dopamine transmission.^[19] This suggested that cannabis' psychoactive effects are produced by a different mechanism than addictive drugs such as amphetamine, cocaine, ethanol, nicotine, and opiates. The National Institute on Drug Abuse, however, continued to publish literature denying this finding. For instance, NIDA claims the following in its youth publication The Science Behind Drug Abuse:^[50]

A chemical in marijuana, THC, triggers brain cells to release the chemical dopamine. Dopamine creates good feelings — for a short time. Here's the thing: Once dopamine starts flowing, a user feels the urge to smoke marijuana again, and then again, and then again. Repeated use could lead to addiction, and addiction is a brain disease.

In January 1997, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids.^[51] In 1999, the IOM recommended that medical cannabis use be allowed for certain patients in the short term, and that preparations of isolated cannabinoids be developed as a safer alternative to smoked cannabis. The IOM also found that the gateway drug theory was "beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids."

Both sides claimed that the IOM report supported their position. The DEA publication Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana interpreted the IOM's statement, "While we see a future in the development of chemically defined cannabinoid drugs, we see little future in smoked marijuana as a medicine," as meaning that smoking cannabis is not recommended for the treatment of any disease condition.^[52] Cannabis advocates pointed out that the IOM did not study vaporizers, devices which, by heating cannabis to 185 °C, release therapeutic cannabinoids while reducing or eliminating ingestion of various carcinogens.^[53]

On July 2, 1999, Marinol was again rescheduled, this time from Schedule II to the even less-restrictive Schedule III, while cannabis remained in Schedule I (64 FR 35928).^[54] The petitioners argued that the distinction between the two drugs was arbitrary, and that cannabis should be rescheduled as well. The DEA, however, continued to support Marinol as a method of THC ingestion without harmful smoke inhalation.

The DEA published a final denial of Gettman's petition on April 18, 2001.^[23] The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the agency's decision on May 24, 2002, ruling that the petitioners were not sufficiently injured to have standing to challenge DEA's determinations in federal court (290 F.3d 430).^[55] Since the appeal was dismissed on a technicality, it is unknown what position the Court would have taken on the merits of the case.

2002 petition

On October 9, 2002, the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis filed another petition for rescheduling.^[56][57] The new organization consisted of medical cannabis patients and other petitioners who would be more directly affected by the DEA's decision. On April 3, 2003, the DEA accepted the filing of that petition. According to Jon Gettman, "In accepting the petition the DEA has acknowledged that the Coalition has established a legally significant argument in support of the recognition of the accepted medical use of cannabis in the United States."

(In a 2005 footnote to the majority decision in Gonzales v. Raich, Justice John Paul Stevens said that if the scientific evidence offered by medical cannabis supporters is true, it would "cast serious doubt" on the Schedule I classification.)^[58]

After nine years of delay, on May 23, 2011, the Coalition filed suit in the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals to compel the DEA to formally respond to its 2002 rescheduling petition. The writ of mandamus request alleged that the lack of decision by DEA, "presents a paradigmatic example of unreasonable delay under Telecommunications Research & Action Ctr. v. FCC."^[59] After DEA responded by denying the rescheduling petition, the mandamus request was dismissed as moot by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on October 14, 2011.^[60]

The DEA denied the Petition for Rescheduling on July 8, 2011.^[61][62][63]

In response to the petition's denial, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access appealed to the D.C. Circuit on January 23, 2012.^[64] Oral arguments in the case Americans for Safe Access v. DEA were heard on October 16, 2012.^[65] On the same day the case was heard, the court ordered the plaintiffs (ASA) to clarify their arguments on standing.^[66] In response, ASA filed a supplemental brief on October 22, 2012, detailing how plaintiff Michael Krawitz was harmed by the federal government's policy on medical marijuana due to being denied treatment by the Department of Veterans Affairs.^[67] A ruling that acknowledged Krawitz's standing, but ultimately stood by the DEA was made on January 22, 2013.^[68]

2009 petition

On December 17, 2009, Rev. Bryan A. Krumm, CNP, filed a rescheduling petition for Cannabis with the DEA arguing that "because marijuana does not have the abuse potential for placement in Schedule I of the CSA, and because marijuana now has accepted medical use in 13 states, and because the DEA's own Administrative Law Judge has already determined that marijuana is safe for use under medical supervision, the federal definition for a schedule I controlled substance, 21 U.S.C. § 812(b)(1)(A)-(C), no longer applies to marijuana and federal law must be amended to reflect these changes." Krumm demanded an expedited ruling in order to protect his health and welfare, as well as that of all citizens of the United States who may benefit from this safe and effective medication.

Rev. Krumm did not request that cannabis be moved to any specific schedule of control under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and has reserved his right to challenge any incorrect findings by the FDA and/or DEA whether Cannabis should even be regulated under the CSA.

DEA denied Rev. Krumm's petition on July 19, 2016 and published the denial in the Federal Register on August 12, 2016.^[69]

2011 petition

On November 30, 2011, Washington State Governor Christine Gregoire announced the filing of a petition^[70][71] with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration asking the agency to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule 2 drug, which will allow its use for treatment – prescribed by doctors and filled by pharmacists. Gov. Lincoln Chafee (I-Rhode Island) also signed the petition.

On December 23, 2015, Tom Angell reported that the FDA had finally issued a recommendation to the DEA regarding both the 2009 and 2011 petitions.^[72] On August 12, 2016, DEA denied the governors' petition.^[73]

2011 bill

On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), along with 1 Republican and 19 Democratic cosponsors, introduced the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011, which would have removed marijuana and THC from the list of Schedule I controlled substances and would have provided that the Controlled Substances Act not apply to marijuana except when transported to a jurisdiction where its use is illegal.^[74] The bill was referred to committee but died when no further action was taken.^[74]

2012 bill

On November 27, 2012, after voters in the states of CO and WA voted to legalize recreational use of marijuana, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-CO) introduced a bill referred to as the 'Respect States and Citizens Rights Act' which aimed to amend the Controlled Substances Act to exclude any state that has legalized marijuana (for medical OR recreational use) from marijuana provisions of the CSA, effectively giving state law precedence over federal law in cases where an individual (or commercial enterprise) is acting within the letter of state law regarding marijuana/cannabis.^[75] The bill was referred to committee but died when no further action was taken.^[75] The same bill was reintroduced later in the 113th and 114th Congresses, where it died each time.^[76]

2015–2017

On February 20, 2015, Rep. Jared Polis (D-CO), along with 1 Republican and 18 Democratic cosponsors, introduced the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act, which would have, among other provisions, directed the Attorney General to remove marijuana from all schedules of controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act; prohibited transport of marijuana into a jurisdiction in which its possession, use, or sale is prohibited; and granted the Food and Drug Administration the same authorities with respect to marijuana as it has for alcohol.^[77] The bill was referred to committee but died when no further action was taken.^[77]

In August 2016, the DEA rejected calls to reschedule marijuana, but indicated an increase in availability for research.^[78]

The 2016 platform of the Democratic Party called for removal of marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, "providing a reasoned pathway for future legalization" of marijuana.^[79] This language was approved in a close vote (81–80 vote) in the platform committee.^[80]

In February 2017, Morgan Griffith, a Virginia Republican, introduced H.R. 714, Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marijuana Act, that would move cannabis to Schedule II.^[81] Griffith had introduced a bill under the same name in 2014.^[82]

In April 2017, Matt Gaetz, a Florida Republican, cosponsored House Resolution 2020 to move cannabis to Schedule III.^[83][84]

In May 2017, following a resolution adopted at the 2016 annual convention to support cannabis to treat veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), the American Legion petitioned the White House for a meeting to discuss rescheduling or descheduling cannabis and allowing it to be used medically.^[85][86][87]

In July 2017, a lawsuit was brought in U.S. District Court against the heads of the DEA and Justice Department on the grounds that Schedule I listing of cannabis is "so irrational that it violates the U.S. Constitution".^[88] This lawsuit was dismissed by Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein who ruled that the DEA has authority and before bringing the lawsuit the plaintiffs were required to exhaust administrative remedies including petitioning the DEA to reschedule cannabis.^[89]

2018–2019

Further information: 2018 United States farm bill and Hemp Farming Act of 2018

The 2018 United States farm bill descheduled some cannabis products from the Controlled Substances Act for the first time.^[90][91][92]

In May 2019, A federal appeals court has re-instated a case against the federal government over the Schedule I status of cannabis.

The challengers, Super Bowl champion Marvin Washington; Dean Bortell (parent of underage medical cannabis patient Alexis Bortell); U.S. Army veteran José Belén; Sebastien Cotte (parent of underage medical cannabis patient Jagger Cotte); and the Cannabis Cultural Association, originally sued the U.S. federal government, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and its administrator, and then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, back in 2017. They argued that cannabis' Schedule I status under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) represented a risk to patients' health and perpetuated economic inequities in the U.S.

Initially dismissed by the court under the argument that plaintiffs had not exhausted all administrative channels available – meaning they should have tried to push for re-scheduling in Congress and administrative agencies before recurring to the judicial system, the case now has to be re-opened, as mandated by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Judges still believe other channels are viable, but have decided to re-instate the case citing health concerns related to the two minors involved.

As Michael S. Hiller, Esquire, who represents the plaintiffs, explained in a series of tweets, the court has directed the DEA and federal government to act on the plaintiffs' de-scheduling petition "with all deliberate speed."^[93][94]

Legislation introduced in 2019 to deschedule cannabis has included the Marijuana Justice Act,^[95] the Marijuana Freedom and Opportunity Act,^[96] the Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act,^[97] the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act,^[98] the Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act,^[99] and the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act.^[100]

2020–2023

As of September 16, 2020, nine amicus briefs had been filed in support of the plaintiffs' appeal to the Supreme Court in the Washington v. Barr lawsuit. The plaintiffs seek to declare the criminalization of cannabis unconstitutional, arguing that its status as a Schedule I drug—based on the premise that it has no medicinal use—contradicts the federal government's own apparent recognition of the substance as safe and medicinally effective.^[101]

In international law, however, the lowering of cannabis from Schedule IV (the strictest class) to Schedule I (the standard level of control) was voted by the United Nations' Commission on Narcotic Drugs on 2 December 2020.^[102][34] The United States voted in favor of the recommendation.^[33]

In Sisley v. DEA lawsuit NO. 20-71433, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition that asked the court to review the DEA's denial of a letter that requested the agency reschedule marijuana. Under the CSA, the DEA must begin investigating the rescheduling of a drug after receiving a petition by from any interested party, including the manufacturer of a drug, a medical society or association, a pharmacy association, a public interest group concerned with drug abuse, a state or local government agency, or an individual citizen. The petition in question in Sisley v. DEA was a one-page, handwritten letter from Jeramy Bowers and Stephen Zyszkiewicz, sent in January 2020 while they were inmates at California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The DEA responded to the petition with a letter that informed Bowers and Zyszkiewicz that the petition was not in the correct format and denied the request without review. In June 2021, the Ninth Circuit dismissed a petition for judicial review of the letter on behalf of Bowers and Zyszkiewicz, saying that they had not exhausted their bureaucratic remedies by addressing a new petition to the DEA in the correct format.^[103]

On 6 October 2022, President Joe Biden instructed U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland to review the classification schedule of cannabis, during a "Statement on Marijuana Reform."^[104] This could result in its removal from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.^[105][106] The Congressional Research Service had issued a report a year earlier noting that the President could "use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana".^[107]

On August 30, 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services released a redacted letter communicating its determination that marijuana should be moved to Schedule III.^[108]

2024–2025

The Department of Health and Human Services, following a FOIA lawsuit filed by attorney Matt Zorn, released an un-redacted copy of the department's descheduling determination letter in January 2024.^{[109][110][111][112]} After reviewing the letter, a legal expert concluded it was "very likely that the DEA will move forward with the rulemaking process to reschedule marijuana",^[113] a conclusion also reached by the Congressional Research Service in their report.^[114] A dozen members of the U.S. Senate, including the majority leader, signed a letter to the United States Attorney general and the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration expressing their desire that rescheduling be the administration's decision, if not outright descheduling.^{[115][116][117]}

The Associated Press reported on April 30 that the Drug Enforcement Administration would consider rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule III drug, though it was not yet officially announced, calling it "the agency's biggest policy change in more than 50 years".^[118]

On May 16, the Justice Department confirmed that rescheduling was moving forward under the Administrative Procedure Act, with a notice of proposed rulemaking submitted for publication in the Federal Register.^[119] President Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both released video announcements to X concerning the rescheduling. Biden called his administration's action as a "monumental" move in "reversing long-standing inequities... because of a failed approach to marijuana".^[120]

On July 9, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee attempted to block the DOJ from using federal funds to reschedule cannabis via an amendment to a funding bill.^[121] The public comment period for the proposed rule change closed during the week of July 22. Nearly 43,000 comments were received, a record for any DEA rule change, most of which were in favor of rescheduling.^[122]

Following a string of delays, a preliminary hearing on December 2 resulted in plans for evidentiary and testimonial proceedings between January and March 2025.^{[123][124][125]} Hearings were further postponed after the judge admonished the DEA for "deliberate defiance" regarding evidence for the planned proceedings, which he condemned as an "unprecedented and astonishing" failure to follow court instructions.^[126]

State level reclassification

Legality of cannabis in the United States

---

  Legal for recreational use

  Legal for medical use

  No comprehensive medical program

● Decriminalized

---

Notes:
· Reflects laws of states and territories, including laws which have not yet gone into effect. Does not reflect federal, tribal, or local laws.
· Map does not show state legality of hemp-derived cannabinoids such as CBD or delta-8-THC, which have been legal at federal level since enactment of the 2018 Farm Bill.

• v
• t
• e

In addition to the federal government's classification, each state maintains a similar classification list and it is possible for these lists to conflict.

California

Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act, is a voter initiative, passed in 1996, that made California the first state to legalize cannabis for medical use. California Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, was passed in 2004 with the following purpose: "(1) Clarify the scope of the application of the act and facilitate the prompt identification of qualified patients and their designated primary caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution of these individuals and provide needed guidance to law enforcement officers. (2) Promote uniform and consistent application of the act among the counties within the state. (3) Enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation projects."

In 2016, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act was voted into law, legalizing recreational consumption for those over 21 in the state. In 2017, Senate Bill 94 was signed by the California Governor integrating the previous state medical marijuana regulations and the adult use regulations of the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) (Proposition 64) to create the Medicinal and Adult‐Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act (MAUCRSA).^[127]

Each municipality is allowed to decide whether to grant business licenses for retail, delivery, growing, edibles, and wholesale. Taxes on legal marijuana keep it out of reach to low-income medical or adult users, creating more demand for the black market. Licenses, when available, are extremely limited and can cost $100,000 sometimes requiring proof of additional capital. Additionally, California has long provided much of the marijuana for the entire United States. These factors have allowed the black market to dominate California marijuana.^[128] Social equity programs are in place in some cities, but applicants with drug felonies are often excluded from participation. Those who qualify based on race, income, or history of marijuana offenses are often taken advantage of by larger businesses who can outbid each other and take advantage of applicants and the social equity program itself.^[129]

Cannabis and tetrahydrocannabinols remain a Schedule I drug (no medical use) in California^[130] and are subject to criminal penalties ranging from misdemeanor or felony probation up to 3 years in prison for maintaining a place for controlled substance sale or use under California Health & Safety Code Section 11366.^[131]

Colorado

Main article: Colorado Amendment 64

On Nov. 6, 2012, after passing Amendment 64, Colorado became one of the first two states to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for individuals over the age of 21.^[132]

Florida

On January 27, 2014, the Florida Supreme Court approved the ballot language for a proposed constitutional amendment allowing the medical use of marijuana, following a successful petition drive.^[133] The amendment proposal appeared on Florida's November 2014 general election ballot and received 58% of the vote, below the 60% requirement for adoption. The campaign was notable for opposition funding by casino magnate and Republican Party donor Sheldon Adelson.^[134] United for Care, the pro-medical cannabis organization responsible for the initial petition, wrote an updated version for the 2016 general election.^[135] The Florida Medical Marijuana Legalization Initiative, also known as Amendment 2, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in Florida as an initiated constitutional amendment. The amendment was approved by 71.32% of the vote making it the highest percentage win in 2016 of any other state cannabis ballot in the United States.^[136]

Iowa

On Feb. 17, 2010, after reviewing testimony from four public hearings and reading through more than 10,000 pages of submitted material, members of the Iowa Board of Pharmacy unanimously voted to recommend that the Iowa legislature remove marijuana from Schedule I of the Iowa Controlled Substances Act.^[137]

Minnesota

On March 16, 2011, Kurtis W. Hanna and Ed Engelmann petitioned the Minnesota Board of Pharmacy to initiate rule making to remove Cannabis from the list of Schedule I substance in Minnesota's version of the Uniform Controlled Substances Act.^[138][139] The Board was informed when they denied the petition at their meeting on May 11, 2011, by Kurtis Hanna that he planned on filing for judicial review of the agency's decision. In response, the Board voted to petition the State Legislature to remove the Board's authority to remove substances from Schedule I. At a Conference Committee for Omnibus Drug Bill HF57 on May 18, 2011, the following sentence was added to the bill, "The Board of Pharmacy may not delete or reschedule a drug that is in Schedule I" and the following sentence of statute was deleted, "the state Board of Pharmacy [...] shall annually, on or before May 1 of each year, conduct a review of the placement of controlled substances in the various schedules."^[140] The bill was signed into law by Governor Dayton on May 24, 2011.^[141] Kurtis Hanna never filed a lawsuit against the Board of Pharmacy due to the belief that it would be moot.

Oregon

See also: Cannabis in Oregon

In June 2010, the Oregon Board of Pharmacy reclassified marijuana from a Schedule I drug to a Schedule II drug.^[142] News reports noted that this reclassification made Oregon the "first state in the nation to make marijuana anything less serious than a Schedule I drug."^[143]

Washington

Main article: Washington Initiative 502

On Nov. 6, 2012, Washington voters passed Initiative 502, making the state one of the first two in the nation to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for individuals over the age of 21.^[144]

Wisconsin

Gary Storck sent a letter to the Controlled Substances board in August 2011 requesting procedures to file a petition, which was discussed at the September 2011 Controlled Substances Board Meeting.^[145] The Wisconsin Controlled Substances board has authority to reschedule cannabis pursuant to the rule-making procedures of ch. 227.^[146] Drafters planned to submit a petition to the Controlled Substances Board in early 2012.

In 2018, Wisconsin voters approved non-binding referendums to legalize medical or recreational marijuana.^[147]

In 2021, Governor Tony Evers included legal marijuana in his budget proposal. It was removed by Republican-controlled Legislature.^[148] While possession remains illegal under state law, law enforcement has been lax in recent years. Madison has legalized possession and use in public ^[149] while the Milwaukee County District Attorney chooses not to prosecute most possession cases.^[150] While progress is being made, individuals in Wisconsin are still unsure if they will be allowed to use marijuana in public, have marijuana confiscated, be arrested, fined, or imprisoned for lengthy periods. Because of the demand, marijuana is brought in from illegal grows in legal states.

See also

• Adult lifetime cannabis use by country
• Annual cannabis use by country
• Cannabis rescheduling around the world
• Decriminalization of non-medical marijuana in the United States
• Health issues and the effects of cannabis
• Legal and medical status of cannabis
• Legal history of marijuana in the United States
• Legal issues of cannabis
• Legality of cannabis by country
• Marijuana Policy Project
• Medical cannabis
• NORML
• Prohibition in the United States
• Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

References

1. DeAngelo, Andrew (August 12, 2024). "Cannabis Rescheduling: Record 43,000 Public Comments Submitted To The DEA". Forbes. Retrieved August 13, 2024.
2. Aggarwal, Sunil (2010). "Cannabis: A Commonwealth Medicinal Plant, Long Suppressed, Now at Risk of Monopolization" (PDF). Denver University Law Review. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 22, 2015. Retrieved December 13, 2015.
3. Pierro Neto, Pedro Antonio; Pierro, Luiz Marcelo Chiarotto; Fernandes, Sergio Tadeu (September 25, 2023). "Cannabis: 12.000 anos de experiências e preconceitos". Brazilian Journal of Pain (in Portuguese). 6: 80–84. doi:10.5935/2595-0118.20230055-pt. ISSN 2595-0118.
4. DEA 51 FR 17476-78.
5. David Savage (October 16, 2012). "Medical marijuana advocates seek reclassification of drug". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on October 19, 2012. Retrieved October 27, 2012.
6. Americans for Safe Access v. DEA (DC Cir. 2013), Text.
7. "State Medical Cannabis Laws".
8. Edney, Anna (June 20, 2014). "Marijuana Considered for Looser Restrictions by U.S. FDA". Bloomberg. Archived from the original on January 12, 2015. Retrieved March 11, 2017.
9. Bernstein, Lenny (August 11, 2016). "U.S. affirms its prohibition on medical marijuana". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on August 11, 2016. Retrieved August 11, 2016.
10. Halper, Evan (August 11, 2016). "DEA ends its monopoly on marijuana growing for medical research". LA Times. Archived from the original on August 12, 2016. Retrieved August 11, 2016.
11. Miron, Jeffrey A., Waldock, Katherine. (2010). "The Budgetary Impact of Ending Drug Prohibition Archived August 5, 2011, at the Wayback Machine". Cato Institute. For the original paper, see Miron, Jeffrey A. (2005). "The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition". Marijuana Policy Project; see also Caputo, M. R., & Ostrom, B. J. (1994). "Potential tax revenue from a regulated marijuana market: A meaningful revenue source". American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53, 475–490.
12. Jon Gettman (May 13, 1999). "Science And The End Of Marijuana Prohibition" (PDF). drugrehaballiance.com. Archived (PDF) from the original on December 13, 2014. Retrieved December 12, 2014. Text originally presented at the 12th International Conference on Drug Policy Reform.
13. "Notice of Denial of Petition". Federal Register. April 18, 2001. Retrieved July 29, 2024.
14. Accepted Medical Use of Cannabis: State Laws. Archived February 22, 2007, at the Wayback Machine The 2002 Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana). DrugScience.org. Retrieved 2007-04-18.
15. "Active State Medical Marijuana Programs". NORML. December 1, 2004. Archived from the original on April 12, 2005. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
16. "Legal medical marijuana patients by U.S. State 2021".
17. Accepted Medical Use: Route of Administration. Archived February 22, 2007, at the Wayback Machine The 2002 Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana). DrugScience.org. Retrieved 2007-04-18.
18. Herkenham M, Lynn A, Little M, Johnson M, Melvin L, de Costa B, Rice K (1990). "Cannabinoid receptor localization in brain". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 87 (5): 1932–6. Bibcode:1990PNAS...87.1932H. doi:10.1073/pnas.87.5.1932. PMC 53598. PMID 2308954. Free full text Archived October 1, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
19. Jon Gettman (July 11, 1997). "Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana". UK Cannabis Internet Activists. Archived from the original on March 13, 2005. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
20. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. "United States Patent, Cannabinoids as Antioxidants and Neuroprotectants". United States Department of Health and Human Services. Archived from the original on July 6, 2011. Retrieved July 13, 2011.
21. American College of Physicians (January 2008). "Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana". Archived from the original on May 15, 2008. Retrieved April 1, 2008.
22. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. "DEA History Book, 1990–1994. Medical Use of Marijuana Denied (1992)". United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on February 6, 2005. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
23. Drug Enforcement Administration (April 18, 2001). "Notice of Denial of Petition; and Basis for the Recommendation for Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act". Federal Register. Vol. 66, no. 75. pp. 20037–20076. Archived from the original on June 11, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2022.
24. Pub. L. 106–172 (text) (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-04-29.
25. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (March 13, 2000). "GHB added to the list of schedule i controlled substances" (Press release). United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on April 7, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
26. H.R. 2306, The Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act 2011
27. 21 U.S.C. § 811. Retrieved on 2007-04-28 from Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute.
28. Statement on "Date Rape" Drugs by Nicholas Reuter, M.P.H. Archived 2006-05-16 at the Wayback Machine, Associate Director for Domestic and International Drug Control, Office of Health Affairs, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Testimony before the House Committee on Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, March 11, 1999.
29. Factors determinative of control or removal from schedules
30. Riboulet-Zemouli, Kenzi (March 14, 2022). "High Compliance, a Lex Lata Legalization for the Non-Medical Cannabis Industry: How to Regulate Recreational Cannabis in Accordance with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961". FAAAT editions. Paris and Washington, DC: 14. SSRN 4057428.
31. "Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 9, 2008. (502 KB). United Nations International Narcotics Control Board. Retrieved on 2007-04-28. Amended in 1972; schedules revised on March 5, 1990. Also available directly from Wikisource in HTML format.
32. Riboulet-Zemouli, Kenzi; Krawitz, Michael; Ghehiouèche, Farid (2018). "Briefing on the international scientific assessment of Cannabis: Processes, stakeholders and history". The Crimson Digest. 1. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.27802.70082.
33. Riboulet-Zemouli, Kenzi; Krawitz, Michael; Ghehiouèche, Farid (2021). History, science, and politics of international cannabis scheduling, 2015–2021. Vienna: FAAAT editions. ISBN 979-10-97087-50-0.
34. Riboulet-Zemouli, Kenzi; Krawitz, Michael Alan (August 5, 2022). "WHO's first scientific review of medicinal Cannabis: from global struggle to patient implications". Drugs, Habits and Social Policy. 23 (1): 5–21. doi:10.1108/DHS-11-2021-0060. ISSN 2752-6739. S2CID 247421561.
35. WHO. "Guidance on the WHO review of psychoactive substances for international control". www.who.int. Retrieved October 7, 2022.
36. "Blog". Retrieved March 14, 2005.^{[dead link‍]}
37. The Controlled Substances Act (CSA): A Legal Overview for the 117th Congress Updated February 5, 2021. Congressional Research Service. 2021.
38. "12/09/20 Michael Krawitz". Drug Truth Network. December 7, 2020. Retrieved October 7, 2022.
39. White House (October 6, 2022). "Background Press Call on Marijuana Reform". The White House. Retrieved October 7, 2022.
40. 1998 Congressional Record, Vol. 144, Page H7719 through H7726 Archived October 8, 2021, at the Wayback Machine (PDF). Retrieved on 2007-04-28.
41. "Rep. Barney Frank Re-Introduces Medicinal Marijuana Bill Previously Co-Sponsored by Rep. Newt Gingrich" (Press release). Marijuana Policy Project. November 13, 1995. Archived from the original on February 7, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-04-28 through Archive.org.
42. Kuipers, Dean (June 25, 2003). "Burnt: Medical use of marijuana has been legal in California since 1996". Americans for Safe Access. Archived from the original on June 6, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
43. Jon Gettman. The Distinction Between Marinol, Dronabinol, and Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Archived May 7, 2007, at the Wayback Machine The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform. DrugScience.org. Retrieved 2007-05-03.
44. Carl Olsen. Sacramental Cannabis Lawsuit Challenges Marijuana Prohibition On Establishment and Free Exercise of Religion. Archived May 6, 2007, at the Wayback Machine The Bulletin of Cannabis Reform. DrugScience.org. Retrieved 2007-05-03.
45. Young, Francis L. (September 6, 1988). "In The Matter Of MARIJUANA RESCHEDULING PETITION, Docket No. 86-22: OPINION AND RECOMMENDED RULING, FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE". Schaffer Library of Drug Policy. Archived from the original on February 13, 2005. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
46. Doblin, Rick (1994). "The Medicinal Use Of Marijuana – A Progress Report On Dr. Donald Abrams' Pilot Study Comparing Smoked Marijuana And The Oral THC Capsule For The Promotion Of Weight Gain In Patients Suffering from the AIDS Wasting Syndrome". Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. 5 (1). Archived from the original on March 18, 2005. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
47. "Medicinal marijuana: the struggle for legalization". CNN. 1997. Archived from the original on June 8, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
48. See also Appendix B of ISBN 978-0936485065, ISBN 093648506X
49. Herkenham M (1992). "Cannabinoid receptor localization in brain: relationship to motor and reward systems". Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 654 (1): 19–32. Bibcode:1992NYASA.654...19H. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb25953.x. PMID 1385932. S2CID 8878693. Archived from the original on August 11, 2020. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
50. "NIDA for Teens: Facts on Drugs – Marijuana". U.S. National Institute on Drug Abuse. June 10, 2005. Archived from the original on April 27, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
51. Janet E. Joy; Stanley J. Watson, Jr.; John A. Benson, Jr., eds. (1999). Marijuana and medicine: assessing the science base. Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Health, Institute of Medicine. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. ISBN 0-309-07155-0. Free full text
52. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. "Exposing the Myth of Smoked Medical Marijuana". United States Department of Justice. Archived from the original on April 17, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
53. Gieringer, Dale (1996). "Marijuana Water Pipe and Vaporizer Study". Newsletter of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. 6 (3). Archived from the original on February 9, 2005. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
54. Jon Gettman (July 27, 1999). "Jon Gettman Comments On The Rescheduling of Marinol". MarijuanaNews.com. Archived from the original on June 8, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
55. "Arguments Supporting the Cannabis Rescheduling Petition". The 2002 Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana). DrugScience.org. Archived from the original on June 26, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
56. "National Coalition Seeks Recognition of the Accepted Medical Use of Cannabis in the United States; Petition Provides Scientific Argument For Rescheduling" (Press release). Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis. October 9, 2002. Archived from the original on October 14, 2002. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
57. "The Cannabis Rescheduling Petition: An Introduction". The 2002 Petition to Reschedule Cannabis (Marijuana). DrugScience.org. Archived from the original on February 18, 2007. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
58. Mauro, Tony (June 6, 2005). "High Court: Federal Drug Laws Can Trump State Medical Marijuana Laws". Legal Times. Archived from the original on September 1, 2007. Retrieved June 15, 2005.
59. Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis (May 23, 2011). "Petition for writ of mandamus to the drug enforcement administration and the united states attorney general" (PDF). cannabisnews.com. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 26, 2011. Retrieved April 28, 2007.
60. In Re: Coal. to Reschedule Cannabis, et al., No. 11-5121 (C.A.D.C. Oct. 14, 2011)(unpublished [pursuant to D.C. Cir. Rule 36]).
61. Drug Enforcement Administration (July 8, 2011). "Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana" (PDF). Federal Register. Vol. 76, no. 131. pp. 40552–40589. Retrieved October 6, 2022.
62. "Final Determination on the Petition for Rescheduling" (PDF). DEA. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 8, 2013.
63. Petitioner's Reply in Support of Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Coal. to Reschedule Cannabis (11–5121), 2011 WL 3382393 (C.A.D.C. Aug. 4, 2011).
64. Americans for Safe Access (January 23, 2012). "Patient Advocates File Appeal Brief in Federal Case to Reclassify Medical Marijuana". Archived from the original on July 14, 2012. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
65. Americans for Safe Access (August 1, 2012). "Medical Marijuana Case On Therapeutic Value, Rescheduling To Be Heard In Federal Court". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on September 13, 2012. Retrieved September 2, 2012.
66. U.S. Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit (October 16, 2012). "Order for Supplemental Briefing" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on October 30, 2012.
67. Americans for Safe Access (October 22, 2012). "Petitioners' Supplemental Brief on Standing" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 19, 2012.
68. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (January 22, 2013). "Americans for Safe Access, et al., Petitioners, v. Drug Enforcement Administration, Respondent, Carl Eric Olsen, Intervenor". Archived from the original on July 9, 2014.
69. Drug Enforcement Administration (August 12, 2016). "Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana" (PDF). Federal Register. Vol. 81, no. 156. pp. 53767–53845. Retrieved July 22, 2024.
70. Office of the Governor of Washington (November 30, 2011). "Gov. Gregoire files petition to reclassify marijuana".^{[permanent dead link‍]}
71. Offices of the Governors of the States of Washington and Rhode Island (November 30, 2011). "Petition to DEA" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 16, 2012.
72. "FDA issues marijuana rescheduling recommendation to DEA". Marijuana.com. Archived from the original on December 25, 2015. Retrieved December 31, 2015.
73. Drug Enforcement Administration (August 12, 2016). "Denial of Petition To Initiate Proceedings To Reschedule Marijuana" (PDF). Federal Register. Vol. 81, no. 156. pp. 53688–53766. Retrieved October 6, 2022.
74. "H.R.2306 – Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act of 2011". congress.gov. August 25, 2011. Archived from the original on February 23, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
75. "H.R.6606 – Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act of 2012". congress.gov. December 7, 2012. Archived from the original on February 23, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
76. "H.R. 6606 (112th): Respect States' and Citizens' Rights Act of 2012". govtrack. Archived from the original on February 23, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
77. "H.R.1013 – Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act". congress.gov. March 27, 2015. Archived from the original on February 23, 2017. Retrieved February 22, 2017.
78. "U.S. affirms its prohibition on medical marijuana". The Washington Post. August 11, 2016. Archived from the original on August 11, 2016. Retrieved August 11, 2016.
79. 2016 Democratic Party Platform Archived 2016-11-10 at the Wayback Machine (July 21, 2016), as Approved by the Democratic Platform Committee, July 8–9, 2016, Orlando, FL, page 16.
80. David Weigel, Democrats call for 'pathway' to marijuana legalization Archived August 22, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, The Washington Post (July 9, 2016).
81. Hearings, Briefings, Meetings, National Institute on Drug Abuse Congressional Affairs Dept., February 10, 2017, archived from the original on November 22, 2020, retrieved May 31, 2017
82. Tom Jackman (April 30, 2014), "Va. Rep. Griffith introduces federal 'Legitimate Use of Medicinal Marijuana Act'", The Washington Post, archived from the original on February 9, 2017, retrieved May 31, 2017
83. Andrew Blake (April 8, 2017), "Bipartisan bill would reclassify marijuana as Schedule 3 substance", The Washington Times, archived from the original on April 15, 2017, retrieved April 15, 2017
84. Alicia Wallace (April 6, 2017), "New federal bill would reschedule marijuana as Schedule III", The Cannabist, The Denver Post, archived from the original on April 15, 2017, retrieved April 15, 2017
85. Patricia Kime (September 8, 2016), "American Legion throws weight behind marijuana research", Military Times, archived from the original on October 15, 2016, retrieved May 30, 2017
86. Bruce Kennedy (May 22, 2017), "American Legion calls on Trump to take cannabis off Schedule I to help vets", The Cannabist, The Denver Post, archived from the original on May 30, 2017, retrieved May 30, 2017
87. Bryan Bender (May 20, 2017), American Legion to Trump: Allow marijuana research for vets – Under current rules, doctors with the Department of Veterans Affairs cannot even discuss marijuana as an option with patients, Politico, archived from the original on May 23, 2017, retrieved May 30, 2017
88. Alex Pasquariello (July 25, 2017), "Federal lawsuit against Sessions and DEA says marijuana's Schedule I status unconstitutional", The Cannabist, The Denver Post, archived from the original on July 26, 2017, retrieved July 26, 2017
89. Alex Pasquariello (February 26, 2018), "Lawsuit challenging Sessions and DEA on marijuana's Schedule I status dismissed by federal judge", The Cannabist, The Denver Post, archived from the original on July 27, 2018, retrieved July 27, 2018
90. Teaganne Finn; Erik Wasson; Daniel Flatley (November 29, 2018), Lawmakers Reach Farm Bill Deal by Dumping GOP Food-Stamp Rules, Bloomberg, archived from the original on November 30, 2018, retrieved December 1, 2018, The bill includes a provision that would make hemp a legal agricultural commodity after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky championed the proposal, even joining the farm bill conference committee to ensure it would be incorporated. Among other changes to existing law, hemp will be removed from the federal list of controlled substances and hemp farmers will be able to apply for crop insurance.
91. Adam Drury (November 30, 2018), "Industrial Hemp is Now Included in the 2018 Farm Bill", High Times, archived from the original on December 1, 2018, retrieved December 1, 2018, This year's Farm Bill, however, goes much further, changing federal law on industrial and commercial hemp and, remarkably, introducing the first-ever changes to the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.
92. "Reconciled Farm Bill Includes Provisions Lifting Federal Hemp Ban", Legislative blog, NORML, November 29, 2018, archived from the original on December 1, 2018, retrieved December 1, 2018, The [bill] for the first time amends the federal Controlled Substances Act of 1970 so that industrial hemp plants containing no more than 0.3 percent THC are no longer classified as a schedule I controlled substance. (See page 1182, Section 12608: 'Conforming changes to controlled substances act.') Certain cannabinoid compounds extracted from the hemp plant would also be exempt from the CSA.
93. Hasse, Javier. "Federal Appeals Court Rules DEA, Federal Govt. Must 'Promptly' Reassess Marijuana's Illegality". Forbes. Archived from the original on June 10, 2019. Retrieved June 10, 2019.
94. Hiller, Michael (May 30, 2019). "(2/3) This case represents the first time in history that a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the CSA has survived dismissal. #TheFightGoesOn, as we continue to advocate for de-scheduling of Cannabis, patient liberation, & freedom for those wrongfully imprisoned". @MikeHillerEsq. Archived from the original on October 8, 2021. Retrieved June 10, 2019.
95. "Top Senate Democrat Pushes Bill to End Marijuana Prohibition | Marijuana Moment". April 19, 2018. Archived from the original on May 31, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
96. Claire Hansen (May 9, 2019). "Top Democrats to Introduce Bill Removing Marijuana from Controlled Substances List". U.S. News. Archived from the original on July 13, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
97. "Regulate Marijuana Like Alcohol Act reintroduced in 'the most pro-cannabis Congress in history'". The Washington Times. Archived from the original on August 2, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
98. "Tulsi Gabbard, Don Young introduce marijuana reform bill". March 7, 2019. Archived from the original on August 2, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
99. "Marijuana Revenue and Regulation Act" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 19, 2020. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
100. "Top Congressional Chairman and Presidential Candidate File Marijuana Legalization Bills". Forbes. Archived from the original on August 2, 2019. Retrieved August 2, 2019.
101. "Marijuana Legalization Appeal Receives Unprecedented Support With the Filing of Nine Amicus Briefs". finance.yahoo.com. September 16, 2020. Archived from the original on October 4, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
102. Kwai, Isabella (December 2, 2020). "U.N. Reclassifies Cannabis as a Less Dangerous Drug". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 26, 2021.
103. "Sisley v. United States Drug Enforcement Agency, No. 20-71433 (9th Cir. 2021)". Justia. October 6, 2022. Archived from the original on October 22, 2021. Retrieved October 6, 2022.
104. White House (October 6, 2022). "Statement from President Biden on Marijuana Reform". The White House. Retrieved October 7, 2022.
105. President Biden. "Third: We classify marijuana at the same level as heroin – and more serious than fentanyl". Twitter. Retrieved October 6, 2022.
106. Louis Casiano (October 6, 2022). "Biden pardoning all prior federal offenses of simple marijuana possession". Fox News.
107. Does the President Have the Power to Legalize Marijuana? (Legal Sidebar), Congressional Research Service, November 4, 2021, p. 3, LSB10655, Although the President may not unilaterally deschedule or reschedule a controlled substance, he does possess a large degree of indirect influence over scheduling decisions. The President could pursue the appointment of agency officials who favor descheduling, or use executive orders to direct DEA, HHS, and FDA to consider administrative descheduling of marijuana. The notice-and-comment rulemaking process would take time, and would be subject to judicial review if challenged, but could be done consistently with the CSA's procedural requirements. In the alternative, the President could work with Congress to pursue descheduling through an amendment to the CSA.
108. David Ovalle; Laurie Mcginley (August 30, 2023). "Federal health agency recommends easing marijuana restrictions". The Washington Post – via The Seattle Times.
109. Maureen Meehan (January 12, 2024). "Feds Finally Release Documents Confirming Recommendation To Reschedule Cannabis Based On 'Accepted Medical Use'". Benzinga.
110. Stephen C. Piepgrass; Agustin Rodriguez; Jean Smith-Gonnell; Cole White (January 8, 2024). "Redacted Cannabis Rescheduling Letter Ignites FOIA Exemption Debate". Regulatory Oversight. Troutman Pepper.
111. "HHS Releases Unredacted Letter Confirming Agency's Recommendation to DEA to Reclassify Marijuana to Schedule III". NORML blog. NORML. January 12, 2024.
112. Sullum, Jacob (January 15, 2024), "The Newly Unveiled HHS Rationale for Rescheduling Marijuana Underlines Drug Warriors' Dishonesty", Reason – via Yahoo! News
113. Shortt, Daniel (January 17, 2024). "DEA is Going to Have a Hard Time Fighting Marijuana Rescheduling". JD Supra.
114. Sacco, Lisa N.; Sheikh, Hassan Z. (January 16, 2024), Implications for Federal Policy, Congressional Research Service, IN12240, DEA has testified in response to questioning at a congressional hearing in 2020 that it is bound by FDA's recommendations on scientific and medical matters, and if past is prologue it could be likely that DEA will reschedule marijuana according to HHS's recommendation
115. Tsirkin, Julie (January 30, 2024). "Democrats urge Biden administration to deschedule marijuana". NBC News.
116. Martinovic, Jelena (January 30, 2024). "DEA Under Pressure To 'Deschedule Marijuana Altogether': 12 US Senators Send Demand To Merrick Garland, Anne Milgram". Benzinga.
117. Williams, Keegan (January 29, 2024), "Survey Shows Broad Support for MJ Rescheduling, Boost for Biden if Accomplished", High Times, A new survey of likely U.S. voters hones in on the possibility of rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III on the federal Controlled Substances Act, finding broad support across demographics and suggesting Biden could see an 11% favorability boost if it occurs. If the Department of Health & Human Services' (HHS) recommendation to reschedule cannabis on the federal Controlled Substances Act becomes a reality, it could make an impact on President Joe Biden's favorability ahead of the upcoming 2024 presidential election.
118. Zeke Miller; Joshua Goodman; Jim Mustian; Lindsay Whitehurst (March 22, 2019). "US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana in a historic shift, AP sources say". Associated Press.
119. "Justice Department Submits Proposed Regulation to Reschedule Marijuana" (Press release). US Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs. May 16, 2024.
120. Julie Tsirkin; Monica Alba (May 16, 2024). "Justice Department takes 'major step' toward rescheduling marijuana". NBC News. In a video announcement Thursday, President Joe Biden said he is "committed to righting" the wrongs of a "failed approach to marijuana."
121. Herrington, A. J. (July 10, 2024). "House Lawmakers Vote To Block Federal Marijuana Rescheduling". Forbes. Retrieved July 11, 2024.
122. Green, Hannah Harris (July 27, 2024). "Nearly 43,000 people commented on the DEA reclassifying cannabis. What did they say?". The Guardian. Analysis shows 69% of commenters want the proposed rule change to go further and for marijuana to be decriminalized
123. Lange, Tony (November 1, 2024). "DEA Names 25 Participants for Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing That's Now Delayed Until 2025". Cannabis Business Times. Retrieved November 3, 2024.
124. "DEA Judge Provides Timeline for Testimony in Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing". NORML. December 10, 2024. Retrieved December 11, 2024.
125. Green, Hannah Harris (December 27, 2024). "'Who knows what they're going to do?': US cannabis industry braces itself for Trump administration". The Guardian. Retrieved December 31, 2024.
126. Herrington, A.J. (January 13, 2025). "DEA Judge Cancels Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Set For Next Week". Forbes. Retrieved January 16, 2025.
127. California Cannabis Law, archived from the original on August 28, 2019, retrieved September 2, 2019
128. California's High Taxes on Legal Weed Could Fuel a Black Market Return, archived from the original on May 14, 2021, retrieved May 14, 2021
129. The Critical Importance Of Social Equity In The Cannabis Industry, archived from the original on May 14, 2021, retrieved May 14, 2021
130. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE – HSC DIVISION 10. UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, CHAPTER 2. Standards and Schedules, 11054, archived from the original on May 14, 2021, retrieved May 14, 2021
131. HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE – HSC DIVISION 10. UNIFORM CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ACT, CHAPTER 6. Offenses and Penalties, ARTICLE 4. Miscellaneous Offenses and Provisions, 11366, archived from the original on May 14, 2021, retrieved May 14, 2021
132. Ferner, Matt (November 6, 2012). "Denver Editor for the Huffington Post". Archived from the original on November 7, 2012. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
133. Nohlgren, Stephen (January 28, 2014). "Questions and answers about medical marijuana in Florida". Tampa Bay Times. Archived from the original on January 30, 2014. Retrieved January 28, 2014.
134. Ferner, Matt (June 11, 2014). "Sheldon Adelson Funds Florida Anti-Medical Marijuana Campaign". Huffington Post. Archived from the original on January 19, 2015. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
135. url="New Petition Approved – United for Care". Archived from the original on January 13, 2015. Retrieved January 12, 2015.
136. "These States and Countries Had the Biggest Cannabis Wins in 2016". December 30, 2016. Archived from the original on March 25, 2017. Retrieved May 28, 2017.
137. "Iowa Board of Pharmacy recommends rescheduling marijuana". The Northern Iowan. February 22, 2010. Archived from the original on March 30, 2012.
138. "Rescheduling Petition 3/16/11". Archived from the original on August 18, 2012. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
139. "Rescheduling Memorandum 3/16/11". Archived from the original on September 18, 2012. Retrieved July 14, 2013.
140. "HF 57 Conference Committee Report – 87th Legislature (2011–2012)". www.revisor.mn.gov. Archived from the original on February 3, 2014. Retrieved April 18, 2013.
141. "Journal of the House 2011 Supplement". www.house.leg.state.mn.us. Archived from the original on August 9, 2020. Retrieved July 30, 2019.
142. Dworkin, Andy (June 20, 2010). "Recognizing medical marijuana, state pharmacy board changes its legal classification". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on June 23, 2010. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
143. KVAL News (June 17, 2010). "Oregon Board of Pharmacy vote a marijuana milestone". KATU. Archived from the original on June 23, 2010. Retrieved June 26, 2010.
144. Sledge, Matt (November 7, 2012). "reporter for the Huffington Post". Archived from the original on November 8, 2012. Retrieved November 7, 2012.
145. WI Department of Regulation and Licensing (September 3, 2011). "Wisconsin Controlled Substances Board meeting agenda September 8, 2011". Archived from the original on March 26, 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2011.
146. State of Wisconsin (September 3, 2011). "Wisconsin Statutes". Archived from the original on March 31, 2012. Retrieved September 5, 2011.
147. Chris Hubbuch (November 8, 2018). "Wisconsin voters embrace pot; nearly 1 million vote yes on medical, recreational use". Archived from the original on May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 14, 2021.
148. Scott Bauer (April 30, 2021). "Wisconsin Republicans to vote down medical and recreational marijuana, other Gov. Tony Evers' state budget proposals". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 14, 2021.
149. "Madison Common Council votes to legalize possession, use of marijuana". December 4, 2020. Archived from the original on May 14, 2021. Retrieved May 14, 2021.
150. "Milwaukee's DA Takes a Stance Against Prohibition, Releases 10 Years of Marijuana Data". May 10, 2021. Archived from the original on May 14, 2021. Retrieved October 8, 2021.

Further reading

• Drug Enforcement Administration (April 18, 2001). "Notice of Denial of Petition; and Basis for the Recommendation for Maintaining Marijuana in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act". Federal Register. Vol. 66, no. 75. pp. 20037–20076. Archived from the original on June 11, 2019. Retrieved October 9, 2022.
• Coalition Files Federal Administrative Petition To Legalize Medical Marijuana Archived February 15, 2005, at the Wayback Machine, NORML News, 10 October 2002. Retrieved on 2007-04-28
• Drugs of Abuse: Chapter 1, The Controlled Substances Act, Drug Enforcement Administration, 2005. Retrieved on 2007-04-28
• Gettman v. DEA Government Response Archived February 12, 2005, at the Wayback Machine, The Rescheduling of Marijuana Under Federal Law Government's Reply Brief, 14 January 2002. Retrieved on 2007-04-28
• Gieringer D.: The Acceptance of Medicinal Marijuana in the U.S., J Cannabis Ther 2002;3(1): in press.
• High Court in Washington DC & the DEA Upholds Marijuana as Dangerous Drug United States Court of Appeals in Washington DC Upholds Marijuana as a Dangerous Drug. Retrieved on 2016-11-16
• Lampe, Joanna R. (January 16, 2024), Legal Consequences of Rescheduling Marijuana, Congressional Research Service, LSB11105

External links

• Drug Policy Alliance
• National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws
• Marijuana Policy Project