DEA Pharmacologist Undercuts Agency's Marijuana Rescheduling Order

DEA Pharmacologist Challenges Rescheduling Basis

A DEA pharmacologist's testimony contradicts the agency's Schedule III reclassification of marijuana. The testimony, delivered during an internal administrative review, argues that cannabis fails to satisfy the three-part test required under 21 U.S.C. § 811 for Schedule III substances: lower abuse potential than Schedule I or II drugs, currently accepted medical use in treatment, and low to moderate physical or psychological dependence risk.

That position directly challenges the DEA's final rule published in May 2026. The rule relied on an HHS recommendation and FDA analysis concluding that marijuana has accepted medical use and moderate-to-low dependence liability.

Timing and Procedural Context

The testimony surfaced during the 60-day administrative hearing period following the final rule's publication. Under the Administrative Procedure Act, interested parties may request hearings to challenge agency rulemakings. Several industry groups, medical associations, and state attorneys general filed petitions for review.

Administrative law judge hearings were scheduled for July through September 2026. The pharmacologist's testimony was part of the agency's internal evidence-gathering process ahead of those proceedings.

Core Scientific Dispute

The pharmacologist disputes HHS's conclusion that marijuana has "currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." FDA approval of individual cannabinoid compounds—such as Epidiolex (cannabidiol) and Marinol (dronabinol)—doesn't establish that whole-plant cannabis meets the five-part Linder test for accepted medical use, according to the testimony:

• Known chemistry
• Adequate safety studies
• Adequate and well-controlled efficacy studies
• Acceptance by qualified experts
• Scientific evidence widely available

Cannabis flower and extracts sold in state-legal markets lack the standardized formulation and clinical trial evidence required under the Linder framework, the pharmacologist argued. FDA hasn't approved any whole-plant marijuana product for any indication.

Dependence Liability Analysis

The testimony also challenges the DEA's finding that marijuana presents only moderate-to-low dependence risk. Citing epidemiological data, the pharmacologist stated that approximately 9 percent of cannabis users develop cannabis use disorder. That rises to 17 percent among adolescent-onset users and 25 to 50 percent among daily users.

These rates are comparable to alcohol dependence rates and exceed those for many Schedule III substances, including ketamine and certain anabolic steroids, the pharmacologist argued. Marijuana's dependence profile is inconsistent with Schedule III placement, the testimony concluded.

Implications for Rescheduling Timeline

Internal dissent complicates the DEA's defense of its final rule during upcoming administrative hearings. Challengers—including the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), the American Medical Association, and attorneys general from 18 states—are expected to cite the pharmacologist's testimony as evidence that the DEA's rulemaking was arbitrary and capricious.

If the administrative law judge finds the rule unsupported by substantial evidence, the DEA could be forced to withdraw or revise the Schedule III classification. The agency could also appeal an adverse ALJ decision to the DEA Administrator, who has final authority under the CSA.

For full background on this story, see the CannIntel topic hub on DEA rescheduling.

Industry and Legal Reaction

Cannabis operators and tax attorneys are monitoring the proceedings closely. The financial stakes are high. Schedule III status would allow cannabis businesses to deduct ordinary business expenses under IRC § 280E, which currently prohibits deductions for businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances.

Multi-state operators have projected that Schedule III reclassification could reduce effective tax rates from 70-80 percent to 25-35 percent, unlocking hundreds of millions in annual tax savings. Any delay or reversal of the rescheduling order would extend the current 280E burden indefinitely.

Legal observers note that the pharmacologist's testimony strengthens the hand of rescheduling opponents, particularly those arguing that the DEA rushed the rule to meet a political deadline. Hearings are expected to run through Q3 2026, with a final administrative decision unlikely before year-end.