Day two of the DEA cannabis rescheduling hearing highlights a controversial process as only opponents of Schedule III testify about marijuana’s future.
The second the Drug Enforcement Administration’s continues. So what happened on day two of the marijuana rescheduling hearing? Â The historic undertaking underscored what has become one of the most controversial aspects of the entire process: nearly all of the outside participants selected to testify oppose moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III.
The hearing, which runs through July 15 at DEA headquarters in Arlington, Virginia, is designed to gather factual evidence and expert testimony on whether marijuana should be reclassified under the federal Controlled Substances Act. While the DEA serves as the official proponent of the proposed rule, the agency selected seven outside participants to present evidence—and all seven are organizations or individuals opposed to broader marijuana rescheduling. The decision has drawn criticism from cannabis reform advocates, medical organizations, and industry groups argued the hearing should have included supporters of the proposal as well.
Despite the makeup of the participant list, the federal government itself opened the proceedings by defending the proposed rule. DEA attorney James Schwartz emphasized the government supports the recommendation to move marijuana to Schedule III and stated the purpose of the hearing is not to debate recreational legalization but to determine whether cannabis has a “currently accepted medical use” under federal law. Government witnesses are expected to include scientific and medical experts who will present evidence supporting that position.
Day two continued to focus on expert testimony and cross-examination surrounding the central question. Opponents challenged the scientific standards used by the Department of Health and Human Services in recommending rescheduling, questioning whether existing research satisfies the legal requirements necessary to remove marijuana from Schedule I. Their arguments centered on concerns about research quality, abuse potential, public health, and whether sufficient evidence exists under the Controlled Substances Act to justify the change.
At stake is far more than a simple administrative classification.
If marijuana ultimately moves to Schedule III, it would remain federally regulated and would not become federally legal for recreational use. However, the change would represent the most significant shift in federal cannabis policy in more than 50 years. Cannabis businesses operating legally under state programs could become eligible for relief from Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, which currently prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I substances from deducting ordinary business expenses. The change could also expand medical research opportunities and acknowledge marijuana has accepted medical uses under federal law.
The hearing itself does not determine whether marijuana will be rescheduled. Instead, it creates the official administrative record the DEA will use when making its final decision. Witness testimony, scientific evidence, expert opinions, and legal arguments become part of therecord before agency officials decide whether to finalize the proposed rule. The administrative law judge oversees the proceedings but does not make the final scheduling determination.
Additionally, how the conduct the hearing will be a reflection of the agency and the administration. Â The current government has been plagued with the look of double dealing and developing facts to support a forgone conclusion.
One of the most discussed issues outside the hearing room continues to be the absence of pro-rescheduling organizations. Groups including NORML and other cannabis advocates petitioned to participate but were denied standing under the DEA’s selection process. Critics argue excluding supporters creates the appearance of an unbalanced proceeding, while the DEA maintains it is fulfilling its role as the proponent of the rule and therefore does not require additional supportive participants.
As testimony continues over the coming days, attention will remain focused on whether the scientific evidence ultimately outweighs the procedural controversy. Regardless of the outcome, the hearings represent one of the most consequential federal reviews of marijuana policy since cannabis was first placed in Schedule I in 1970. The decisions made after these proceedings could reshape medical research, federal regulation, and the legal cannabis industry for years to come.
