The Fresh ToastThe most trusted name in cannabis

What does cannabis rescheduling mean for patients, doctors, retailers and small businesses as the President weighs federal action.

The last few days have been a rollercoaster for the cannabis industry with a press release was released on Friday saying the President is going to use an executive order on cannabis.  The market soared and then crashed and then rebounded now he has he commented he is considering it when directly asked a question. When the President says he’s “considering” rescheduling cannabis, that’s not the same as legalizing it — but it could still be the single biggest federal shift for the industry in decades. But what does cannabis rescheduling mean? The act would change marijuana’s place on the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) from Schedule I — the category reserved for drugs the law says have no accepted medical use and high potential for abuse — to a lower schedule, most often discussed as Schedule III. The practical effects would be immediate for researchers and investors, consequential for doctors and patients, and potentially life-changing for thousands of mom-and-pop retailers drowning under today’s tax rules.

RELATED: Mike Johnson And Marijuana

Moving cannabis out of Schedule I would remove a major administrative barrier to clinical research. Researchers say rescheduling would simplify access to plant material for federally-funded studies and could speed trials on cannabinoids for pain, epilepsy and other conditions — because Schedule III substances are treated more like prescription medicines that can be studied with fewer legal hurdles. That said, rescheduling is not an FDA approval: doctors would still lack the uniform, FDA-style prescribing framework that exists for most pharmaceuticals, and states would continue to control patient access under their own medical cannabis rules. In short: more and better science is likely, but a medical-practice revolution would depend on follow-up regulatory and clinical work.

Rescheduling would not erase state laws or create a nationwide retail market overnight. Consumers in states with legal sales would still use the existing retail channels, and in states where cannabis is illegal, possession and sale could remain crimes under state law. But at the federal level, rescheduling could unlock easier banking access and attract mainstream investment: Schedule III status reduces the shadow-banking risk that currently forces many operators to run primarily in cash and stay out of regular capital markets. That improved access to banking and capital could make stores safer and give established local operators better options for growth.

For many small cannabis retailers the single most consequential change would be tax relief. Under current law, Internal Revenue Code Section 280E prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses — meaning rent, payroll, advertising and professional fees are largely nondeductible. As a result, effective federal tax rates for some retailers have been extraordinarily high. If cannabis were reclassified to Schedule III, 280E would no longer apply — allowing businesses to deduct ordinary expenses like any other small business. That could free up cash flow, lower effective tax rates dramatically, and determine whether many family-run shops survive or shutter.

RELATED: Marijuana Use And Guy’s Member

An administrative rescheduling (for example by executive order or DEA action) could be challenged in court or limited by Congress. Some lawmakers argue a President cannot unilaterally rewrite statute; others note that Congress could respond, creating new limits or tax rules. And rescheduling alone will not erase criminal records automatically — separate policy steps would be required to address convictions and resentencing. So while rescheduling is a powerful and pragmatic lever — speeding research, unlocking banking, and ending the worst tax penalties — it is not a one-click path to full legalization or automatic amnesty.

If the President moves ahead, which is still up in the air, rescheduling would be a structural shift: better science, easier finance and crucial tax relief for operators — especially small, mom and pop retailers. But legalization, standardized medical prescribing and answers about criminal records would still require follow-on legislative and regulatory work. For mom-and-pop shops, rescheduling could mean the difference between surviving another year and finally having breathing room to compete.

Cannabis faces headwinds despite rumors of White House action, as congressional opposition threatens meaningful federal reform.

Last week, the cannabis market soared after rumors the President would take action on cannabis. Stocks rose as it seemed the administration was listening to the public with public opinion decisively in favor of reform. Thousands of mom and pop business are hoping it is is true, but cannabis faces headwinds despite rumors. The President faces determined opposition in Congress — most notably from Speaker of the House Mike Johnson and several influential lawmakers who remain firmly resistant to change. Congress has been more resistant to orders from the president, which has emboldened some of marijuana’s opponents.

RELATED: Mike Johnson And Marijuana

Cannabis reform has become one of the rare issues where public sentiment is clear. Polls consistently show strong bipartisan support for legal medical marijuana, broad backing for adult-use legalization, and overwhelming agreement cannabis should no longer be treated as a serious criminal offense. Many voters view reform as both a social justice issue and an economic opportunity, particularly as states continue to collect billions in cannabis tax revenue. The administration is being bombarded with issues from affordability to Epstein, this would be seen as a popular win with little downside in the public eye.

Despite this momentum, federal action remains complicated. Speaker Mike Johnson has been vocal about his opposition to marijuana legalization, framing cannabis as a public health and social risk rather than a regulated consumer product. His position matters. As Speaker, Johnson has significant control over which bills reach the House floor, making it difficult for cannabis legislation to advance even when bipartisan support exists.

Other congressional foes echo similar concerns, often citing public safety, youth access, or workplace issues. While some Republicans support limited reforms such as medical marijuana protections or banking access for cannabis businesses, broader legalization efforts frequently stall due to leadership resistance. This dynamic has created a familiar pattern: bipartisan cannabis bills introduced with optimism, only to languish in committee or fail to receive a vote.

For the President, this resistance narrows the available paths forward. Comprehensive legalization would require congressional approval, making it a steep uphill battle in the current political climate. However, executive actions remain an option. These include directing federal agencies to review cannabis scheduling, expanding pardons for federal marijuana offenses, or clarifying enforcement priorities. Such steps would not legalize cannabis nationwide, but they could meaningfully reshape how federal law treats marijuana.

RELATED: Marijuana Use And Guy’s Member

Advocates argue incremental progress is still progress. Rescheduling cannabis, for example, could improve access to medical research, ease tax burdens on state-legal businesses, and signal a shift away from decades of punitive policy. Critics, however, warns executive action alone risks being temporary or vulnerable to future administrations.

As election season approaches, cannabis reform may once again become a talking point — especially among younger voters and communities disproportionately affected by past enforcement. Yet the reality remains presidential interest does not automatically translate into policy success. Congressional leadership, committee chairs, and internal party politics still hold substantial power over the outcome.

While there is growing talk the President may move on cannabis, he faces entrenched opposition from Speaker Mike Johnson and other congressional leaders who remain skeptical of reform. Action will depend on the adminstration’s needs regarding public opinion. The clash between shifting public opinion, the President’s needs and legislative resistance will likely define the next chapter of federal cannabis policy — whether the chapter brings meaningful change or more political stalemate.