Rescheduling, Legalizing- America’s Political Hangup.

Challenges on the Path to Legalization.

Written by: Alicia Zimmermann/ International Drug Policy Analyst

The April 23, 2026, announcement from Washington was a big win for the cannabis industry. Rescheduling from a Schedule I to a Schedule III allows the industry to take a deep breath.

Or does it?

In 1970, Congress passed the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This act created the five levels of drug classifications and made all initial scheduling decisions in alignment with the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961. Congress gave the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) the ability to reschedule, based on three key characteristics of a drug. The potential for abuse, its potential for dependency, and whether it has currently accepted medical use (CAMU)(Aug 13, 2024).

Cannabis, as far as the DEA and HHS are concerned, ticks all three boxes needed to reschedule, yet getting cannabis rescheduled has been an uphill battle. As part of the requirement to show a drug has proper CAMU, the DEA required multiple controlled trials. An expensive, time- consuming task, one that is nearly impossible for a Schedule I drug. Hypocritically, while the DEA demands these studies, and rightfully so to make sure the drug in question has health benefits and is safe for patients, the DEA heavily restricts research on all Schedule I drugs. Thankfully, in 2023, the HHS proposed an alternative CAMU test. The HHS noted the 30,000 health practitioners who have prescribed cannabis to patients as its own clinical study, proving the necessary CAMU to reschedule cannabis (Aug 13, 2024).

Rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III is a step in the right direction. It allows for easier access for medical and scientific studies to be conducted, lessening the bureaucratic headache from before.

One hurdle jumped, one more to go.

The US’s ability to legalize cannabis is not as easy as signing an executive order and demanding congressional approval, however nice that would be. The US has its own, larger hurdle to jump.

The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) has been ratified in accordance with the UN Single Convention on Narcotics of 1961. Ratifying a convention or treaty means a state incorporates the convention or treaty's language into its domestic law. This allows the international community to hold the country accountable for any misstep in its agreement with international law. Yes, several countries that ratified this convention have legalized cannabis, such as South Africa, Thailand, and Canada. How these countries were able to legalize cannabis, despite having ratified the UN Convention, has to do with their local systems, and not all of them have done so “cleanly.” The US uses the same language in its laws as the convention and will have to decide what language to use if the country decides to go fully legal.

As with law and politics, language and word choice are nuanced, creating complications or various interpretations. Section 811(d)(1) of the CSA is rather exact in its language. In this section of the CSA, the language used indicates a limitation on the Attorney General's (AG) ability to reschedule as they see fit. To reschedule, the drug must first pass the three key criteria stated above; however, Section 811(d)(1) of the CSA states that the AG “...is required by the United States obligation under international treaties, conventions, or protocols…” and that the AG shall issue the orders of the drug under the proper scheduling in accordance with these international conventions (21 U.S. Code § 811 - authority and criteria for classification of substances).

The use of "obligation" and "shall" in this section of the CSA is rather exacting. Usually, law and politics try to dance with their word choice to allow for broader interpretations. Here, the CSA is clear in its regulation of the AG, that rescheduling must coincide with the UN Single Convention on Narcotics of 1961. Cannabis cultivation, recreational use, and production are completely prohibited.

But is it actually?

In the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961, recreational cannabis is heavily discouraged through the convention. Article 22 (2) speaks about how to properly seize any plants illicitly cultivated and destroy them. Additionally, Article 28 (3) notes how states individually shall adopt measures to prevent the misuse and illicit traffic in the cannabis plant. Yet, the language in the convention implies each nation has the right to decide if they wish to enforce such restrictions. Article 2 (6)(7) highlights the regulations that states must follow if they are to grow cannabis, and the reports necessary to keep tabs on the use of cannabis for medical and scientific purposes. Additionally, Article 28 (2) states that growing cannabis for seed and fiber is not within a restriction (United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961).

Looking at the language of both the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961 and the CSA, one can argue that the AG is acting in accordance with the convention, as cannabis is being used medicinally and scientifically. Rescheduling cannabis makes it easier for clinical trials and cannabis research.

The last large hurdle for the US and its fight towards legalization is the language of the UN Convention, which still has cannabis as a Schedule I, and whose language is less forgiving.

Citations

Aug 13, 2024. (2024, August 29). The Federal Government’s drug scheduling system remains tyrannical. Vanderbilt Law School. https://law.vanderbilt.edu/while-marijuana-will-soon-be-rescheduled-the-federal-governments-drug-scheduling-system-remains-tyrannical/

United Nations, Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, March 30, 1961. (Accessed 24 April 2026) https://www.incb.org/incb/en/narcotic-drugs/1961_Convention.html.

US Government. (n.d.). 21 U.S. Code § 811 - authority and criteria for classification of substances. Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811

Uploaded May 4th, 2026