In Rescheduling Comments, Cannabis Regulators Offer Support, Ask for Clarity, and Share Experiences

Monday marked the end of the public comment period for the Biden Administration’s proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the CSA. 

We’re sifting through the pile of more than 40,000 comments to identify the major — or, in some cases, surprising — entities that submitted comments. 

This batch focuses on regulators and lawmakers. You can also find comments from medical and research entities, transportation, safety, and alcohol entities, and justice, law enforcement, labor, and religious entities.

Remember: there was another deadline, back in June, to request a hearing, as Cannabis Wire reported at the time. Catch up on our coverage of who submitted those requests here.

 • California State Association of Counties (support)

 • Rural County Representatives of California (support) 

 • Colorado Gov. Jared Polis and the state of Colorado and the Institute of Cannabis Research at Colorado State University Pueblo (support)

 • Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear (support) 

 • Chairman of the Health Committee of the Tennessee House of Representatives (support)

 • National Conference of State Legislatures (supports full descheduling)

“NCSL maintains that cannabis should be removed completely from the CSA, explicitly allowing states to set their own cannabis policies without federal interference. States have proven to be the laboratories of democracy, and since California legalized medical cannabis in 1996, state legislatures have nimbly established and maintained robust medical and recreational cannabis markets with minimal negative externalities. Further, state-regulated cannabis markets have helped curb the illicit market by replacing untested and adulterated products with tested, well-labeled, safe cannabis products. States have been able to direct cannabis sales tax revenue into underfunded areas such as education and drug rehabilitation programs. Descheduling cannabis completely will ensure these state efforts will not be wasted.”

• Cannabis Regulators Association (no position, calls for additional guidance) 

CANNRA’s comment focused on requests for guidance, including “how federal priorities, including enforcement priorities, will change under the proposed rescheduling,” “how federal agencies will engage with states and territories under the proposed rescheduling,” “how to regulate cannabinoids that appear in two different places on the schedule due to the federal legalization of hemp,” and “how the proposed rescheduling will impact banking and finance directives and policies.”

• Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition  (supports full descheduling) 

“In summary, rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, remains insufficient to address the myriad of issues stemming from federal marijuana criminalization. Such a move fails to align federal law with state-level cannabis policies, leaving intact barriers that hinder state programs designed to promote equity, public health, safety, and economic benefits. Moreover, rescheduling does not resolve critical social equity and justice issues, perpetuating the systemic racial discrimination that has historically plagued federal marijuana enforcement.” 

• Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection (support)

• Georgia Access to Medical Cannabis Commission (GMCC) (support)

• Illinois Cannabis Regulation Oversight Officer (support)

• Maine Office of Cannabis Policy (support)

• Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission (support) 

• Maryland Cannabis Administration’s (MCA) (support)

• Maryland Office of Social Equity (support) 

• Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA) (no stated position)

“First, we are providing information and statistics about Michigan’s Medical Marijuana Program to assist the DEA in its understanding of whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use as determined using the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) two-part inquiry. Second, we are providing a list of considerations the DEA and other federal agencies should evaluate when determining whether to reschedule marijuana and how rescheduling should be implemented.”

• Minnesota Office of Cannabis Management (supports full descheduling)

• New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (supports full descheduling) 

• New York Office of Cannabis Management (supports full descheduling)

• Oregon Health Authority and the Oregon Liquor and Cannabis Commission (support)

• Pennsylvania Department of Health (no stated position)

“PA DOH requests clarification on a number of open questions created by the proposed federal rescheduling of marijuana in a landscape in which marijuana is already approved at the state level for medical use. PA DOH also requests additional guidance to support state regulators to ensure consumer and patient safety is maintained.”

• Former regulators (support) 

Tyler Klimas, Former Executive Director, Nevada Cannabis Compliance Board

Shawn Collins, Former Executive Director, Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission

Erik Gundersen, Former Executive Director, Maine Office of Cannabis Policy

Christina Dempsey, Former Deputy Director of Policy and Research, California Department of Cannabis Control

Chris Tholkes, Former Director, Minnesota Office of Medical Cannabis

Rick Garza, Former Executive Director, Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board