CSA

chasfly34

Take it how you will, AI summary of DOJ v DES on final ruling. "The Department of Justice (DOJ), specifically the Attorney General, has the authority to issue the final order for cannabis rescheduling, though this power is generally delegated to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).  Following the December 18, 2025, Executive Order, the process is expected to move forward with the following roles:  The Attorney General (DOJ): Under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Attorney General is authorized to initiate and complete the rescheduling process. In the current effort, Attorney General Merrick Garland previously initiated the process, and recent actions indicate the DOJ will take final steps to move marijuana to Schedule III. The DEA: As an agency within the DOJ, the DEA is the operational body that handles the administrative record, reviews public comments, and conducts required hearings. While DEA officials have claimed "final authority" to determine scheduling, this authority is delegated from the Attorney General.  Key Takeaways on the Final Order: Procedural Pathway: The DOJ may choose to issue a "Final Order" under the treaty exception (21 U.S.C. § 811(d)), which is faster, or finalize the pending rulemaking process (21 U.S.C. § 811). Final Action: Once the administrative process (including potential hearings and a 60-day review under the Congressional Review Act) is complete, the DEA/DOJ will publish a final rule in the Federal Register. Effective Date: The reclassification to Schedule III only becomes legally binding after the final rule is published and its effective date arrives.  Despite the executive order to expedite, the process is not automatic and remains subject to required administrative steps and likely legal challenges. 

toi80QC

Fun fact: if you replace *united* with *corrupt* in USA you get CSA....

manualCAD

Trump and Harris both attempting to take credit for cannabis legislation changes when I still see cannabis listed as S1 on the CSA. Comedy.

UsedState7381

The process hasn't gone through an OMB review yet, that only comes after the Final Rule comment period is over usually. >Under the CSA, rescheduling generally requires notice-and-comment rulemaking, compilation of an administrative record, potential administrative hearings and publication of a final rule, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review. https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/alerts/2025/12/what-trumps-executive-order-to-reschedule-marijuana-and-cbd-means-for-the-cannabis-industry/ You must be thinking of the OLC review 

Gambelero

This argument is very interesting. It’s hard to see how rescheduling satisfies any treaty obligations though. In the early days, treaty obligations were viewed as a potential bar to rescheduling. And Trump ordered his people to restart the rule making process under the CSA, not find a circumvention of the process. I’m also not sure “can satisfy” is the appropriate language. “Must be done to satisfy a treaty obligation” is more likely the right test. I hope you’re right. If so, the first step will be something about making a request to the legal counsel’s office. If I’m right, it will be the appointment of a new ALJ or a publication of the DEA’s responses to public comments.

Gambelero

We agree on the main point: S3’s effect on our companies is not recognized and priced in. I disagree about the probability of legislative liberalizations following behind that. We also disagree about how much uplisting matters for price discovery. Our biggest area of disagreement is on what needs to be done to reach the goal. It’s been a common belief on this board—going way back to the process to get to the proposed rule starting back in 23–that someone could just wake up one morning and sign something that actualized S3. The rule making process is carefully laid out in the CSA. The head of the DOJ or DEA can’t just sign something that puts S3 into effect. Trump’s executive order directly instructs the DOJ and DEA to “complete the rule making process.” To get to the proposed rule, FDA experts had to put together a 250 page report on the state of the science. Each step of the rule making procedure needs to be followed. For example, as part of the rule making process the DEA needs to address all the comments in the public comment period. That document requires careful and thorough documentation to pass muster with the inevitable challenges made by opponents.

UsedState7381

And it literally does not introduce anything new that most people involved in this matter already didn't knew about. This has been discussed to no-end this year, the president can't unilaterally reschedule any substance under the CSA, the EO is merely him telling the DOJ to do it and putting his name on it to take credit for it(since the process was stalled for months). But oh well, if MSOS fills the gap, I'm buying a little more.

okiewxchaser

SpaceX is stuck in the Starship boondoggle. Your point 3 is correct, any mission failure is going to be followed by a pretty steep hit. How are investors going to react when the largest rocket on Earth blows up....again...and again...and again? RocketLab already has US Government contracts and will be favored over SpaceX for ESA, JAXA, ISRO and CSA missions for political reasons. To me SpaceX is the risk because they are both too political and stagnating on their biggest project

skyplt29

I appreciate the Marijuana Herald is not known for its accurate accountings...but this does fit with Dr. Oz suggesting Medicare support by April. I will be seeking out a more credible source and will share if I find anything: "President Trump has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to issue a final ruling on marijuana rescheduling by the end of January, according to two sources close to the president who spoke with The Marijuana Herald. The executive order signed by Trump last week orders AG Bondi to “take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law”. Under federal law, any rescheduling decision must be finalized through DOJ, with coordination from the Department of Health and Human Services (the Department issued their rescheduling recommendation in 2023). Trump’s message to Bondi, as described by the sources, underscores that while the administration intends to follow the legal framework, it also expects a timely outcome rather than prolonged administrative delays. Although Trump ordered Bondi to issue a ruling “by the end of January”, it’s possible a ruling could come early in the month. If DOJ follows through with issuing a final rule on an accelerated timeline by the end of January, marijuana would be officially moved to Schedule III by the spring, a change that would formally acknowledge accepted medical use under federal law and significantly alter how the substance is treated for tax, research, and regulatory purposes. Schedule III status would not legalize marijuana federally, but it would eliminate the punitive tax provision known as 280E, expand opportunities for scientific research, and allow FDA-approved cannabis medicines to be prescribed nationwide (currently only CBD and synthetic THC can be prescribed). The push for a January deadline comes as pressure continues to build from lawmakers, industry stakeholders, and patient advocates who have been awaiting clarity since the rescheduling review began. A final ruling will mark the first change to marijuana’s federal classification since it was placed in Schedule I more than five decades ago. While DOJ has not publicly commented on the timeline, the president’s position suggests the administration wants the matter resolved quickly, setting the stage for a major shift in federal marijuana policy at the start of the year."

hambone_83

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/12/increasing-medical-marijuana-and-cannabidiol-research/ Sec. 2. Rescheduling Medical Marijuana and Improving Access to Cannabidiol Products. (a) The Attorney General shall take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 811. Doesn’t matter how much they frame it this actual executive order is pretty straight forward and helps all cannabis companies whether rec or med

AverageNo130

* The Executive Order directs the Attorney General to expedite completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA). * [fact sheet](https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/12/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-is-increasing-medical-marijuana-and-cannabidiol-research/)

NaiveChoiceMaker

First off, cannabis is not rescheduled. “The Order directs the Attorney General to expedite completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA).” Expedite /=/ rescheduled. Also, there is no mention of banking or tax reform. If you listen to Trump’s comments at the signing, he doesn’t think cannabis should be used recreationally at all. I don’t trust this at all.

theduderino38

Rule making and rescheduling process does not update the CSA just changes scheduling for what is in the CSA - Congress would have to pass changes to the CSA. Not speculation - just facts.

theduderino38

How are companies currently selling medical cannabis in states where there are legal medical programs?? The companies have medical licenses awarded by the states. Look at existing MSOs in state medical programs, cresco, GTI, ascend, etc they all have state medical licenses. Trulieve is the largest in Florida medical program for example. From what I’m reading between the lines with rescheduling EO and how CSA works- they will mostly leave the states to decide on the state level programs.

theotheranony

Wow. Just saw this. Could be something... "We should note the CSA permits the Attorney General to bypass the notice and comment period and the hearing process by issuing an “order” to reschedule a drug without engaging in the rulemaking procedures discussed above, in certain limited circumstances, including when the United States is required to “control” a drug pursuant to an international convention, which is the case with respect to the 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Single Convention). " UPDATE: Trump Signs Executive Order to Reschedule Cannabis and Expand Federal Policy | Foley Hoag LLP https://share.google/VztLuFCs9ABmIeb10

LooseButtPlug

*Specifically, it reads, “The Attorney General shall take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law.”*

Ok-Replacement9595

That is wrong. It can be done through congress or through DEA or AG. You can actually Google the CSA in your spare time.

RandomGenerator_1

From September: If rescheduling moves forward, Hilgers et al. will almost certainly file suit and ask for an injunction based on what they say are concrete and definable harms, and they may even get it. This lawsuit could block any Final Rule and force a full re-evaluation based on traditional factors, and courts have historically blocked attempts to skip CSA procedure. https://businessofcannabis.com/manufactured-optimism-why-trump-cant-just-wave-a-magic-wand-and-reschedule-cannabis/

Tiaan

The main reason why we're dropping so hard is that rescheduling has not actually happened yet. The media is acting like it's already done with headlines "EO to reschedule cannabis" and the administration is acting like it's already done with language like how significant this is, etc, similar to what the Biden admin did where they acted like they actually changed marijuana laws without actually finalizing rescheduling Executive orders are legally binding within the executive branch. This was Trump's order to the AG in the EO: > The Attorney General shall take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 811. While its hugely positive that this EO indicates rescheduling will happen, the language doesn't provide any definite timeline and "rulemaking" specifically can take months or longer. Everyone who is taking this as "wow I guess rescheduling wasn't that significant or impactful" is also acting like it's been finalized, which it hasn't. I'm hoping the final rule will be issued within the next 6 months but I despise this sector so god damn much and just want it all to end already

TripleSmokedBacon

No. I'm not missing that at all. **Federally compliant, DEA-registered, FDA-recognized cannabis drug manufacturers** * 280E would not apply. **State-licensed MSOs operating as they do today** * 280E almost certainly continues to apply, because they are not federally lawful operators. See below. **The Future** * There will be a narrow, legitimate federal lane where 280E is irrelevant. * Everyone else stays exactly where they are. Here is my simple proof -> >**Because IRC §280E applies to any business trafficking in a controlled substance in violation of federal law, and state-licensed cannabis businesses remain unlawful under the CSA unless they are federally authorized (DEA-registered and FDA-compliant)**. Prove me wrong via citation to Federal code at the agency and/or national policy level and we can begin talking.

TripleSmokedBacon

And why do you think 280E is dead? I'm not missing anything. I work with policy, not vague market wants and desires. I'm not sure you understand what 280E is. For instance, do you understand which alphabet agency regulates that? Do you understand how regulatory policy in one area, CSA, doesn't equate to acceptance in another regulatory body? **Federally compliant, DEA-registered, FDA-recognized cannabis drug manufacturers** * 280E would not apply. **State-licensed MSOs operating as they do today** * 280E almost certainly continues to apply, because they are not federally lawful operators.

volckerwasright

Here's the order to Bondi: "The Attorney General shall take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 811."

volckerwasright

"The Attorney General shall take all necessary steps to complete the rulemaking process related to rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law, including 21 U.S.C. 811."

randomusername0000

The dump is artificial, this is what's mentioned in the briefing before the signing today. * Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA. * Direct top White House staff to work with Congress to give patients access to full-spectrum CBD products, “while still restricting the sale and access to products that cause serious and potentially life threatening health risks.” * Urge Congress to examine updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is accessible to patients—a policy change that could mitigate some concerns in the sector about a recent spending bill Trump signed with provisions that would broadly ban consumable hemp products. * Direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “develop research methods and models, to utilize real world evidence \[and\] to improve access to hemp-derived CBD products in accordance with federal law” while informing “standards of care.”

Cool_Ad_5101

Wow, just read the highlights thanks u/randomusername0000 and went to marijuana moment for more information. Seems very bullish. I wonder why people clearly don't see this as bullish. Trump actually said: **Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA.** this is pretty good

randomusername0000

If you want to sell, sell. But here's what were getting today. Which is huge. * **Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA.** * Direct top White House staff to work with Congress to give patients access to full-spectrum CBD products, “while still restricting the sale and access to products that cause serious and potentially life threatening health risks.” * Urge Congress to examine updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is accessible to patients—a policy change that could mitigate some concerns in the sector about a recent spending bill Trump signed with provisions that would broadly ban consumable hemp products. * Direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “develop research methods and models, to utilize real world evidence \[and\] to improve access to hemp-derived CBD products in accordance with federal law” while informing “standards of care.”

randomusername0000

Nope. Happening, includes all of this but rumor is doesn't mention anything about safe banking, which he has no control over, that's on congress. Take it as it is, I'm happy AF about it. * Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA. * Direct top White House staff to work with Congress to give patients access to full-spectrum CBD products, “while still restricting the sale and access to products that cause serious and potentially life threatening health risks.” * Urge Congress to examine updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is accessible to patients—a policy change that could mitigate some concerns in the sector about a recent spending bill Trump signed with provisions that would broadly ban consumable hemp products. * Direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “develop research methods and models, to utilize real world evidence \[and\] to improve access to hemp-derived CBD products in accordance with federal law” while informing “standards of care.”

Tiaan

> Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA. This is all that Trump can do via EO regarding rescheduling. Anyone who told you otherwise was lying to you

UsedState7381

EO leaked on Marijuana Moment. Details: Orders the AG to finalize the rescheduling process to schedule 3. No details on Safe Banking, no details on Uplisting. >Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA. >Direct top White House staff to work with Congress to give patients access to full-spectrum CBD products, “while still restricting the sale and access to products that cause serious and potentially life threatening health risks.” >Urge Congress to examine updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is accessible to patients—a policy change that could mitigate some concerns in the sector about a recent spending bill Trump signed with provisions that would broadly ban consumable hemp products. >Direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “develop research methods and models, to utilize real world evidence [and] to improve access to hemp-derived CBD products in accordance with federal law” while informing “standards of care.” >Separate from Trump’s order, Mehmet Oz, administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), will also be announcing “a model that will allow a number of CMS beneficiaries to benefit from receiving CBD under doctor recommendation at no cost,” the White House official said. Not everything about the EO has been leaked, but I would NOT assume it's much beyond this. Brace for dips.

volckerwasright

MMoment - Here are new details about Trump’s executive order on cannabis: Direct the attorney general to expedite the completion of the process of rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III of the CSA. Direct top White House staff to work with Congress to give patients access to full-spectrum CBD products, “while still restricting the sale and access to products that cause serious and potentially life threatening health risks.” Urge Congress to examine updating the definition of hemp to ensure that full-spectrum CBD is accessible to patients—a policy change that could mitigate some concerns in the sector about a recent spending bill Trump signed with provisions that would broadly ban consumable hemp products. Direct the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “develop research methods and models, to utilize real world evidence [and] to improve access to hemp-derived CBD products in accordance with federal law” while informing “standards of care.”

manualCAD

Some good comedy this A.M. >Let's be clear: Our lawyers are ready. *BUT* I am GIDDY about the fact that goalposts have shifted--we are not talking about LEGALIZATION or even BANKING; we are talking about a modification to the CSA while keeping marijuana fully illegal. Pretty cool. That being said... https://x.com/i/status/2001445860492689634

BacKnightPictures

Thanks ChatGPT. I’ll take my chances with a company like SNDL that has zero debt, $250mm cash and is a leader in a burgeoning industry. Sure, the tangerine tyrant may not be able to reschedule via EO but at some point cannabis reform will happen. And to the other points here, there are no checks and balances to stop Dickless Donny so who’s to say an EO wouldn’t get the ball rolling on rescheduling? Also, nobody is expecting full scale “legalization” and rescheduling is key because it removes banking/institutional investment restrictions for public companies. Therefore cannabis companies would be provided access to loans, tax breaks and other financial vehicles previously prohibited under a S1 classification in the CSA

mc_snails

Trump told media members on Dec. 15 that, yes, it is indeed accurate that he’s considering an executive order to loosen the restrictions on the plant under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). His remarks come four months after he [told reporters](https://www.cannabisbusinesstimes.com/cannabis-rescheduling/news/15752702/trump-publicly-addresses-cannabis-rescheduling-decision-coming-in-next-few-weeks) that “we’re only looking at that” and his administration would decide on the matter “over the next few weeks.” Although this latest development took four months, Trump remained noncommittal on Monday. “We are considering it, because a lot of people want to see it – the reclassification – because it leads to tremendous amounts of research that can’t be done unless you reclassify, so we are looking at that very strongly,” he said.

Methodill

The image you sent appears to be a screenshot of a Reddit post, likely from the r/pennystocks subreddit, discussing a potential executive order (EO) related to marijuana rescheduling and CBD coverage, speculating on its impact on the "Cannabis-Industrial Complex." As of today, December 14, 2025, here is an assessment of the key claims mentioned in the post: 🔍 Marijuana Rescheduling Status The claim that "Trump marijuana rescheduling" is expected "Monday" or that he will "sign this EO" is highly speculative and based on rumors unless a specific official announcement has been made very recently, which is not confirmed as a fact. * The Process: Marijuana rescheduling is a complex, multi-agency process, not typically decided by a single Executive Order (EO) from the President alone. * In 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). * The DEA is the final authority to decide whether to reschedule the drug after reviewing the HHS recommendation and conducting its own scientific and legal review. This process is time-consuming and its exact timeline is unknown. * The Claim: A post suggesting a market-moving event like this is set to happen on a specific "Monday" without citing a reliable source should be treated as speculation, especially when posted on a penny stock forum, which is known for hype. 🌿 CBD Coverage The post also mentions "CBD coverage." * CBD Status: Cannabidiol (CBD) derived from hemp (cannabis with less than 0.3\% THC) was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill. * Coverage: However, there is still significant regulatory uncertainty regarding CBD's use in food, beverages, and dietary supplements, as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not fully established a clear regulatory pathway. "Coverage" (likely referring to insurance or broader market acceptance) would be indirectly affected by the FDA's eventual actions, which are separate from the DEA's rescheduling process. 💼 Impact on the Cannabis Industry The post claims this action would "set in motion a cascade of follow-on catalysts." * Rescheduling Impact: Moving marijuana to Schedule III would be a massive change. * It would mainly impact taxation, making cannabis businesses eligible for normal business tax deductions (as they would no longer be subject to the IRS's Section 280E rule). This would significantly boost profitability. * It would also reduce some federal penalties and potentially open the door for more scientific research. * Profitability Barrier: The post correctly identifies that legislative/regulatory uncertainty (especially regarding interstate commerce, banking, and 280E taxation) has been a primary barrier to industry profitability. Rescheduling to Schedule III would solve the tax issue, which is a major profitability hurdle. 🎯 Conclusion The core claim that marijuana rescheduling would be a "HUGE symbolic effect" that addresses the industry's "primary barrier to growth and profitability" (280E taxes) is analytically sound. However, the specific timeframe and the notion of a President signing a definitive "EO" to complete the rescheduling on a given day are unverified and highly suspect hype. In summary, treat the post as: * True on the premise: Rescheduling to Schedule III would be a massive positive catalyst for the industry. * False/Unverified on the specifics: There is no confirmed, reliable information that a final rescheduling EO will be signed on "Monday" or that the process is complete. Would you like me to look up any official statements or news from the DEA regarding the status of marijuana rescheduling?

Ok-Replacement9595

Unfortunately congress is needed for rescheduling. They need to be on board at least. The CSA is law, and only congress can change law. The DEA can make their final rule, but if the evangelicals in congress have an aneurysm, they have the ability to bar action, to slow the process with congressional hearings (as per the wording of the CSA).

z34conversion

The President does not have direct authority under the CSA or the Constitution to reclassify or deschedule a drug just by executive order. The Executive Order power only exists if Congress gives it to the President — and the CSA doesn’t

SwordfishOk504

not a fact at all lol. The Biden administration began the formal administrative process to potentially reschedule marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in October 2022. That process is not something the WH controls. It was with the DEA. Cry all you want, *those* are the facts. Your dumb partisan games have no bearing on the realities of the market.

WollopDollop

He'd not be rescheduling via EO, he'd be directing DOJ/DEA to terminate the hearing and move to final rule. At least that's the more appropriate route to go. Then it will be challenged legally (SAM, etc.) as to whether the CSA allows for the hearing to be canceled. That's debatable and there are admin lawyers who think it's OK to do so, especially given the circumstances and record established. I agree while this is challenged there may be enough of a push for Congress to just get it done, though Johnson trying to talk Trump out of it isn't a great signal. Then again, maybe Johnson is privately telling Trump they are war crimin' it up while he publicly supports a second strike on stranded survivors. Politics baby!

Fuego1050

Lets Go- Been a long bear market for this sector. But legitimizing cannabis as medicine in the CSA is massive. Herd was culled - just a few profitable buisnesses - should make their valuations explode

dissentmemo

Biden initiated a formal process to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), though the change was not finalized. This process is ongoing and involves several steps, including a public comment period and an administrative hearing. In October 2022, President Biden directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to review marijuana's scheduling. Trump would be completing Biden's changes.

SavageApricot37

Gosh looking information up is hard. The 2018 Agriculture Improvement Act (the farm bill signed by President Trump in December 2018) expanded the statutory definition of hemp to mean any part of the Cannabis sativa plant and all derivatives, extracts, and cannabinoids with no more than 0.3 percent delta‑9 THC on a dry weight basis. Under this definition, hemp and its derivatives, including certain cannabinoids like cannabidiol (CBD), were excluded from the federal Controlled Substances Act (CSA) definition of marijuana and no longer classified as Schedule I controlled substances. Because the definition focused on delta‑9 THC and included all derivatives and cannabinoids of hemp, a market for psychoactive hemp‑derived products like delta‑8 THC and similar compounds emerged. These products can produce intoxicating effects similar to marijuana but remained legal under the farm bill’s hemp definition because they were derived from hemp and stayed below the specified delta‑9 threshold. This created regulatory ambiguity and a booming market for intoxicating cannabinoids that federal agencies and some states have since tried to address. In November 2025, Congress included a provision in a government funding bill that changes the federal definition of hemp, undoing much of the 2018 Farm Bill’s broad legal status for hemp‑derived cannabinoids. Under the new law: Hemp must meet a total THC measurement (not just delta‑9 THC), meaning even other intoxicating cannabinoids like delta‑8, delta‑10, THCA, HHC and similar compounds could fall outside the hemp category. Final consumer products with more than 0.4 milligrams of total THC per container will not qualify as “hemp” and could be treated like marijuana under federal law. Cannabinoids that are synthesized or manufactured outside the plant are excluded from the hemp definition, effectively targeting many lab‑produced intoxicants. These provisions are set to take effect in November 2026, giving a one‑year transition period. This significantly limits or bans many hemp‑derived THC products that had been federally legal under the 2018 Farm Bill because they stayed under the delta‑9 THC limit even if they contained other psychoactive cannabinoids.

Ok-Replacement9595

Well they are going to hear possibly the cannaprovisions case, which theoretically could draw into question the federal governments ability to regulate intrastate commerce in a state managed cannabis market. Which would essentially undo the commerce clause used yo justify the CSA as a whole. I am sure if it even gets heard, they will have a much much narrower reasoning of course. Because I don't see how you can do it for cannabis and not for other drugs, but just look at how the federal government has decided to regulate the cannabis plant as a whole, and it shows how schizophrenic they can be on drug controls.

Gambelero

What case are you talking about? I don’t see anything on the docket where SCOTUS is reviewing anything remotely related to CSA’s scheduling formulas.

SnooPeripherals5234

12/04/2025 - 07:30 AM NEW YORK--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- UiPath (NYSE: PATH), a global leader in agentic automation, today announced it has joined the Veeva AI Partner Program. As part of the program, UiPath will help simplify and orchestrate the complex, manual, and highly regulated processes of application testing and validation. This partnership will deliver agentic, end-to-end workflows that will transform computer software assurance (CSA) testing and validation for quality management.

Ok-Replacement9595

The idea is they can rule the CSA is unconstitutional in part, but that opens up questions of the entire structure of federal drug control, that I don't think is surmountavle by the court. But that is my opinion. They certainly won't strike down 280e on a whim either.

UsedState7381

I do not see how CBD can be integrated on Medicare, even if it's just as palliative care for seniors, while it's still remains as a schedule 1 substance...Which makes sense that the proposed rule making is slated for 2027, gives enough time for cannabis to be rescheduled in 2026. If anyone better informed with how the CSA drug scheduling works could chime in and explain how CBD could be used for such end, officially, while still under schedule 1, it would be greatly appreciated.

snark42

280E specifically says you can't deduct expenses if your primary business is manufacturing or distributing schedule 1 or schedule 2 drugs under the CSA. Assuming they reschedule to schedule III it should fix the 280e problem. >No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.

GeoLogic23

States 2.0 is the bill to essentially regulate cannabis like alcohol. This would remove it from the CSA and have the FDA classify cannabis products as drugs, foods, supplements, or cosmetics. This would also give authority to the TTB to regulate cannabis products. Big alcohol and big tobacco would prefer de-scheduled, but only if its regulated so that they are the only ones who are authorized to sell products. They don't want their distributors at risk of accidentally transporting a controlled substance across state lines, but they also don't want a free market. If you gave me full control of the government and passed STATES 2.0, I think that I could split up the industry among the big special interests extremely easily.

manualCAD

Just call it a pardon. "THC is pardoned of any wrongdoing as a member of the schedule 1 drug list, and it is now removed off the CSA." If CZ can get a pardon, surely we can get THC pardoned.

manualCAD

I think a lot of the "freaking out" about hemp loophole closing is that millions of people actually don't know that cannabis is still a schedule 1 drug on the CSA. There are likely some bad faith arguments being made where the person does know that cannabis is S1, but most normies don't know that. The state of the legal cannabis market is so widespread with medical and recreational sales that it defies logic that cannabis is still S1.l at a federal level. This is the fault of the US government and Congress' incompetence to do ANYTHING that relates to the American people.

manualCAD

THC hemp drinks will be stocked at YMCA and municipal library vending machines before cannabis is removed from the CSA

theduderino38

Yep I’d say 98% of the population doesn’t understand the CSA and what the difference between legalize, reschedule , etc is. I only do because I’ve been here for a while haha

Shit-throwing-monkey

Right. I don't know what Canadian rules are, but he may need to do a filing with the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA)

Draphippo

1. What Schedule III Reclassification Actually Does If cannabis moves from Schedule I → Schedule III, it means: • The U.S. government formally recognizes medical use. • Cannabis is no longer in the same class as heroin or LSD, but with drugs like Tylenol with codeine, testosterone, and ketamine. • The DEA and FDA can regulate it as a controlled, but prescribable substance. That change has massive secondary effects on financial and regulatory systems — especially custody and uplisting. ⸻ 💰 2. Why Cannabis Stocks Are Currently Locked Out of Major Exchanges Right now, U.S. cannabis companies like Trulieve (TCNNF) and Green Thumb (GTBIF) can’t list on the NYSE or NASDAQ because: • Those exchanges are regulated by the SEC and must comply with federal law. • Since cannabis is federally illegal (Schedule I), listing them would mean a federal crime is being facilitated (distribution of a controlled substance). • Similarly, U.S. banks and custodians (like JPMorgan or Goldman) can’t hold or clear trades in cannabis-touching companies, since that’s aiding an illegal enterprise under federal law. That’s why U.S. multi-state operators (MSOs) trade only on Canadian exchanges (CSE) or OTC markets under “F” tickers — and that’s why liquidity is so poor. ⸻ 🏛️ 3. How Schedule III Fixes That Problem If cannabis becomes Schedule III, then: • It is no longer federally illegal for companies to manufacture, distribute, or sell it under DEA/FDA oversight. • The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would no longer prohibit these companies’ core business. • Therefore, U.S. cannabis companies would no longer be “trafficking in a Schedule I substance.” That legal distinction allows: • NYSE and NASDAQ to legally uplist U.S. cannabis stocks (since their business is no longer federally illegal). • Prime brokers, custodians, and clearing firms (like Pershing, Fidelity, JPMorgan) to hold, clear, and custody cannabis securities safely. • Institutional investors (mutual funds, ETFs, pensions) to finally participate. Essentially, the federal legal barrier disappears. ⸻ 📈 4. Key Consequences Once That Happens If Schedule III becomes official: 1. MSOs can uplist — TCNNF → TLVF (or similar) on NASDAQ. 2. Custody opens up — brokers like Fidelity or TD can hold shares directly rather than via foreign intermediaries. 3. Liquidity soars — volume increases, bid/ask spreads tighten. 4. Institutional money enters — funds and ETFs that currently can’t touch these names flood in. 5. Valuations normalize — MSOs rerate closer to mainstream consumer/healthcare stocks (think 5–10× EBITDA instead of 3×). ⸻ ⚠️ 5. Important Caveats • Schedule III doesn’t automatically mean dispensaries can sell Schedule III products overnight — DEA and FDA will set frameworks. • Adult-use (recreational) cannabis may still operate in a gray zone until Congress or DOJ guidance clarifies it. • Uplisting won’t happen immediately — exchanges will likely wait for formal DEA final rule + DOJ guidance confirming that cannabis businesses are federally compliant. • The SAFE Banking Act could still accelerate financial normalization in the meantime.

manualCAD

Sure. But there is literally no incentive for the government to do anything at all. Weed is already fully legal for adults in 20+ states. If the feds aren't going to do anything about it, then what does it matter (outside of 280e) that it's still a schedule 1 drug?! No one cares, so why should the DEA/Congress waste any time discussing anything related to the CSA?

manualCAD

Weedstreet420's date pick of Nov 28th makes more sense than any other date pick from this sub. His account is locked down, so I can't link the post. >280e will apply to the entire fiscal year 2025 if cannabis is not removed from the CSA before the end of the year. >It takes 30 days after the final rule before 280e is removed, according to Shane. >Nov 28 is the last work day, and I don't expect a final rule on a weekend.

Ok-Replacement9595

Is it just me, or do all of these decisions listed in various district erode the commerce clause argument of keeping weed on the CSA at all. There have been a lot of decisions reaffirming states ability to regulate weed on their own. Isn't there briefs due in December before a SCOTUS case? I think that mat be some momentum or at least stop the hemorrhaging while inaction consumes the Whitehouse.

Ok-Replacement9595

The real question is what would a hemp based policy look like for the GOP? Especially embracing intoxicating hemp derivatives. Is there an undermining of the medical/rec models states are implementing? Will it enhance them? What do they do with scheduling? The plant itself it illegal under the CSA. It doesn't make sense and they are clearly being tight lipped about their policy plans. I wish we could get some reporting on what policies these hemp lobbyists are advocating for.

manualCAD

Elon posted the joint on Mars because he knows Mars will be colonized before US politicians remove cannabis off the CSA.

UsedState7381

They don't have to do that, hemp products are not scheduled under the CSA. This being said, there is a hearing about Chinese illegal MJ grows tomorrow, there might be some more breadcrumbs to look forward to.

hemmingwayshotgun

Who buys their meat in styrofoam lol? Poor people?!? You guys don’t have a butcher or meat CSA?!? LOL

manualCAD

Okay? And Schumer is still the Senate minority/majority leader since his original post I linked. You know, the group of people who are in charge of changing the laws (the CSA is a law).

BenjaminHamnett

Even if no heads roll, just from exposure Hopefully this is the last generation of government by blackmail controlled by a hundred pedos. On the other hand, these social media platforms have allows CSA porn to circulate for a decade by people who naively thought they were anonymous. So now they and their AI will have thousands of these pawns to control. I honestly don’t know if it’ll be any better. I think you used to have to be compromised to reach the top levels, soon you may need to be compromised just to get a job in DC or half of tech

wentzco

Here's a chronological table of key events based on the current case: October 2022 - President Biden directs HHS and DEA to review marijuana's scheduling under the CSA. August 2023 - HHS recommends rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III based on its evaluation. April 2024 - DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel affirms HHS's test for determining medical use. May 2024 - DEA publishes NPRM proposing rescheduling to Schedule III and opens public comments. July 2024 - Public comment period ends, with over 42,000 submissions and hearing requests received. August 2024 - DEA announces an administrative hearing to begin December 2, 2024. October 2024 - DEA selects ALJ and 25 participants for the hearing. November 2024 - Motion to disqualify DEA as proponent is filed and denied. December 2024 - Preliminary hearing held; full hearings scheduled for January 21, 2025, through early March. January 2025 - Hearing stayed pending resolution of an interlocutory appeal on DEA's role; parties ordered to provide status updates every 90 days. March 2025 - Process remains on hold due to the appeal. April 2025 - DEA confirms the rescheduling process is still pending. July 2025 - Status update provided; next due in October 2025. August 2025 - No new updates after 180 days; President Trump indicates a decision on rescheduling is forthcoming in the "next few weeks." If finalized, rescheduling would not legalize cannabis federally but would ease research, taxation, and medical access while keeping it regulated. The ongoing delays highlight how legal challenges and political shifts (e.g., administration changes) can prolong the process indefinitely.

wentzco

So saying many cannabis investors here are impatient would be a massive understatement. Everyday there are numerous discussions about when rescheduling will take effect. Even when Trump announces he wants to reschedule cannabis... it doesn't take immediate effect. My "guess it will be an additional 6-12 months. So I asked SuperGrok the following question - "What would cannabis rescheduling look like process-wise and time-wise?" The process for rescheduling cannabis (or any controlled substance) under the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (CSA) is a formal rulemaking procedure overseen primarily by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), with significant input from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). It can be initiated by a petition, DEA action, HHS request, or presidential directive. The steps are as follows: 1. Initiation: The process begins with a trigger, such as a formal petition to the DEA or a directive from higher authorities (e.g., the president directing HHS and DEA to review a substance's status). 2. HHS Scientific and Medical Evaluation: HHS reviews the substance using an eight-factor analysis, assessing aspects like abuse potential, pharmacological effects, scientific knowledge, abuse history, public health risks, dependence liability, and whether it's a precursor to another controlled substance. This results in a recommendation to the DEA, which is binding on scientific and medical findings for Schedules I and II but advisory for lower schedules. 3. DEA Review: The DEA evaluates the HHS recommendation alongside additional factors, including law enforcement data, public safety, and international treaty obligations. 4. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM): If the DEA decides to proceed, it publishes a proposed rule in the Federal Register outlining the change (e.g., moving cannabis from Schedule I to III). 5. Public Comment Period: Stakeholders submit comments, typically over 30-60 days (sometimes extended). 6. Administrative Hearing (if Requested): If parties request it, the DEA may convene a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) to gather evidence and testimony. This can involve pre-hearing motions, participant selection, and potential appeals, which may delay proceedings. 7. Final Rule Publication: The DEA analyzes all input, including hearing outcomes, and issues a final rule in the Federal Register. The change usually takes effect 30 days later, though it can be longer. 8. Potential Judicial Review: Affected parties can challenge the final rule in court, potentially extending the timeline. This process ensures thorough scientific, medical, and regulatory scrutiny but can face delays from high volumes of comments, hearings, or legal challenges. Time-wise, rescheduling typically takes 1-3 years from initiation to final rule, though controversial substances like cannabis can take longer due to public interest, hearings, and politics. For non-controversial changes, it might wrap up in 6-18 months (e.g., HHS review: 6-12 months; DEA proposal: 3-6 months; post-proposal: 6-12 months). Hearings alone can add 6-24 months if complex. For cannabis specifically (proposed move from Schedule I to III), the process began in 2022 and remains ongoing as of August 2025, illustrating how delays can extend it beyond typical timelines.

GeoLogic23

What does "full regulation" entail, that is different from creating "statues and frameworks" and placing a federal tax on the product? But I'm going off topic now, because you are **completely backwards** on the CSA. Having medical value isn't what makes a substance fit into the CSA. There are a million different things that have medical value that aren't on the CSA. And there are things on the CSA that explicitly do not have medical value aka Schedule 1 drugs. It's whether or not there is potential for abuse, a public safety danger, etc.. that makes something "fit" onto the CSA. If it has medical value, it just gets placed lower on the CSA. But the reason it fits into the CSA in the first place are the dangers. **Therefore alcohol actually fits way better** onto the CSA than cannabis, because there is a far greater safety risk and far greater abuse potential. It actually fits perfectly into the CSA, because it should probably be Schedule 1 or 2.

randomusername0000

Full legalization = Full regulation. S3 will defeat 280E filings. That will leave a revenue gap for the fed. The fed doesn't like revenue gaps so they will pass legislation that allows them to tax it similarly to booze, while still being schedule 3. The oddity with alcohol, and this could be argued, is that it doesn't have medicinal value and so doesn't really fit into the CSA. Cannabis on the other hand does have medicinal value, and does fit into the CSA, but on the other hand has bi-partisan support in both the populace and also somewhat in congress to an extent. Cannabis is also a good time, worthy of a sin tax in the tax mans eyes.

randomusername0000

No, it would not require full legalization to impose and enforce an excise tax. They could do it under S3, but it would require statutes and framework to be created. The impetus for undergoing actual work in congress is tax revenue. The darker side of that impetus happens behind closed doors with lobbyists. There is an unfortunate precedent for this, that is congress carving out entirely new framework prior to the CSA. The Marihuana Tax Act (1937). That's not a good thing, and that precedent is ancient. Money talks, eventually. It's a reasonable take that full legalization, and an easier road to tax revenue could be on the roadmap, whether it's formally codified now or in the future, but we have to assume this will be iterative, and will require old/new legislation to get there, which is one of the reasons we aren't there already.

GeoLogic23

Democrats have previously passed the MORE Act through the House which would've removed cannabis from the CSA. Kamala Harris was the lead sponsor of the bill in the Senate. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/2227/all-info

manualCAD

Just rip the band-aid off and remove from the CSA (legalize). We're just going to be talking about all of this in a few tears again after it's federally rescheduled and then TX, PA, and FL develop state recreational programs and there isn't a single state left without a med program. Every state with a rec program can be considered to have legalized cannabis.... we're just paying for extra regulatory BS on top of cannabis products.

theduderino38

Big thanks to my wife for patiently listening to me fret and banter about CSA nuance, German 2 tier model, ALJ hearings, 280e, Canadian excise taxes, hemp loophole , OTC and naked shorts for the past 5 years, as our kids Uni fund went to shit… She has won a lifetime supply of free Os courtesy of me. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!

Ok-Replacement9595

Would be interesting to find out why, if Trump will do it. I understand that the substances on the CSA can be rescheduled both ways, but either should be sufficient. Something tells me that GOP senators won't really like having to defend their position on weed before the election, especially after Trump aired an opinion of sorts.

phatbob198

From a **C**ongressional **R**esearch **S**ervice Report: >**Considerations for Congress** >...There are several reasons why Congress might decide to schedule or reschedule substances via legislation. For instance, compared to administrative scheduling, legislative scheduling may offer greater speed and flexibility. Administrative scheduling under the CSA proceeds via formal rulemaking, which generally takes months or years to complete. In making scheduling decisions, DEA is required by statute to make certain findings with respect to each substance's potential for abuse and accepted medical use. DEA scheduling orders (other than temporary scheduling orders) are subject to judicial review, including consideration of whether the agency properly applied the relevant statutory standards. >By contrast, Congress is not bound by the CSA's substantive or procedural requirements. This means that it can schedule a substance immediately, regardless of whether the substance meets the statutory criteria. While scheduling legislation may also be challenged in court, the scope of judicial review of legislation is typically more limited than judicial review of regulations. Legislative scheduling may be the only way to permanently schedule large classes of substances, such as FRS, where it is not feasible for DEA to conduct the required statutory analysis for all substances in the class. Congress might also schedule, reschedule, or deschedule a substance via legislation if it disagreed with DEA's evaluation of the substance. >Relatedly, the CSA provides DEA with limited options for regulating controlled substances. The CSA established Schedules I through V, with each schedule carrying a defined set of regulatory controls and penalties for unauthorized activities. If DEA decides to control a substance under the CSA, it must place the substance in one of the existing schedules. The agency has asserted some authority to tailor controls to specific substances, but it cannot create new schedules or implement regulations or exceptions from control that are not authorized under the CSA. If Congress wishes to regulate a controlled substance in a way that does not fit within the existing CSA framework, or allow DEA to do so, it must enact legislation. >The CSA also directs DEA to control substances as required pursuant to the United States' international treaty obligations. While those obligations may limit DEA's discretion to relax controls over certain substances, U.S. treaty commitments do not prevent Congress from exercising its constitutional authority to enact new laws, even when doing so might cause the United States to violate its treaty obligations. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12709

UsedState7381

Nope. Still a federally illegal substance under the CSA. But the way the government officially treats it will change, because now it sees the plant as having medicinal value.

manualCAD

Every time I read the definitions of each level of the CSA, it annoys me even more. The level of harm, or harm in general, isn't even considered. It's just yes/no on medical use and yes/no on potential for addiction. Blatantly obvious it's not about protecting any one person from drugs...just control. The majority of America is addicted to sugar. Alcohol meets the criteria for schedule 1. Just all around trash metrics for "measuring" drugs.

manualCAD

Reminder that S.A.M. is posting on social media like a mf today. They're scared! Have they ever said what their SMART approach is? SAM is now saying Big Pharma and Big Alcohol benefit from rescheduling. If that's true, would the SMART approach be to remove cannabis from the CSA entirely and regulate it like alcohol and nicotine? Maybe... https://x.com/KevinSabet/status/1955021329847005569?t=WkYbZDBtAhI1jzl_74IQdA&s=19

volckerwasright

"A powerful Senate committee has approved a spending bill and attached report that express concern about barriers to research for Schedule I drugs like marijuana, promote increased research into psychedelics and preclude federal health agencies from endorsing the legalization of controlled substances. On Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the spending legislation covering Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies (LaborHHS), teeing it up for floor action. While the bill itself again includes a section preventing the relevant agencies from using their funds to promote “the legalization of any drug or other substance included in Schedule I” of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), language in the attached report is critical of the research implications of putting drugs in that restrictive category, where marijuana and psychedelics are current placed." Just posted on M*r*j**n*Moment

Competitive-Ant2876

Under 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1), the AG can unilaterally reschedule marijuana to better align U.S. drug policy with its international treaty obligations—specifically, the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs (Single Convention). This isn’t legal speculation; it’s written into the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) itself. “ No congress is needed.

AntoniaFauci

The Democrats have waste now NINE straight months of the 24 month election cycle. They have no leader and no message. Their approval rating just set ANOTHER all time low. The only handful of Dems getting attention are people like Bernie and AOC, who are nice but not going to win the essential “undecideds”, “centrists”, “moderates”, “swing voters” or whatever term wants to be used. The other Dems with a spotlight are problematic, like Mamdani, or uselessly superficial like Booker and Jeffries and about 100 more. Severe undermining comes from the tragically disappointing Obamas. While the rest of us are watching our country and democracy burn, they’re sending the million watt signals that actually nothing is wrong. Can’t be nothing wrong if Barack is fixated on basketball and Spotify lists, right? Trump can’t be too bad if Barack is hanging and laughing with him. Then there’s Michelle, who has spent the last 4 years doing an endless parade of messaging about how shitty her husband is, how hard it is being married to him. That may or may not be true, but it’s supremely selfish and ignorant to be donating tankerloads of fuel to right wingers who just use her indignation as proof of Obama Bad and add it to their fraudulent dogma of Democrats-always-Cover-up. Maybe she could find something else to podcast about or sell books about or do tv series about or do 500 interviews about besides “hey MAGA, you were right not to trust him!” Then there’s Hunter Biden, even an more selfish junkie doing the same. Then there’s the media, led by the excremental Jake Tapper. The party of domestic terror and CSA and corruption and incompetence and bigotry is hanging easy wins to the Democrats, and somehow they’re finding ways to blow it.

GeoLogic23

Just like with CBD, i expect them to remove "hemp" products from the CSA while leaving "cannabis" a scheduled drug. That would allow big corporations to get in on the THC sector, while still putting restrictions on high dose smelly flower. I don't think it's a coincidence the primary complaints from the GOP are high potency and smell. It's already setting up a justification for why hemp products should be legal but cannabis products not.

manualCAD

Removing cannabis from the CSA and allowing states/FDA to regulate will actually be remembered for generations similar to ending alcohol prohibition.

ApostleThirteen

SCOTUS would immediately point to the CSA, as well as international treaties (Article Six of the Constitution), and be forced to say that hemp and marijuana products are both illegal in entirety, and then stop and leave it to States' rights, or order US Marshalls to close every dispo and their production.

areyouhighson

> Absent from that list was reviewing where the DEA stands on a proposed rule to reclassify cannabis from a Schedule I to Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), something Cole said would be “one of my first priorities” during his Senate confirmation hearing in April

kaityl3

They said something along the lines of, they can't release the stuff concerning trump because it has CSA *content* in it, which seemed to imply images to me

manualCAD

If the 50ish people who have actual power in Washington want something done, it gets done. The paperwork and legalese is figured out afterwards. That's the main issue here....none of the politicians or DEA or DoJ really want to address the cannabis issue because they were all alive when the CSA was implemented. Every single one of them have had their brains cooked by Big Pharma propaganda that "drugs are bad, prescriptions are good." That's literally it. The only reason cannabis is even close to being mentioned at a federal level is because it has become an actual driver of votes....and that's literally all that matters to these dinosaurs.

UsedState7381

There is also zero indication that his stance on marijuana matters anything here, because, once again: 1) S3 isn't legalization, the plant remains under the CSA. 2) If the head's stance was any relevant to any of this, Derek Maltz would have found a way to simply kill off S3 because he was very specifically saying how Biden's DOJ was crooked for undermining the DEA's authority when they signed off the S3. And finally, some of us are still buying, the cost X reward here is insane if we get a final rule this year.

DowntownWpg

Theory: Trump can issue an executive order today ordering Pam Bondi to reschedule Cannabis. He is scheduled to sign orders in a televised event at 4PM ET today. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made a recommendation on August 29, 2023, to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This recommendation was based on a scientific and medical evaluation conducted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under HHS, concluding that cannabis has a currently accepted medical use. Thus we have the scientific evidence. The authority to reschedule cannabis lies with the U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi. Under 21 U.S.C. § 811(a), the Attorney General has the power to "schedule, reschedule, or decontrol drugs" under the Controlled Substances Act. This authority has traditionally been delegated to the DEA since 1973, but the AG retains the power to exercise this authority directly. AG has the full power to act unilaterally with evidence in hand. Just a theory, but it could happen.

UsedState7381

>Specifically, the bill would block the Justice Department from using its funds to reschedule or deschedule marijuana. Under the Biden administration, DOJ recommended moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), but that process has been delayed for months amid challenges from witnesses in the administrative hearings. >Here’s the text of the provision:  >“SEC. 607. None of the funds appropriated or other wise made available by this Act may be used to reschedule marijuana (as such term is defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802)) or to remove marijuana from the schedules established under section 202 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 812).” In other words, the same as always, this is the GOP getting their bed ready for the congressional reviews against S3. This needs to pass the house, the Senate and be signed off by the president, so I don't see it happening, at least not until a final rule by the DEA of S3 is made.

Rogan_Eizur

[Russia casts its eye on … Alaska?](https://thehill.com/opinion/international/4434869-russia-casts-its-eye-on-alaska/) [Newspaper headlines: 'Putin's nuke threat' and 'Farmageddon!'](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg0z89vwq1o) [Putin issues warning to United States with new nuclear doctrine | Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-issues-warning-us-with-new-nuclear-doctrine-2024-11-19/) [Russian State TV Says Nuclear Strike Would Turn US Into 'Waterworld' - Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/russian-state-tv-says-nuclear-strike-would-turn-us-waterworld-2067134) [Russian Media Monitor - YouTube](https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor) (watch all of those!!!!) [Russia Lawmaker Makes Nuclear Threat Against UK, Germany on State TV - Business Insider](https://www.businessinsider.com/russia-lawmaker-makes-nuclear-threat-against-uk-germany-state-tv-2022-9) [Trump administration retreats in fight against Russian cyber threats | US national security | The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/28/trump-russia-hacking-cyber-security) [Cyberwarfare by Russia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberwarfare_by_Russia) [CSA-Russian-Military-Cyber-Target-US-Global-CI.PDF](https://media.defense.gov/2024/Sep/05/2003537870/-1/-1/0/CSA-Russian-Military-Cyber-Target-US-Global-CI.PDF) [US suspends offensive cyber operations against Russia, senior US official says | CNN Politics](https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/02/politics/us-cyber-operations-russia-suspend) (surrender) [Russia’s Shadow War Against the West](https://www.csis.org/analysis/russias-shadow-war-against-west) [NATO Review - Russia’s hybrid war against the West](https://www.nato.int/docu/review/articles/2024/04/26/russias-hybrid-war-against-the-west/index.html) not conclusive...

greytoc

While I'm less familiar with Canadian securities law, it is very similar to how it works in the US. For example - there are accredited investor rules in Canada just like in the US. This means that a company raising capital is typically only allowed to raise money from someone that is not considered an accredited investor. Is your friend an accredited investor? In Canada - an accredited investor is: * An individual whose net income before taxes exceeded $200,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years or whose net income before taxes combined with that of a spouse exceeded $300,000 in each of the two most recent calendar years and who, in either case, reasonably expects to exceed that net income level in the current calendar year. * An individual who beneficially owns financial assets having an aggregate realizable value that, before taxes but net of any related liabilities, exceeds $5,000,000. See here - [https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-570-0153?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true](https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/9-570-0153?transitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default)&firstPage=true) Also - in Canada - depending on the amount being raised - the offering must be filed with the CSA (Canadian Securities Administers) - this usually can be looked up. Even if all this is done - it doesn't mean that it is not a scam. But these are some of the minimal things to check. The company you mentioned appears to also not be registered in Canada - so it's a foreign entity. And regardless of whether it's legit or not - private equity especially seed round is a horrible investment for anyone that has no experience with venture capital and private equity. The failure rates of such companies exceed more than 90%. And there is an extremely high probability that your friend will lose the entire investment - even if it is somehow legit which is unlikely.

ketjak

Two things can be true at the same time: 1. He's hopelessly stupid. (anything he's ever said i public) 2. He's irredeemably evil. (see: discrimination law suits; CSA accusations; staring at teens backstage; sexually attracted to his daughter) Combined, he produced garbled word salad as we see... "raw earths," not "rare;" anything he's said at an economic forum; his grasp of tariffs, which changes based on who he last talked to; and much, much more.

jmu_alumni

I don’t think this is right, I believe I recall Shane Pennington saying that flow chart is not always the case. Under the CSA, the DEA has administrative authority to reschedule substances. This power is delegated by Congress, so the agency does not need new legislation each time it acts. They CAN intervene by passing laws if they want to but they don’t have to intervene. I’ll see if I can dig into this more to provide the sources I heard this from (which has now been years ago).

StockNirvana

Yes. There are two Government of Canada programs covering 25% and 10%, and the provincial government of Nova Scotia is covering 25%. The company still needs to raise the 40% to unlock those funds, and there are several options they have from the federal BDC (Business Development Bank of Canada), CSA (Canadian Space Agency), CIF (Canadian Infrastructure Fund), various space venture capital funds like Seraphim Space Trust $SSIT.LSE or some combination of those. It won't be an equity raise. The company still needs general operational expenses funded but the three VC funds that did the seed round seem to be taking care of that.

manualCAD

**DEA points to the CSA** "SEE!! IT SAYS CANNABIS IS WORSE THAN METHAMPHETAMINES RIGHT HERE!"

manualCAD

So the tldr of the boies lawsuit is to get to the supreme Court to have them give the opinion. If the DEA can just straight up ignore something from the president, don't you think they'll just ignore the supreme court's decision? The supreme Court can't edit the CSA or fire anyone at the DEA?!? Seems like it may help, but will be a dead end based on past actions of the DEA.

ApostleThirteen

S1 when implemented was intended to mesh with the UNDOC schedules. In 2020, the US' Ambassador to the UN, Kelly Craft lobbied for changing the UNDOC scheduling of cannabis and succeeded in getting it to the equivalent of CSA Schedule II (hav9ing medical use). Why the Trump administration did that is anybody's guess. Now that the treaty is changed, US obligations have also changed, and cannabis should, at the very least, be aligned with the treaty classifications. We really shouldn't be at Schedule I, and as a "blanket" classification, Schedule II is just too harsh.

manualCAD

What does this industry look like if the CSA just never changes? What happens when all 50 states have legal, regulated recreational cannabis access and the federal government still says S1? Is that possible? Based on the track record of the US government with anything related to cannabis, it certainly seems possible.

Throwawayhelper420

So if I dressed up as the pope you wouldn’t care? What if I dressed up as the pope while parodying giving out indulgences for money to terrible, terrible people? I suspect there is more to it than just “terrible person dressed up as pope” because there are very real historical paintings of very real popes who have done unimaginably terrible things, genocides, violent inquisitions, CSA, etc, so it’s not like it’s “tainting” some “pure” institution.

Bosa_McKittle

He didn't completely shutdown the border. He shut down asylum requests once the average number of daily encounters tops 2,500 between official ports of entry. He also didn't do it unilaterally. There was already an existing law on the books that gave him the authority to do so. This is vastly different than doing it all on his own without congressional approval. >The shutdown would go into effect immediately since that threshold has already been met, a senior administration official said. The border would reopen only once that number falls to 1,500. The president’s order would come under the Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) suspending entry of noncitizens who cross the southern border into the United States unlawfully.  [https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-signs-executive-order-shutting-southern-border-rcna155426](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/biden-signs-executive-order-shutting-southern-border-rcna155426) As it relates to descheduling marijuana, >In October 2022, President Joe Biden asked the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to review how marijuana is scheduled under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). In August 2023, HHS recommended to DEA that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, based on HHS’ scientific and medical evaluation. In May 2024, DEA proposed a rule that, if finalized, would transfer marijuana to Schedule III. So again Biden could not use an executive order to reschedule marijuana unilaterally. >The [Controlled Substances Act (CSA)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title21-section811&num=0&edition=prelim), Congress authorized the Attorney General, the head of the Department of Justice (DOJ), to schedule substances, move substances between schedules, or deschedule substances. That authority is delegated to DEA, which is within DOJ. This means that, in practice, DEA is the agency that determines whether to schedule a substance and into what schedule a substance will be placed. This placement is based on the substance’s medical use, potential for abuse, and safety or dependence liability. [https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-and-research/drug-enforcement-and-policy-center/research-and-grants/policy-and-data-analyses/federal-marijuana-rescheduling](https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/faculty-and-research/drug-enforcement-and-policy-center/research-and-grants/policy-and-data-analyses/federal-marijuana-rescheduling)

LeftBullTesty

Careful with saying this is good news. This article says things such as “…DEA administrator nominee Terrance Cole repeatedly declined to commit to support the specific proposed rule to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) that was initiated under the Biden administration.” And “Cole also said in response to questions from Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) at the hearing he feels it’s appropriate to form a ‘working group’ to look at the federal-state marijuana law disconnect in order to ‘stay ahead of it.’ Cole has previously voiced concerns about the dangers of marijuana and linked its use to higher suicide risk among youth.” There’s a real chance marijuana could be moved to schedule 2 instead of 3. The federal government could also pressure states in roundabout ways to make marijuana harder to access than what it is now.