DEA

DA2710

You mean the DEA administration that Biden appointed that works for him? Ya ok

Professional-Break19

Bidens administration was months away from rescheduling THC til the DEA slow walked the shit out of the process after they declared they had the final say on rescheduling and once trump installed the new weed hating head of DEA all that went out the window but do go on you fucking idiot 😂

Ok-Replacement9595

Says the lawyer primed for decades of litigation against the DEA. Dude is setting that up in the absolute most favorable outcome for himself. For anyone else, decades of litigation is probably not the best outcome. It may give us a significant spike, but these companies will stay in limbo for ever, as each facet of scheduling, taxes, med, rec, are litigated and left up to unaccountable judges in various forums around the country. Each case taking years to finalize. The point of ALJ hearings is to prove that the correct process was undertaken, and limit future litigation that takes time and money, and accomplishes little.

lvfunko

I can’t see that the DEA has agreed to a resumption of the hearing scheduled in January this year am I missing something?

Tiaan

There are no other ALJs at the DEA atm to preside over the hearings, and the Trump administration has called ALJs unconstitutional. I just find it very hard to believe that they'll go through the process to reinitiate the hearings, especially if they want to get rescheduling done in any sensible amount of time. Also, the rumors so far have suggested that we'll get rescheduling finalized sooner rather than later along with some commission getting setup to research outright descheduling as a longer term move. I don't see how reinstating the hearings fits into that either

AverageNo130

The DEA had their chance with ALJ hearings. Let's move on to S3 approval shall we.

chunkypenguion1991

The trick is not to be on the wrong side of the DEA. They don't care about yaba. H they will be up your ass

Amused-Observer

You should read the new articles about rescheduling. It's got nothing to do with a specific company. Biden told the DEA to reschedule cannabis. A judge stayed that decision and Trump recently said that his admin will make a decision on whether to continue the rescheduling or not 'in a few weeks'.

SwordfishOk504

Rescheduling doesn't require an EO, just the official recommendation from the DEA.

Many_Easy

Florida public university system is so conservative and politically charged right now - don’t seeing it happening at UF or any of the public universities in Florida. University board of trustees literally nixed appointment of next UF president that was the #1 guy at University of Michigan because of DEA support and campus protests there. Republican Ben Sasse was prior UF president. Florida International University recently appointed a big GOP supporter. **I would probably say not a chance.** Then again, DeSantis did accept campaign contributions from the hemp industry while opposing adult recreational use against A3.

RandomGenerator_1

Marijuana to Schedule III is Necessary, But Let’s Be Honest About Its Limits - Biden's Research Act reinforces Schedule I treatment: congressional action needed to change this - Marijuana research registration requirements create a Catch-22: still need to go through the DEA - The supply chain problem: still need to go through DEA approved suppliers - The Halt All Lethal Trafficking of Fentanyl Act (Fentanyl Act): The bad news is that if marijuana is moved to Schedule III, it will fall outside the scope of the Fentanyl Act altogether, meaning those limited flexibilities won’t apply, and the more restrictive Research Act framework will govern - The Attorney General can issue exceptions to all of these restrictions pursuant to the statutes discussed above. It is hard to believe that the Attorney General would do this, but it’s possible. Unfortunately, since the reversal of the Chevron Doctrine, whether such authority is preempted by certain statutory requirements created by Congress would be up to the courts. - Criminal penalties will largely stay the same - State-level research If marijuana is moved to Schedule III, it will be in large part to state level research. At the state level, rescheduling could open doors. - State criminal penalties:  If marijuana moves to Schedule III, and if those states tie criminal penalties to scheduling (rather than the term “marijuana” itself), we could see reduced penalties or decriminalization ripple through state statutes. - Stigma reduction - One positive change is that moving marijuana to Schedule III would eliminate criminal penalties related to Section 280E tax violations and marketing a schedule I controlled substance. https://harris-sliwoski.com/cannalawblog/marijuana-to-schedule-iii-is-necessary-but-lets-be-honest-about-its-limits/ I find this a more balanced overview. But it lacks numbers of course.

AmericaWinns

The DEA does not set policy. Unelected bureaucrats can have an opinion but they create legislation nor set policy. DEA can and will be overruled.

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.

Cool_Ad_5101

to reply all here, it’s absolutely crooked, that’s why I think the mso’s will sue for 2023 and 2024 overpayments to be wiped out. the DEA illegally obstructed the process.

manualCAD

8/29/25 (tomorrow) is exactly 2 years since the HHS made their official recommendation to the DEA that cannabis be moved from S1 to S3.

Kbarbs4421

I wouldn't rush to that conclusion. It seems entirely possible, maybe even plausible, that this is currently nothing more than a licensing deal. The optional uplist kicker might be a sweetener, but not the primary rationale. I don't know. Would be great if GTI was a bit more forthcoming regarding the strategy at play. As for ketamine, it is an FDA approved scheduled drug that can be legally sold by registered/licensed companies. In other words, pharma companies are selling it through federally regulated legal channels. Cannabis is not an FDA approved drug, so it cannot be legally sold through regulated channels. Even medically post S3. Perhaps there's an FDA approved and DEA licensed market at some point, but that's a way off at best. And even that wouldn't address the rec side of things. In other words, I don't see how any of GTI's plant touching operations will meet the fed legality test. And I assume that is what the exchanges will ultimately base their decision on.

SwordfishOk504

> He had all our hopes up but never completed the process This is such a fundamental misunderstanding of the issue, likely borne from a distorted partisan lens. The previous president began the review process, which rests with the DEA. The DEA has been undertaking that process since then. The president (neither Biden nor Trump) control that review, only the DEA does. Viewing these kinds of issues through your partisan fandom does not aid in a sober understanding of the legal mechanisms at play in this issue whatsoever.

StevesHair1212

Better be buying leaps, that DEA schedule downgrade is gonna wait until before mid terms

youngbutgood

Would a Trump announcement that they want Schedule 3 essentially be the same as DOJ and DEA finalizing it. Can we still get rug pulled if Trump is on board

Variant_Shades

I am talking about policy, my man. I remember how it was Trump who appointed Jeff Sessions as his AG. I remember how it was his administration that rescinded the Cole memo. I remember how he did jack shit for Cannabis reform in his first term. And it's amazing to me how many people here are sucking his cock, when he actually hasn't done anything. We have article after article stating that he's "weighing" rescheduling. This is a guy who doesn't have a filter. He states whatever is on his mind on his truth social account, and hasn't said a single thing about Cannabis. The DEA is not going to do it on their own. They are going to drag their feet on this unless Trump personally pushes them to do so. And there's really no evidence that he cares enough about this issue at all to do so.

trogloherb

So if DEA chief wants to reschedule, does Biden get the credit?! We cant have that!

Shitron3030

He can’t really. He can order his DEA chief to, but the DEA is already in the process of reevaluating scheduling, something started under Biden. And black market will continue no matter what since every legal state imposes a bunch of taxes. Cartels aren’t lugging it in from Mexico anymore. I doubt they even account for majority of interstate trafficking.

potsmokinsocialist

$TLRY is incorporated in Canada and listed on the US NASDAQ. Their Canadian business involves THC but US business involves non-THC like CBD products and hemp foods due to the regulations. While the reclassification’s tax benefits may not apply to them immediately, they do benefit from the regulation relaxation ex opens up FDA/DEA pathways. What’s your take?

SampleHomeSapiens

The best way to steal the issue from the Dems would be for Trump to announce on Aug 29, 2025. Under the Biden admin HHS issued the recommendation to DEA on Aug 29, 2023.

Tiaan

This doesn't involve congress at all. It's entirely being done through the DOJ and DEA within the executive. Biden's DEA was against it and stonewalled the process so it never got done

Goatpoojoe

It was working its way through congress, but as usual, there was too much infighting to get anything accomplished. I think a bill had passed, but then got defunded. About a year ago, they said they were pushing it until after Trump took office and would try again. Two weeks ago he said there would be an announcement in a couple weeks about it. He's made pro rescheduling/descheduling comments in the past, so we're hopeful. DEA can also reschedule without congress, which is under the DOJ/executive branch.

randomuser1029

About 2 weeks ago Trump said they were looking into rescheduling weed and would make an announcement in a few weeks. Pam Bondi was also there an nodded in agreement. The DOJ took over the rescheduling process from the DEA and Bondi would be able to proceed with rescheduling if she (or more like Trump) decides they want to. Lots of speculation that an announcement could come any day now.

Ok-Replacement9595

So a Cali trump.supporting CEO snitched to the DEA and ICE to get them to raid a competitor? Do I have that right?

ivigilanteblog

> The key word is INDEPENDENT directors. As I said in another comment on this thread: They literally aren't, though. The heads of some agencies (like the FTC, SEC, or FCC) are considered "independent," but the DEA Administrator serves under the Attorney General and can be removed at will by the President. They can be directed to act by a President, which is what Biden did. He didn't finish the job, and neither has Trump. > Also, using your logic - why didn’t Trump pressure Youngkin and DeSantis to stop opposing? What does that have to do with anything I said? Seriously asking - I don't see the connection. They are not heads of federal agencies that serve under the President. So they have nothing to do with my comment about checks and balances. > Assuming we actually get another election Oh, wait, nevermind. I get it now. You're way too deep into politics.

Many_Easy

Unfortunately, that type of insider trading is legal. I honestly don’t believe Trump has made up his mind on S3. I’m assuming that DEA and DOJ are no longer independent agencies and will follow Trump’s lead. At the same time, there will be huge pushback from Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 particularly against adult recreational. I also see hemp farmers pushing against S3 and doing anything to keep status quo on intoxicating hemp. Kind of gives Canadian LPs in medical an advantage over MSOs unless S3 happens for sure.

ivigilanteblog

Checks & balances refers to balance between the branches. The DEA works under the Attorney General, who is in turn under the President. There is no need for a check between presidential and DEA power. The check would come from Congress or the Supreme Court.

ivigilanteblog

> independent agency directors They literally aren't, though. The heads of some agencies (like the FTC, SEC, or FCC) are considered "independent," but the DEA Administrator serves under the Attorney General and can be removed at will by the President. They can be directed to act by a President, which is what Biden did. He didn't finish the job, and neither has Trump.

jmu_alumni

From my understanding that is usually how it works. In the case of cannabis, Biden pushed this forward to have HHS take a look rather than DEA forwarding it. This will be DEA -> HHS -> back to DEA (where they can stall, but unlikely with this administration’s DEA since they passed it to HHS in the first place) Check out TDR interview with Shane Pennington for a deeper dive

Flipside68

“DEA Forwards Psilocybin Rescheduling Petition To HHS For Review” Does anyone now why this is opposite of cannabis? HHS —-> DEA cannabis rescheduling DEA —-> HHS psilocybin rescheduling

Simplylegalize

The DEA head Anne Milgram was an appointee of Biden and so was Merrick Garland. If Biden wanted this to happen, it would have happened. Easily.

Ok-Replacement9595

What are you talking about? Biden started the process that the DEA is still stalling for Trump, which halted completely the moment he was elected. Trump has done exactly zero to change any of that yet. Zero.

ShewBuddy

Sorry but Biden getting shoved around by his own appointed head of DEA isn't the flex some of you want it to be.

Tiaan

It's true, but the DEA works for the attorney general who works for the president. Biden could've absolutely gotten this done if he wanted it to get done.

vand3lay1ndustries

Didn’t Biden kick off the rescheduling review during his term? Then the DEA blocked it, no?

Many_Easy

The President is often highly unpredictable and has been taking actions that appear to push the country backward from a socially conservative standpoint - deploying the National Guard across state lines, rolling back transgender rights, promoting Christian nationalism, revising history curricula to downplay slavery and civil rights, enforcing stricter policing, engaging in performative immigration crackdowns, using anti-Muslim rhetoric, scaling back the DEA & other institutions, and attempting to exert greater control over media and education. Even though a majority of voters support cannabis reform, he could very well block or derail the S3 Banking Act, especially if doing so aligns with the broader MAGA agenda of reverting to 1950s-era cultural “norms.” On the other hand, he might push for rescheduling despite Project 2025/Heritage Foundation. **The truth is, we don’t know what direction he’ll take and it’s unclear how much of our current optimism is already priced in.** POTUS also has not promised anything to date regarding pro-cannabis reforms and he often TACOs when it comes to timelines.

Cool_Ad_5101

Agree with most of the what you said, but in THIS sector politics is even worse and has been for like 70 years and the DEAs blatant attempt at corruption and obstruction of the S3 process is criminal. And that’s why if schedule 3 passes the MSO’s should sue for 2023 and 2024 back taxes as the DEA cost them that 

manualCAD

Hopefully the DEA amiright

PatchyCreations

This showed up right before the leap, right before Trump's announcement that him and Bondi were "looking into it" [Nothingburger?](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/2016-17954-DEA-426.pdf)

TwoDrunkKittens

here's my shortcut for searching for latest news on "Marihuana". The DEA uses the historical (mis)spelling. [https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bsearch\_type\_id%5D=6&conditions%5Bterm%5D=marihuana&order=newest](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bsearch_type_id%5D=6&conditions%5Bterm%5D=marihuana&order=newest)

DowntownWpg

I am more apt to believe it is coming since the DEA sent psilocybin over the HHS for a rescheduling recommendation recently. That is HUGE. If the administration wanted to continue the prohibitionist stance on psilocybin they could just do nothing rather than have it evaluated. By association this is bullish for Cannabis. Many hate Trump, but he might be the administration to execute this reform. He seems to be in legacy mode right now, chasing a Nobel Peace prize and other things to be remembered by. He is clearly open to medical use of cannabis, hence schedule 3 seems likely.

ApostleThirteen

A big part of this is that Compass Pathways is finishing their SECOND successful Stage III Clinical Trial, and their not using mushrooms or extracts, but a patented pure synthetic form of psilocybin. It would only be moving to Schedule II from Schedule I... so it's kind of a "baby step", but it is big that it was at the behestr of DEA. A BIGGER part of this is that Compass picked up Justin Gover to the Board of Directors a couple months ago... He was the CEO of GW Pharmaceuticals from the beginning, and played the DEA game the right way to get Sativex, among other cannabis extracts on pharmacy shelves

KAI5ER

Until then the DEA marches on .. or stands still in our case. Last I checked Cole was in DC for some reason, and we still have no ALJ judge.

KAI5ER

The choke-point isn’t a tweet from any president it’s the DEA’s rulemaking calendar. DOJ published the rescheduling proposal in May 2024, but DEA then set the evidentiary hearing to **start Jan 21, 2025** one day after Inauguration effectively pushing the process past the election. That hearing was then **postponed** in mid-January on appeal, and we’re still waiting on the DEA to move. Meanwhile, the White House repeatedly told DEA to move “**as quickly as possible**,” which undercuts the idea that Biden/Harris wanted it to “waste away.” If an agency can slow-roll a sitting administration, it can slow-roll the next one too. The history here is a traditionally prohibition-leaning DEA working on its own timetable not the President’s. I've made this comment multiple times, Trump may not be against cannabis reform. But he is not willing to champion it. In our current case strong arm it through.

nfisherzz

But really, we are off topic. Is it going to DEA, Trump, or another way?

KAI5ER

I agree on both accounts. Zorn is incredibly positive to help shape cannabis policy in the administration. But our issue is a biased and conservative DEA which still has complete control of rescheduling. I don't care what trump has alluded too, the decision is still within a traditionally VERY prohibitionist institution which has dragged this process out by years. If the DEA can defy Biden and Harris, why wouldn't they defy Trump?

GeoLogic23

What are you hoping for from Zorn that will be significant for us? We're waiting on the DEA for schedule 3 right now, not the HHS.

DowntownWpg

Cannabis Schedule 3 just become more likely when the DEA advanced the Psilocybin rescheduling petition to the HHS for evaluation. This shows the administration is open to these new therapies, it's not just lip service. Oddly, Cannabis investors seem to have ignored this.

Tiaan

I hope people realize that when S3 happens, if it's accompanied by ways for state operators to gain federal compliance (ex registering with DEA/FDA), which I suspect it will, there will be no need for SAFE banking. SAFE banking in itself is actually just a workaround for the existing conflict between state and federal cannabis laws. If the core issue is addressed (eg with rescheduling or descheduling) then SAFE is no longer needed. There are publicly traded companies today on the NYSE and NASDAQ that sell products that fall into S3. The difference is that they have federal compliance. That's all that is missing here

AverageNo130

DEA has had 3 years since HHS approved in Aug '23.

manualCAD

Wait...the DEA is doing the paperwork to have HHS review scheduling of psilocybin?!? So there are actually sentient humans working at the DEA doing something? I couldn't tell....

Fukuoka06142000

Yes and reducing the level of DEA scheduling will only make it easier for people to grow their own. This industry is so fragile, but that’s good for consumers. Better not to have it in the hands of only a few corporations. Still not a good stock

cesvrr_

What the fuck would the DEA do with a list of dispensary customers. They want the big players not Jack and Jill who buy a few brownies and an ounce of pot every 2 weeks

miata_only

Did the DEA really get a list of customer info from weed dispensaries, you guys?

zero0n3

ROFL. Go read the actual case. > The case centered on the interpretation of the Commerce Clause, which grants Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that even though Raich and Monson's marijuana was grown and used within California, it was part of a larger, national market for marijuana, and therefore Congress could regulate it.  Also, it hinges on medicinal marijuana.  The playing field is a lot different now. If this SC case exists… 1.  Why weren’t those people jailed federally? 2. Why aren’t the DEA busting down and arresting production / consumption / transport companies in the states that have fully legalized it state wide. Again, because it opens the door to challenge this. And again, SC cases, this included are very narrow. A state with weed legal completely top to bottom absolutely doesn’t fit this case.  The case you linked used the interstate commerce clause not the supremacy clause. Additionally: > That argument stems from the landmark New Deal case Wickard v. Filburn, which held that the government may regulate personal cultivation and consumption of crops because of the aggregate effect of individual consumption on the government's legitimate statutory framework governing the interstate wheat market. KEY WORD PERSONAL.

GoldGlove2720

That’s exactly how laws work. The DEA can raid any dispensary tomorrow and have legal basis to do so. Are they actually gonna do it? Probably not. They don’t need you to be on federal land to arrest you.

Many_Easy

Who knows. Personally, I wouldn’t want to have a potentially unfavorable SCOTUS decision before S3 debate is finalized. I never thought Roe v. Wade would be overturned and here we are. Look at current division and split rulings by SCOTUS - any ruling could go either way. One would like to assume that SCOTUS isn’t biased, but individual opinions seem split based on party lines. Let’s just focus, hope and route for S3 first. We need to lock in some action and momentum that was lost with A3 in Florida failing and with DEA delays.

More_Advertising_383

No, lol. Damn you must be new here. Trump can only direct the DEA/DOJ to get it done, then once they have a final rule published it will take 30 days to take effect… it’s the hype of the announcement that will send us flying (sustained, or for a few days and sell the news) and then it will be the actual reform that puts the sector in a sustained long term bull market finally.

More_Advertising_383

Forreal? Lmao, dude… after Trump makes an announcement it will take a couple months. And then after the final rule is published my the DEA it takes 30 days to take effect. We’re playing the short term hype swing trade. The long term fundamentals will take a bit. I have my position set up for both.

SwordfishOk504

He may very well do this shit. But that's not the point. The point is rescheduling will not move the needle one bit. It's being sold like it's somehow legalization but it's not anything close to that. There's a 50/50 chance he approves a rescheduling if the DEA delivers an approval for it. But that is NOT legalization. It won't change any laws except for medical research.

JustDoc

His goal at the moment is to terrorize minorities and to make his private prison owning donors more money. Yeah, the Epstein files are a thorn in his side, but if he were **truly** worried, he wouldn't have moved Ghislaine Maxwell. Furthermore, keeping cannabis where it is gives him the leverage he needs to send DEA (or any federal LEO) into blue states that dare stand up to him. It's not going anywhere.

DeaconSage

Don’t worry, he won’t. His handlers aren’t interested in it, his appointed head of the DEA is anti-cannabis. He just really wants him dumbass supporters to forget about him r*ping girls with his best friend Jeffry Epstein and leaving a paper trail.

AverageNo130

Trump assigned Bondi to settle the S3 stalemate. Now Bondi assigned Cole for DC safety. Basically out of the DEA.

Robbot24

There’s been hundreds of articles written about the cartels setting up big grows in national parks for the last 20 years. Tons of law enforcement on record talking about finding them from park rangers to DEA, we’ve even used military assets to fight them. This has been going on for decades, it’s not some weird Rogan conspiracy.

AverageNo130

# Terry Cole, chosen to take over DC's police force, has spent 22 years at DEA [https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/terry-cole-chosen-to-take-over-dc-s-police-force-has-spent-22-years-at-dea/ar-AA1Kylet?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=79294c274e2c44628da1dedcf1a24cce&ei=17](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/terry-cole-chosen-to-take-over-dc-s-police-force-has-spent-22-years-at-dea/ar-AA1Kylet?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=79294c274e2c44628da1dedcf1a24cce&ei=17)

Many_Easy

That was old DEA never going against a recommendation. Things are different with this loose cannon who’s not afraid to use his power, enrich himself, ignore courts, gaslight, and break institutions. Really difficult to believe that he’s in charge and that many still support him.

UsedState7381

Considering the lack of ethics that the DEA had with the entire ordeal, it begets the question if the president should really just do nothing like he did. Not to mention the fact that they ran the election acting as if rescheduling was already completed. >Why do I feel like I am explaining civics yo a 3rd grader here. Current state of matters of your federal government, from the past 10 years or so, have been anything but civic.

GeoLogic23

October 2022 Biden ordered the rescheduling review, and we pumped. August 2023 HHS recommended Schedule 3, and we pumped. April 2024 DEA confirmed they would go to Schedule 3, and we pumped.

Many_Easy

Talk to Geo. An executive order is nothing more than a dog whistle to DEA’s Terry Cole and Congress to succumb to pressure.

MSOmoneyshreddr

DEA S3 last Spring VS Trump Comment Monday. Which one (at the time) were you more excited about? 

ApostleThirteen

If it becomes Schedule 3, medical marijuana could be imported from Canada (the only country that is allowed to export pharmaceuticals into the US), if the state petitions the FDA to allow it, like Florida's Agency for Health Care Administration's drug importation program. It all depends on if the importation will save citizens money, and the availability of the drugs in Canada. The feds, specifically can import cannabis into the US for research from Canada, notably the DEA's past approval of Tilray/Aphria a few years back. From South America or Asia, though, no.

Tiaan

It depends on what framework, if any, the administration decides to put around it like registering with the DEA or FDA, etc. Other companies legally ship S3 drugs across state lines with no issues so I don't see how rescheduling doesn't ultimately allow for some type of interstate commerce

bigmeatbag

Come on Donnie just completely legalize weed across the board and tell those DEA cucks to deal with it so my weed bags fly.

heliumbox

Was a typical pump and dump. The sector had a ton of traders jump in on headlines then immediately sell off as soon as it was clear that the process was only just beginning and was going to take a long ass time. Not enough people trust these names to hold gains, it cascades into extreme selling pressure on any profits. There is so much history of these names giving everything back that traders flee at any uncertainty. Then there was I believe news about the DEA taking up the process for the Jan pump that also faded due to further clarity that the process was going to take forever.

Tiaan

People realized we were still months away from anything materializing, and then we ran up again into 2024 as news came out regarding the DEA taking on HHS' recommendation. Then we set a top when people realized we were still 1+ year away from anything being finalized. This time we're at the final step, so no more waiting months for things to get finalized. Once Trump instructs the AG to issue the final rule, it'll be done within days/weeks imo and become effective immediately

polacrilex67

Yes, I used AI to help organize and fact-check my thoughts — but the connections here are 100% mine after a long discussion and research on *real, verified news sources*. I’m not claiming that rescheduling by itself rewrites the Farm Bill or magically forces hemp under marijuana compliance. That’s Congress’ lane. What I am saying — and what the news + market behavior strongly support — is that Schedule III would change the *political and economic perception* of hemp overnight. Suddenly, regulated cannabis would exist alongside intoxicating hemp that is essentially unregulated. That’s not sustainable for either cannabis companies (who shoulder heavy compliance costs and taxes) or for politicians who want a coherent policy. Removing 280E for cannabis means those companies have more margin and more incentive to lobby against hemp’s free pass. Once that dynamic shifts, you’ll see pressure build fast — from both industry and lawmakers — to align hemp with cannabis regulations. So no, DEA rescheduling isn’t the *mechanism* that fixes hemp. It’s the *catalyst* that makes the current hemp market politically indefensible.

GeoLogic23

Congress did that. The Legislative branch can instantly change laws/regulations by passing a bill, because that is their function in government. They can put fentanyl on Schedule 1, and they can descheduled alcohol, despite those being the wrong place for those substances. They have complete authority to do whatever they want. The Executive Branch can't just create new laws/regulations, so they need to go through the review process with the HHS and DEA to change the scheduling of a drug.

Wan4trulove

Technically Trump is not issuing final ruling , he may direct DOJ to complete the process and then DOJ may issue final ruling after deeming the hearings are no longer needed as there is no ALJ judge and there is HHS and OLC backing as well as international treaty compliance. If you ask me Biden was a through and through Anti-Drug candidate his political career , After HHS recommendation and comment period , he could have asked DOJ to complete the process without hearing. But the moment he is out of the race, he simply let prohibitionists like SAM collude with DEA to stall the process.

Wan4trulove

True!! and it matches Trump style of doing things, DOJ issuing final ruling instead of hearings but after being burnt so many times , I was a bit skeptical . Hope we are right about it. Appointing new ALJ and continue hearings come with its own set of problems as there is a solid case of DEA colluding with SAM , so going down that path is murky to say the least.

TroubledAcorn

No one knows. He could scrap the whole process. He doesn’t have to do this DEA hearing stuff, he can just get it done right away if they want. The rescheduled fentanyl just last month in no time at all

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

polacrilex67

Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would effectively erase the distinction between hemp-derived THC and marijuana-derived THC for regulatory purposes. Once the DEA and FDA have authority over all intoxicating cannabinoids, every THC product—whether from hemp or cannabis—would be subject to the same licensing, testing, and labeling requirements. For hemp producers, this would be a seismic shift. Right now, they operate with minimal oversight, avoiding costly compliance measures and bypassing Section 280E of the tax code, which heavily penalizes cannabis businesses. Licensed marijuana operators carry far higher regulatory and tax burdens, making it hard to compete with cheap hemp-derived THC products in gas stations and online. Rescheduling flips that dynamic—removing 280E from cannabis businesses while forcing hemp companies into the same expensive compliance framework. Many hemp operations would not survive the transition, leading to consolidation into larger, regulated players. This also aligns industry and government incentives. Licensed cannabis companies want the gray-market hemp competition eliminated, and governments want the tax revenue that comes with regulation. Rescheduling achieves both goals without reopening the Farm Bill or sparking messy rural–urban fights over hemp cultivation. Instead, it offers a clean political narrative: one set of rules for all intoxicating cannabis products, framed as both a public safety measure and an economic fairness reform.

GeoLogic23

Biden was the one to initiate the rescheduling review in the first place? That order comes directly from the President. The HHS then performed their 8 factor analysis. Now we are waiting on Trump's DEA to simply sign off on the work done by Biden's HHS, who recommended Schedule 3. Maybe I'm misreading what you are asking? We wouldn't even have a Schedule 3 recommendation to be discussing if it weren't for Biden explicitly ordering cannabis rescheduling. [https://mjbizdaily.com/biden-calls-for-review-of-marijuana-scheduling-pardons-thousands-for-mj-offenses/](https://mjbizdaily.com/biden-calls-for-review-of-marijuana-scheduling-pardons-thousands-for-mj-offenses/) >Third: We classify marijuana at the same level as heroin – and more serious than fentanyl. It makes no sense. I’m asking Sec. Becerra and the Attorney General to initiate the process of reviewing how marijuana is scheduled under federal law.

Gambelero

He is very decisive and aggressive once he gets on something. And his minions all do what he says unlike Biden. Under Biden it was pretty clear the DEA was against us. The ALJ had to force them to commit to declaring the agency to be a proponent because their actions seemed to suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, Trump likes big, made for TV events. The labyrinthine process for making the proposed rule a final rule might bore him. When they say the “administration has been looking into it for some time,” I think they want to find a way to go big and fast.

throwawayainteasy

Less suspicious than super, super skinny DEA agents would be.

ConfusedKanye

Lot of FAT DEA agents

dUjOUR88

I agree with this, but I hope I'm wrong. IMO the most likely thing that will happen is...nothing. The DEA recommends no reschedule, Trump agrees, and that's the end of hope for marijuana reform during Trump's second term. Nearly everything Trump does aligns with the views of the majority of Congressional Republicans. He rarely goes against them, and if he does, it's only very slight. Progression on cannabis is firmly a Democratic party thing (I know they've done next to nothing federally, but the Democrats have convinced the country they're the party of cannabis reform). The key here is the consistent position of Trump's base when it comes to *any* policy: If the Democrats like it, it's bad. And in the end, that's why Trump will do nothing. Like I said, I hope I'm wrong. And the betting markets are showing people believe there is >50% chance that Trump *does* reschedule in the next few months - but I have no idea where their optimism comes from.

SwordfishOk504

Like I said, there wouldn't be much for him to "carry though" on. Because it's not that big of a change. The DEA could give hi the recommendation and he signs it. That's it. Its an easy win/distraction for him and will also allow him and his followers to pretend it's much more substantial than it actually is.

SwordfishOk504

Honestly, it's entirely likely he moves to reschedule if that's the recommendation the DEA makes. Reschceudling is not legalization, so it will allow Trump to pretend he's done something *yuge* when in reality this won't mean all that much at all. So it's an easy distraction that doesn't cost him anything politically.

Professional-Break19

It was already being reclassified until the fuck face he put in the DEA shut it all down lmao To think we were months away from reclassifying it and now drug testing in the work place is ramping up 🤣🤣🤣😭

TankApprehensive3053

DEA has been looking into reclassifying MJ for some time now. It's not up to Trump to do that. It's smoke and mirrors to distract is all.

rsilv18

To clarify, what part of the process is still unknown? ALJ judge retired and confirmed the call is up to head of DEA Terry Cole to move forward. From Trumps remarks it sounds like Pam Bondi can also make that call. I’m sure there are other legal proceedings that make take a while until acted into law but companies would immediately stop paying these taxes, some already have. Removal of 280e is spot on though and massive for the bottom line.

jamminstein

This move from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 started under Biden over two years ago. The HHS has already recommended Schedule 3 and filed a 250+ page report regarding their findings and decision. It has been stuck in limbo with the corrupt DEA who have stalled and refused to move it forward along with enacting the decision by the HHS. Congress is not needed here, only the DEA or Attorney General need to approve at this point, so basically if Trump says do it then it will go through.

cum-bucket-daddy

And then they’ll absolutely fucking crash tomorrow as every bag holder cuts their losses. Weed stocks are fucking stupid. There’s no money in weed because it’s too expensive to grow the way they do it. Until the DEA declassifies it, there will never be any money in weed stocks.

AverageNo130

DEA needs to approve S3. Trump and Bondi is the boss of DEA. Trump has put the ball in Bondi's court.