DEA

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?

UsedState7381

Cannabis is NOT being rescheduled this year unless the prohibitionists at congress decides to not block the process after the DEA final rule, with the congressional reviews, which of course they will do because it's not on their donors interest to allow MJ to be rescheduled. So this claim, like all the other claims on Twitter of MJ still being rescheduled this year, are already dead in the water. However, nothing is stopping Trump to announce rescheduling this year, which I also don't hold any faith anymore because what it looks like is that he is going to exploit this for midterms, if Florida rec is on the ballot again(Trulieve will need his endorsement again to get that amendment to have any chance of beating that 60% threshold necessary to pass).

KAI5ER

I think you give government entities too much credit. ;) I believe Bidens admin poorly timed rescheduling to align it near the elections but failed to take into consideration the pushback by the DEA. Remember that Harris interview?

hambone_83

>You said Biden's plan was to use it for the election. But then it was not used for the election. I don't understand this. But it was, Harris ran on a platform to continue the process to get it rescheduled and then even went a step further saying she would fully legalize it when it looked like she was going to lose. >Either Biden didn't actually have that power (and thus blame lies with the DEA) or he did have that power and just chose to not execute the plan you are saying he put into motion. This just does not make logical sense. HHS and the science was in favor of rescheduling. The comment period was overwhelmingly in favor of rescheduling. Then DEA sabotages it when the process had evidence it should be done. A DEA that Biden's administration is in charge of. I could understand if HHS doesn't recommend and the comment period was bad that the DEA drags their feet or whatever. But in a process that was looking good they purposefully got in the way. Biden doesn't have to step in and control the outcome but he sure as shit should have controlled that the DEA was unbiased and treated it fairly. Adding unnecessary steps, limiting advocacy witnesses, allowing SAM to put language in what goes onto the record. Biden definitely has power over the conduct of his agencies. >It's your opinion what you think was going on internally in Biden's administration. You are expressing an opinion on where the blame should belong. >When you express a political position in a public forum, you can expect others to chime in with their own opinion. Go ahead I'm not stopping you. Just pointing out that Biden has fault in the process not being finalized (either good or badend result) under his watch. Whether it was used for votes is right or wrong does not matter, what matters is it wasn't done and he and his administration have contributed to that.

Ok_Recording_4440

DEA head was Biden nominee obv and a major roadblock, ie wouldn’t sign off on Rescheduling so garland had too, but stepped in and chose ALJ option vs going straight to final rule. Same standard will apply to trump. I just worry he’s to incapacitated at this point, more that usual. We’ll see what happens.

GeoLogic23

You said Biden's plan was to use it for the election. But then it was not used for the election. I don't understand this. Either Biden didn't actually have that power (and thus blame lies with the DEA) or he did have that power and just chose to not execute the plan you are saying he put into motion. This just does not make logical sense. It's your opinion what you think was going on internally in Biden's administration. You are expressing an opinion on where the blame should belong. When you express a political position in a public forum, you can expect others to chime in with their own opinion.

hambone_83

But I'm not debating politics. I'm simply stating people should put the blame on nothing happened where it belongs - on the entire administration. The DEA prolonged and screwed up the process so much that VFF and other marijuana advocates had to step in. The damn judge even asked if DEA were a proponent or not because of how they acted. That was Biden's DEA. He ordered the process to start and then watched it get sabotaged right up until the election by his elected officials. He and his administration don't get a pass on that. If you want to give it go ahead. And if nothing happens under this administration after Trump's support on A3 and rescheduling tweet, his Endocannabinoid system tweet, and his few weeks comments. I will put the blame on him and his entire administration as well for no action. I'll pinky swear with you.

Ok_Recording_4440

Some people don’t like the view I’ve noticed and point to the DEA rigging the hearing which appears to be true. Glad to find some agreement. I also agree with the reply below. It seems like a lot of people on this thread or fiercely left. I vote left if I vote, but still hold the prior admin accountable for squandering cannabis reform. Millgram would’ve been pulled if it was that important and ALJ bipassed. 

hambone_83

>This “pause” is exactly what the DEA wanted To start, I am neither a democrat or a republican and I don't want to make this a political debate here. But my opinion, this isn't what the DEA wanted it's what the Biden administration wanted. If Trump pushed the same thing in motion and Terrence Cole and the current DEA did what Milgram's DEA did we wouldn't be isolating DEA as the bad guys and the republican administration as champions for cannabis trying to get change. The goal was to always prolong this into the election to use as a carrot for votes. If they wanted it done it would have been. I might get cucked by this administration hoping for cannabis reform that may never come. But at least I can be honest and admit that the previous administration absolutely cucked me.

KAI5ER

I don’t think it was unpopular, I thought the same. This “pause” is exactly what the DEA wanted. They can kick the can down the road for years now.

Ok_Recording_4440

Said it before, while unpopular, the ALJ  pause was a mistake. We would’ve had an answer by now and I know the DEA was corrupt in the proceeding. But trump would’ve had to either stop it or let it play out regardless now we’re here in no man’s land, no one knows wtf is or isn’t happening and everyone’s been told to stay quiet on the issue.

KAI5ER

Still watching this *With no seated DEA ALJ, there’s no obvious path back to evidentiary hearings until DEA* ***(a)*** *appoints a new ALJ, or* ***(b)*** *details one from another agency, or* ***(c)*** *the Administrator resolves the pending appeal and changes posture.*

Gambelero

What is “it” in this case? A quiet administrative move like the DEA hiring a new ALJ or notice of a new hearing? If so, you’re probably right. A late night tweet from POTUS or one his off the cuff comments to a (finally asked) reporter’s question in favor of rescheduling? No reason that can’t happen.

C_B_Doyle

What if target got raided by the DEA? That would epic. Stock price would be -50% in one day.

Draphippo

Sure. You have synthetic unregulated hemp pretending to be Marijuana throughout the entire nation, in states where marijuana is illegal. This unregulated/Wild West structure is causing harm to consumers. Dangerous pesticides, mold, toxic metals are hospitalizing people. People under age don’t get ID’d at smoke shops buying it. Cartels are using this loop hole to launder money, acquire land and make 100’s of millions of dollars on American soil. Prohibitionists have lost - 40 states have medical use, 25 have recreational, growing year by year. The genie cannot go back into the bottle. Cannabis polls 70+ % for full legalization. The states that have legalized are bringing in billions in tax revenue which is going towards infrastructure and helpful programs for citizens. None of these states will allow this revenue to go away. Medicinally, Cannabis has become a clear winner for a variety of different patient needs. It’s allowing opioid users a safer alternative to pain management. (Opioid use is currently a crisis in America). Lobbying efforts have increased dramatically and you’re now seeing Alcohol and Tobacco companies (which have massive political influence) put up large money for Cannabis lobbying while rolling out their own Cannabis products. Cannabis being Federally Schedule 1 next to heroine, while almost every state has legalized, while having a hemp loophole distributing harmful product across the entire nation..is absurd. This cannot continue. There will be a breaking point. The HHS has recognized that Cannabis doesn’t belong as Schedule 1 with a 220 page report supporting medical efficacy and a recommendation for Schedule 3. The DEA has NEVER in history gone against an HHS recommendation to reschedule. They will legitimize the industry to create a safe product for consumers, to bring in billions of tax revenue, to create economic growth, to provide alternative medicine to patients in need. Trump is for States rights, he’s supported rescheduling and recreational use in Florida, and recently put out a video promoting Cannabis for medical use. It’s only a matter of time, and to think otherwise is irrefutably illogical.

ProjectMagnet

Except for the DEA I guess

AdministrativeWar647

It’s already gone through HHS review and the DEA is in the rulemaking phase. It wouldn’t even require an executive order since it’s an administrative process under the Controlled Substances Act. Important to note though; ONLY changing the scheduling to Schedule III does not change whether it’s legal to sell or possess large amounts of marijuana without a DEA license. Schedule III status means it can be prescribed if approved by the FDA (same as codeine or ketamine for medicinal use) and this would not violate federal law. Currently states that marijuana is legal in, technically it’s still illegal, the states and the fed are just not enforcing the laws on the books. Recreational use, possession, or sale outside the medicinal or research framework implied by changing the schedule of the drug would still violate federal law unless they change that specifically. Also the vast majority of Americans support this… just a bunch of these old ass politicians are too scared to publicly support it so they keep kicking the can down the road. There’s been studies on how much the healthcare system could save by using marijuana, so there are logical reasons for it to happen beyond just public support.

Simplylegalize

It wasn’t about playing by the rules, they just didn’t do anything. Garland could have easily and legally issued a cole memo. Biden was actually not playing by the rules in the opposite direction in that the DEA was not following the process and was delaying intentionally. And you went way off topic here to shit on Trump off course but why is this the hill that democrats are dying on? Due process for potentially (and probably) illegal drug boats and mostly illegal immigrants. I don’t know why the left is trying so hard to protect these people. Most of America doesn’t want this. I don’t give a fuck if we are blowing up boats that are probably and likely drug boats. I trust the government probably has pretty good intel and isn’t just blowing up regular boats carrying innocent. Very unlikely. We will see if Trump does anything. I give him until midterms. That is it. It is very possible he does nothing. Market seems to believe something might happen based on the fact we haven’t yet drifted back to all time lows.

anonymoose_baker

Are we really going to get an update from the DEA tomorrow on rescheduling? This X post says tomorrow is the day for DEA to provide an update. https://x.com/msoelevator/status/1981152763804602403?s=46

0220_2020

Pre-cursor chemicals come from China (and India) and processing is done by cartels in Mexico. According to DEA. The precursor chemicals have other legitimate uses though, so it's not as easy as just saying don't make those anymore.

Gambelero

It’s this kind of thinking that has gotten so many people in trouble. S-3 can’t just happen overnight. The best POTUS can do is get the process restarted—hold hearings with a new alj albeit this time with a DEA under orders to “get it done.” No matter what the legal e Perth said, the majority of this board thought Biden could just wave a magic executive order wand and make it happen. Then, people argued that they would skip the Congressionally mandated rule making process and issue an immediate final order. Throughout all this the prevailing attitude was that S3 was one person’s decision—like someone (channeling the OP) would just wake up one day and decide to put S3 into effect.

Brave_Reporter_7881

Yes  ,, lol ,,, I live in Rhode Island so it's like 3-4 days ( 35 hours ) driving just to get to Blanding and unfortunately I try to avoid planes as much as possible. Know what would be super cool if they just recorded what they would show you if you went there but Im sure with DOD and DEA and secrecy agreements out the wazoo  -- it's just not possible. 

goalpost21

Agreed. IMO, S3 will be tied into a broader crackdown on the criminal aspect of illegal substances and cartels. In the nineties Trump stated “you have to legalize drugs to win the drug war”. S3 is the first step. This is why I don’t think it will be announced via tweet or truth social post. I think it will be a press conference with DEA,DOJ and HHS outlining a plan for legality and law efforts to control Illegal drugs.

heliumbox

Pretty sure you have a whole lot confused here. Its been a while but I'm pretty sure the lawyer was on the pro side and wanted a stay in the case because he had another case going on (which I believe was about the DEA taking sides?) and the judge told him he could but there was a solid chance it'd delay the process and he might not be the presiding judge any longer and then all of the shit came out about how the DEA was working with SAM. Anyways, I think Trump is a moron, don't lump me in with that shit.

Ok-Replacement9595

What reason is that? The AG Garland put forward the rule. The DEA hald ALJ hearings to make sure that all the administrative procedures were upheld, and then you weirdos had to ho and vote for the destruction of our country, which threw everything out the window.

randomuser1029

I think there would be a worse chance of rescheduling under the DEAs guidance than there is under Trump. Even before Trump installed his loyalists into every agency, I don't think the Biden DEA was open to rescheduling either. I think that the Republican party is already committed to throwing out democracy in favor of authoritarianism and that won't change if Trump passed away, just a question of who would be their next leader (it won't be Vance, he's too awkward and uncharismatic) but Vance would become president and he'll be focused on trying to retain power to get elected again, rescheduling cannabis wouldn't help him do that. I think that Trump is sadly our best hope of rescheduling or any real progress happening in the next 3+ years. I don't mean to sound too negative saying all this though, I do believe cannabis is getting close to major reform in the coming years.

Veganlightbody

counter point: if trump dies while in office from like a heart attack or blood clot there's a semi decent chance we'd no longer be living under a dictatorship and rescheduling wouldn't depend on the POTUS--since it's not fucking supposed to..it would be in the hands of the DEA. unfortunately trump installed right wing fascist fucks everywhere and they're only going to reschedule b/c trump is open to it/paid off.

ProjectMagnet

well that can't be possible, the DEA says there's no medical benefit!

Strange-Vibes

1. Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/09/23/2025-18372/determination-pursuant-to-section-102-of-the-illegal-immigration-reform-and-immigrant-responsibility Title: Determination Pursuant to Section 102 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Summary: • The Secretary of Homeland Security invokes authority under Section 102(c) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) to waive certain legal requirements, regulations, and laws.  • The stated purpose is to permit expedited construction of physical barriers, roads, lighting, sensors, and other infrastructure in border-adjacent areas (in this instance, near the California international land border) needed to achieve “operational control” of the border.  • The waiver authority allows DHS to bypass or override laws that would otherwise impede timely execution of border infrastructure projects.  • The determination takes effect as of the publication date.  ⸻ 2. Health Care Professionals Practicing Via Telehealth Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/02/2025-19324/health-care-professionals-practicing-via-telehealth Title: Health Care Professionals Practicing Via Telehealth Summary: • This is a final rule by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) amending its regulations governing VA health care professionals who deliver care via telehealth.  • The changes implement authorities from the VA MISSION Act of 2018 and the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) for Fiscal Year 2021.  • Among its key provisions:   • VA health care professionals may practice their profession via telehealth across State lines regardless of the licensure state of the clinician or the beneficiary, as long as they operate within their Federal VA duties.    • When prescribing controlled substances via telehealth, the rule retains that federal standards (e.g. the Controlled Substances Act) apply, and state laws that conflict with the VA role (i.e. in prescribing) are not enforceable against VA health care professionals in their VA capacity.    • The rule updates terminology (e.g. replacing “health care providers” with “health care professionals”) and clarifies that State licensing requirements are preempted only to the extent they conflict with VA telehealth duties.  • The rule responds to public comments, but does not make substantive changes in response to objections about state consultation or protections of VA employees.  ⸻ 3. Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of MDMB-4en-PINACA in Schedule I Link: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/10/02/2025-19348/schedules-of-controlled-substances-placement-of-mdmb-4en-pinaca-in-schedule-i Title: Schedules of Controlled Substances: Placement of MDMB-4en-PINACA in Schedule I Summary: • This is a proposed rule from the DEA to place the synthetic cannabinoid MDMB-4en-PINACA in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act.  • The rule is open for public comment (comment period ends 11/03/2025).  • If adopted, MDMB-4en-PINACA would be subject to the regulatory controls, registration, administrative, civil, and criminal sanctions that apply to Schedule I substances.  • The notice includes background, legal rationale, and the DEA’s analysis of harms and policy considerations. 

ivigilanteblog

> My current understanding is that you can't reschedule with an executive order Strong disagree. It can be done, because the parties to whom scheduling has been delegated by Congress (HHS and DEA) serve under the President and are subject to executive orders. It's one of the few executive order ideas that has been mentioned by either party in the last ~50 years that is actually legal and impactful. No idea how the shutdown would affect it, though.

Weary_Ad162

Yep gov’t shutdown doesn’t change anything for us on movement from a potential announcement is my understanding. Essential workers such as those that matter in the DEA and DOJ still working like normal

Pereise1

Lol look up who is actually profiting off of all of that. The useless MBAs who exist to siphon up money while killing people through greed. They're the same people in every hospital, healthcare system, pharmaceutical company, DME manufacturers, and regulators (FDA, DEA) who only exist as leaches on the system. Cut those out and costs go down to similar prices as every other nation.

jamminstein

Politics and DEA fuckery go hand in hand.

ComprehensiveKiwi489

Executive order shouldn't be relevant to S3 - It will be a Trump announcement or DEA / DOJ move.

Tiaan

Is this AI generated? It's not really relevant at all anymore. [When the ALJ judge retired, he turned over complete control of the hearings to the DEA administrator and AG to decide how they want to proceed.](https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2025-07/Marijuana%20Rescheduling_Notice%20to%20the%20Parties.pdf) > My retirement will leave the DEA with no Administrative Law Judge to hear this matter or any of the Agency’s other pending administrative enforcement cases. Until there is a change in this circumstance, all matters filed in this case will be forwarded to the DEA Administrator, for whatever action, if any, he deems appropriate. > All previously-issued procedural orders remain in full force and effect unless otherwise modified by a successor Administrative Law Judge, the DEA Administrator, or the Attorney General. As he noted, there's no more ALJ judges at the DEA, so it's likely that we won't even have more ALJ hearings on this issue moving forward. The trump admin's DOJ has also criticized ALJ hearings and called them unconstitutional. An ALJ hearing is not needed to finish the rescheduling process. So again, all of this is irrelevant.

Moody0689

Is it possible Bondi just with swing of her pen to do this without DEA?

UsedState7381

No progress will be reported and there will be another 90 days extension to January. Then, on January there will be another 90 days extension. But in the end, if Trump feels like doing S3 is the right move, he could cut undercut the ALJ hearings entirely and issue a Executive Order to ask the DEA and DOJ to work together to issue a final rule on S3(this would merely be a symbolic way for him to take credit for this and attach his name on it, in reality the responsibility falls entirely within the DEA/DOJ to issue a final rule). At this point these extensions aren't relevant, the DEA doesn't even a judge to hold these hearings anymore and the DOJ recognized these hearings as inconstitutional.

moneyshake10

Thanks for the correction, haven’t thought about it in over a year now and confused the HHS acronym with the DEA(?) in that context

SwordfishOk504

This is such a dumb analysis. Biden started the process. The ball has been in the DEA's court. The WH doesn't generally direct the DEA on those kinds of things. Injecting these dumb partisan narratives into this stuff has no bearing on the facts on the ground. That goes for those bashing Trump and saying it will never happen, and that goes for people living in denial that it was Biden and the Dems who started this process.

rsilv18

Essentially the ALJ overseeing the rescheduling case retired and was like “Peace out there’s no one to do this hearing anymore so the DEA admin (Terry Cole) or AG maybe (Pam Bondi) can review make the call from here” Then some time passed and trumpy trump was like “Medical weed is kind of cool, we should make a decision on that in a few weeks, right Pam?” Pam didn’t reply with words but looked over and gave him a head nod of approval Now it’s been a lot of weeks and POTUS has been very busy but came hit us with the truth social post that said “HEMP CBD rocks, I did that! I support some other good changes too for medical” and now we’re here. Long story short, we might be alright with the legal process because prez wants it, its bipartisan and ALJ Mulrooney said to figure it out without a hearing

ai-moderator

#TLDR --- Ticker: IIPR, TLRY, HMY Direction: Up Prognosis: The landlord always wins. Buy the cannabis REIT (IIPR). Catalyst: DEA rescheduling to Schedule III will kill the 280E tax burden, making tenants profitable and IIPR a safer bet. Future Medicare/Medicaid coverage for FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs is the pharma-play catalyst. Strategy: Stop chasing dispensary hype. The real money is in the "picks-and-shovels" (IIPR) and pharma-grade (HMY) plays that benefit from federal changes without touching the plant.

Some-Rent-7742

All you folks interested in TLRY: READ THIS! Everyone focuses on state dispensaries or adult-use legalization. The bigger catalyst is federal: DEA rescheduling to Schedule III → kills the 280E tax stranglehold, improves cash flow for operators, and makes capital easier to raise. FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs → potentially reimbursed by Medicare/Medicaid. CMS already covers FDA-approved cannabinoid meds like Epidiolex (CBD) and dronabinol (THC). That’s a real healthcare market, not just dispensary sales. So I’m aiming for exposure where those two currents overlap: pharma-grade cannabinoids, ancillary infrastructure, and real-estate cash flow.- My current holdings Zynerba (via Harmony Biosciences) – Transdermal CBD therapies for CNS disorders. Backed by Harmony’s resources, so more likely to get FDA approval and payer coverage than standalone biotech. Tilray (TLRY) – Major global cannabis operator. Broader exposure across medical, adult-use, and consumer packaged goods. Innovative Industrial Properties (IIPR) – This is my favorite “picks-and-shovels” play. A cannabis-focused REIT that buys specialized cultivation/processing facilities and leases them to state-licensed operators. They collect rent (many leases are triple-net), and rescheduling → 280E relief → tenants have stronger balance sheets → lower credit risk for IIPR. It’s essentially a way to get steady cash flow and dividends from the cannabis boom without plant-touching exposure. --- What I’m hunting next I want more U.S. pharma/ancillary exposure that will benefit from: Schedule III rescheduling (banking, taxes). FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs being covered under Medicaid/Medicare. Non-plant touching businesses (labs, packaging, compliance, logistics). Names on my radar: Green Thumb Industries (GTBIF) – Large MSO in the U.S. KushCo (KSHB) – Ancillary packaging/compliance. Other U.S. biotechs with cannabinoid pipelines. Raw CBD/hemp oil ≠ reimbursable. FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs = reimbursable. That’s where Zynerba/Harmony fits. Global names like Tilray = diversification. IIPR = steady cash flow, dividends, and less regulatory exposure. Rescheduling + CMS coverage would light up this space, but even before that, IIPR gives real fundamentals that most cannabis tickers lack.

Some-Rent-7742

Everyone focuses on state dispensaries or adult-use legalization. The bigger catalyst is federal: DEA rescheduling to Schedule III → kills the 280E tax stranglehold, improves cash flow for operators, and makes capital easier to raise. FDA-approved cannabinoid drugs → potentially reimbursed by Medicare/Medicaid. CMS already covers FDA-approved cannabinoid meds like Epidiolex (CBD) and dronabinol (THC). That’s a real healthcare market, not just dispensary sales. So I’m aiming for exposure where those two currents overlap: pharma-grade cannabinoids, ancillary infrastructure, and real-estate cash flow.

UsedState7381

MSOS hit $12 when the DEA announced that they were going to reschedule cannabis, this was before the comment period and all the fuckery with those ALJ hearings. $15 is entirely possible.

Kbarbs4421

> Order directing the DOJ and DEA to work together on S3 final will get MSOS to $15, easily. I call bullshit on that. Theoretically possible, yes. Likely? Not really. Easily? Definitely not. I'm not trying to shit on today's euphoria, but some has to remain sober. Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointed and unrealized gains.

UsedState7381

Added a little more MSOS at $4.9 today. I'm being cautiously optimistic, the signal Trump made was loud and clear but we still need something more concrete, that Tweet is still not the determination he said he were going to make, it's only a sign of intent. An announcement of a *positive* S3 determination will get MSOS to $10, pen on paper signing the Executive Order directing the DOJ and DEA to work together on S3 final will get MSOS to $15, easily. The more important take away here is that Trump is NOT asleep at the wheel here like I was fearful that he was. I'm far more confident on S3 now. BTW, Bruiser and the other pumpers are back is back so yeah, everyone here better be careful and try time their dip buys.

Variant_Shades

A video that is very pro hemp CBD. Yes, we know Trump's position on that, he signed the farm bill that legalized it. I just don't understand what is the hold up on the rescheduling process when his DEA appointee was sworn in over 2 months ago.

Variant_Shades

The video is talking about Hemp CBD though. Which is federally legal in the US. What are Trump's thoughts on THC? If he supports rescheduling Cannabis, why not just come out and say it? His DEA director was sworn in back in July.

SwordfishOk504

> They could do more to help the process No. They have literally *nothing* to do with the DEA decision making process and the fact you think they do only highlights people's complete lack of basic knowledge of how their government work.

AverageNo130

S3 doesn't seem highly political because it's in the DEA's lap. So S3 should be approved near term.

hambone_83

When Biden announced it I was 100% confident it would be coming. Now that it's in the rear view mirror I'm 100% confident it was never coming and it was a ploy to bring the issue into the election but never actually be completed during Biden's term. We all blame the DEA for delaying the process which they did. But in fairness the head of the DEA (Milligram) was appointed by Biden. Can you imagine Trump saying he wants rescheduling and Bondi delays it until the election? I can't in good conscious give Biden a pass and blame the DEA when he established who was in charge. If the Biden administration wanted it done it would have gotten done. Whether it was leaning on DEA or just starting the process a lot earlier than they did

four_twenty_4_20

DEA head should have been replaced long before it got to that point. It was clear as day the DEA had no intention of dealing with it before the election. I also don't believe for a second Biden was for it. Others in his,admin were for sure, but I think Biden was only following along because political strategist said it could lead to votes.

KAI5ER

It was 100% coming. The sin the Biden admin committed was delaying it for maximum effect. It gave the DEA an opening to delay beyond the Biden admins control.

Tight_Gold_3457

Just erase the trump haters and focus on facts. They would literally say what ever as long as they show him in the worst light. I’m independent. And most of us can see that trump has a strong chance of pushing this through. Schumer had the floor and brought it up zero times. Biden takes about parsons but didn’t erase the crime so it was me meaningless. Bidens DEA slow rollled and played funny business and did not pass anything. So all talk so far. Trump is also just talk but I’ve have seen when he talks laws happen. I would not bet against him doing an EO, getting DEA to change it, or the AG to change it. Lots of small dimples that it’s happening very soon so my bet is on it happening asap.

Buildsoc

I’m not sure if my comment is visible I can’t find it in the thread, but if you can read this, my thinking is that half the people are telling him to legalize it’s a win-win because voters are for it and it will create tax revenue and it will actually help cut down on the black market and the dangers of putting fentanyl and bad things into something as natural as marijuana. I feel like half the people are telling them this. But the other half are telling him that it would be woke, that legalizing marijuana was Biden‘s idea, that drugs are bad! drugs are the devil! we don’t want more drugs we want less drugs! and I could see him saying either one of these two things. 1. I’m rescheduling marijuana, to S3 but with lots of caveats, we’re gonna go tougher on drugs we’re gonna cut down on the business. We’re going to keep taxing them. We’re gonna not make it easy, eventually we want less drugs, not more. Or 2. After careful consideration, we’ve decided the best interest of children and the American public is to not move marijuana to schedule three and to add more restrictions and power to the DEA and move toward a more all natural world protecting children in a world without any drugs!

Alabugin

The stuff on the street is usually pretty close to "pure" (source: know chemists who test drugs for DEA), except that its racemic (50%levomethamphetamine:50% dextroamphetamine. What's rotting peoples teeth is zero hygine and junky lifestyle (malnourished + nutrient deficient + poor sleep). I suppose the super rich could easily source 100% pure dextroamphetamine. Seems like a lot of work when you can just get a script for pure speed.

figuring_ItOut12

Completely agreed and it’s why I temper my enthusiasm about S3 and recreational. > The hardest fit: dispensaries. The DEA has never licensed retail distribution of controlled substances outside the pharmacy framework. Translating dispensaries into that model would require a regulatory imagination the agency has never demonstrated. More likely, dispensaries will remain outside the DEA orbit, protected by state law but excluded from Schedule III legitimacy.

Many_Easy

I’m saying that it’s less likely that a POTUS with a history of racism, anti-DEA, anti-drugs, anti-history, anti-black people holidays, pro-Confederacy, anti-science, pro-2018 Farm Bill that benefits hemp, pro-Heritage Foundation, etc. unlikely to be a pro-cannabis hero.

ImSomeRandomHuman

> Only, you do have all those things Except we have none of those things, and part of good faith maturity in discussions is being able to acknowledge or concede some or all of your points; otherwise, you engage in bad faith and vainly misconstrue information that can be easily debunked or rectified, providing nothing for your argument. > They're actively attempting to suppress any views that arent MAGA. At worst, this is authoritarian, especially considering how it is being done. Totalitarianism is an entirely different scale. Please understand the difference between these fundamentally different ideologies. > Hyper nationalism: "america 1st, MAGA, dept of war etc..." This isn’t relevant, though tangential. I said individualism comes under absolute erosion in favor of the nation. Not to mention, you examples are comical: “America 1st”, “Make America Great Again”, “Department of War”; the first two are lukewarm patriotic, let alone nationalist or especially hyper nationalist, and the last one isn’t even applicable. > autocracy: Trump alone being trusted to make all the decisions. This is just absolutely false and does not display understanding of how modern political system and the American system of governance functions. The current President may be testing the limits of his power, but he still has them. > Tarriffs He is granted this power in proclaimed emergencies (this is the justification he is using). > hiring/firing in depts Agencies have this power as well, though it is general and can be appealed. > purity tests This refers to how he discerns and decides political appointees, which he has the power to appoint whomever he wished. > demanding full loyalty of governmental workers. The president holds the authority to fire certain governmental workers and officials, and this is reflected in how loyal they are to him or not; not necessarily new for Presidents. > Hypermilitary: threatening an invasion of Canada, Mexico. Panama, Greenland. That is not what “threatens” means. Even then, a simple threat is not indicative or relevant to militarism, especially considering this is not at all new for Presidents. > Dept of war again This is a renaming… > Homeland security dept now has a higher yearly budget than the FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshalls and the federal bureau of prisons COMBINED. You are comparing a department to several small agencies; of course there will be a budget disparity. > DHS budget is higher than most countries' entire military budget lol Because we have orders of magnitude larger of an immigration issue than most countries and orders of magnitudes larger of an economy than most of the world.

Freya_gleamingstar

Only, you do have all those things. They're actively attempting to suppress any views that arent MAGA. And no, spreading covid misinformation and being factchecked by Facebook is not the same. Hyper nationalism: "america 1st, MAGA, dept of war etc..." autocracy: Trump alone being trusted to make all the decisions. Tarriffs, hiring/firing in depts, purity tests, demanding full loyalty of governmental workers. Hypermilitary: threatening an invasion of Canada, Mexico. Panama, Greenland. Dept of war again. Homeland security dept now has a higher yearly budget than the FBI, DEA, ATF, US Marshalls and the federal bureau of prisons COMBINED. DHS budget is higher than most countries' entire military budget lol

Cool_Ad_5101

The DEA is crooked. Unfortunately this should have been completed in 2023. We wasted 2 years of growth and better opportunities for the MSO’s due to their corruption 

AverageNo130

Illicit market is running wild while DEA has conniptions about S3. Is soemthing wrong with this picture?

ComprehensiveKiwi489

Is the NCIA's proposal on asking to have 280E removed, is completely separate from the HHS / DEA re-scheduling process? Can that be done while weed is on S1?

Simplylegalize

Yes. HHS deserves a lot of credit but that was one piece of the puzzle and it doesn’t seem the most important piece because DEA makes final decision. They did come out with a 256 page report supporting the medical use of marijuana in America which is very good for industry in general.

KAI5ER

Have you watched the DEA? They have their best men working on descrambling.

Simplylegalize

Biden was not serious about getting it done. His DEA head was playing games and delaying. It was pretty obvious they were delaying because they didn’t think trumps admin would do anything and Biden didn’t care enough to tell them to step in line and get it done. They dropped the ball on it. But regardless I will still give them some credit for starting it.

Cool_Ad_5101

Agree 100% and the DEA definitely sabotaged 

KAI5ER

The Biden admin gambled by attempting to get rescheduling done right before elections. Instead the DEA delayed.. hell even sabotaged the proceedings in hope of a Trump administration would abandon the endeavor. Here we are.

Odd_Comment345

Here's information on three witnesses to the House Homeland Security hearing tomorrow. Don't expect too much. Rather, it's likely to be a venue for people blocking Trump's path. Below is the position of 3 witnesses on cannabis. (Chat GPT reply) You guys should look it up too and it's easy to see. The more I asked in detail, the more I didn't have any positive things to say. Donnie Anderson – Director, Oklahoma Bureau of Narcotics Anderson emphasizes that while he does not outright oppose marijuana itself, he strongly condemns the widespread abuse of Oklahoma’s medical marijuana program by criminal organizations, particularly Chinese-linked groups. He argues that illicit cultivation and trafficking undermine public safety and require aggressive enforcement and tighter regulation. # Paul J. Larkin – Senior Legal Research Fellow, Heritage Foundation Larkin argues that marijuana legalization—whether for medical or recreational use—has failed to eliminate the illicit market. He warns that legalization has provided opportunities for Chinese organized crime groups to profit, and he stresses the risks to public health, youth, and national security. While he acknowledges that cannabinoids may have legitimate medical applications, he rejects smoked marijuana as a proper form of medicine. # Christopher Urben – Managing Director, Nardello & Co. (former DEA) Urben highlights the role of Chinese criminal networks and cartels in marijuana trafficking and money laundering. His focus is on the links between illicit cannabis markets and transnational organized crime. He does not present marijuana reform as a solution but instead calls for stronger enforcement, financial oversight, and international cooperation to curb illicit networks.

SwordfishOk504

Archived here: https://archive.is/2SR2N Some key points: Rescheduling would mean many additional strict rules American cannabis producers will have to adhere to: >If cannabis is moved to Schedule III, the implications are profound. It would acknowledge cannabis’s medical use and lower abuse potential, unlocking relief from IRS 280E tax penalties, improving banking access, and expanding research opportunities. But it would definitely not legalize recreational cannabis nationwide. States would still govern access, DEA oversight would remain, and businesses would face the daunting task of complying with FDA standards and pharmaceutical-level GMP requirements. Rescheduling is a step forward—but not the final destination. >The reality, however, is that rescheduling isn’t something a president can simply declare. The process requires coordinated evaluations from HHS and FDA, followed by DEA rulemaking and a public comment period. Legal challenges are likely, and procedural snags already delayed the Biden-era effort. Trump’s statement that a decision could come “in the next few weeks” is aspirational at best. >The main point here is that rescheduling is not legalization. It’s not even a clear invitation to participate in a normalized federal marketplace. Instead, it’s a reclassification that drags the cannabis sector out of the shadows of total prohibition and into a pharmaceutical-style framework. That means **DEA registration, FDA oversight, and full compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)**. For an industry built on entrepreneurial grit, cultural rebellion, and patchwork state rules, the compliance reality is going to feel like a sharp turn in the music.

SwordfishOk504

>A Judge ruled the DEA was interfering via various tactics. Interference was the claim made in the Village Farms International/ Hemp for Victor suit. As a result of that accusation, a DEA judge ruled that the DEA made a mistake in its presentation of witnesses. There was no ruling of "interference".

manualCAD

The DEA is a part of the executive branch of government who's ultimate boss is the president.

skyplt29

A Judge ruled the DEA was interfering via various tactics. Unfortunately that Judge retired. DEA was stalling all the way, including purposefully deliberating on the comments period (where I believe over 70 percent of respondents were in favor of legalization) and not allowing certain companies to be on the advisory board. It was very one sided. This whole thing has been one end run after another with a very strong undercurrent of interference.

SwordfishOk504

How was the DEA interfering and what power did the WH have to do something about it?

OkBroccoli6524

That’s not true, you had a DEA interfering and the administration did nothing about it. Dems are all talk with “Legalization”. It’s been a dangling carrot.

KAI5ER

# Key points * **Why it matters:** Schedule III acknowledges medical use and lowers abuse classification; symbolism aside, it could unlock capital and legitimacy—but with heavy federal controls. * **Not legalization:** Adult-use remains state-governed. Federal oversight would sit **on top of** state rules, creating a dual-regime many small operators will struggle to navigate. * **Compliance burden:** Expect **DEA licenses**, meticulous inventory controls, **cGMP/QMS**, validated processes, stability data, and disciplined labeling/claims at FDA standards. * **Process reality:** A president can’t “flip a switch.” HHS/FDA evaluation, DEA rulemaking, comments, and probable legal challenges mean timing is uncertain despite political signals. * **Global lessons:** Germany and Canada show **EU-GMP/Pharma-grade** regimes shrink the field and raise costs; Morocco shows legacy producers need capital/partners to survive. * **State–federal friction:** Conflicting standards (packaging, claims, distribution) will create **operational gray zones** until clear federal guidance arrives. * **Economics:** Compliance costs (facilities, staff, audits, systems) are **millions**—driving **M&A**, PE involvement, and potential pharma entry. # Author’s thesis Rescheduling is the **overture** to a pharma-style framework. Success hinges on operators embracing compliance as the price of legitimacy; resistance risks being left behind.

AverageNo130

The DEA recently announced the conclusion of a weeklong operation that targeted the Sinaloa cartel, one of the most powerful drug cartels. 

TobiasBloyd

In case Reddit scrubs the hyperlink, search: “President Trump Clears the Path for Medical Marijuana Reform - Now Will DEA's Terry Cole Act?

TobiasBloyd

In case Reddit scrubs the hyperlink, search: “President Trump Clears the Path for Medical Marijuana Reform - Now Will DEA's Terry Cole Act?”

TobiasBloyd

In case Reddit scrubs the hyperlink, search: “President Trump Clears the Path for Medical Marijuana Reform - Now Will DEA's Terry Cole Act?”

KAI5ER

This is probably the correct answer. The head of the DEA is rounding up immigrants.. I don't think they are concerning themselves about rescheduling right now.

Resi86

I vaguely remember something about a 30 day timeline. Maybe someone else has more insight. It really depends on how it is announced though. If he says “I’m instructing Pam Bondi to finalize the ruling immediately” vs “I am supportive of a reschedule to 3 and asking the DEA to expedite the process that’s already in motion” those are 2 very different things. Who knows, I would bet (and have) that he forgoes standard operating procedures

SwordfishOk504

> It's a chance to gloat on a broken Democrat promise. lmao. It was Biden who started this process. No promise was broken. Just because the DEA didn't complete it before the election doesn't make it a broken process. It just makes you woefully uninfo0rmed about how these processes work. These silly team sport American partisan allegiances make no sense in the context of this market. Trump might reschedule, he might not. But saying this is a broken promise is ridiculous.

Tiaan

The "FUD" was that MM tried to mislead readers into thinking that the rescheduling order was withdrawn alongside those other rules, but the white house specifically clarified this was not the case: > A White House official told Marijuana Moment after this story was initially published that the new action “should not be interpreted as a withdrawal of the rescheduling proposal but rather a withdrawal of the Analytical Labs and Hemp [notice of proposed rulemaking] as listed.” Why would the white house feel the need to specifically clarify that rescheduling was not included in the withdrawn rules? They could've just said nothing on the matter Those other rules were not "part of working towards rescheduling." In fact, they were permanently kept as "draft" rules for years with zero progress and were used by the DEA to continually delay requests under the guise of "rulemaking in progress" > "This DOJ notice proves what we've said for years: the DEA kept MMJ and other companies in limbo by pointing to phantom rulemakings. Those rules will be withdrawn. There are no more excuses," said Duane Boise , President & CEO of MMJ BioPharma. Read more about it here: https://www.newswire.com/news/feds-move-to-axe-key-dea-marijuana-rules-clearing-the-way-for-mmjs-fda

ApostleThirteen

I had just seen the National Register notification that mentioned that "1117-AB77 DEA Analytical Labs and Hemp." and "1117-AB83 DEA Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion.", which were both under the 2022 Cannabis/Cannabinoid Research Expansion Act were being "cancelled" or rather, they were withdrawing the proposed rule(s) around the act. This was all part of working towards rescheduling, making it easier for researchers, etc... But yeah, it's "nothing".... This was published yesterday. Sept. 11... it's not "FUD" unless the Federal Register is now publishing "FUD", and there wasn't really anything about it in the daily thread. I don't read MM, so I couldn't really even guess what they wrote.

Own_Fold_5212

We’ve all been wrong for so long 😂 What’s hard to predict is if Trump will expect his team to shred process recklessly like he usually does to get it done fast. Keep in mind there’s already been a public comment period, and the hearing isn’t mandatory (at discretion of DEA). So the DEA could feasible start by saying they’re going to do this, publish a final rule, and then there’s the courts where it can be challenged with lawsuits. I don’t think the timeline will be restricted much by the DEA (assuming Trump does want it). All of that could be done in months (we’ll say 3 to 6 months from today). What sucks is how lawsuits will hold it up for awhile or if they can be steamrolled.

infinite_cura

Ok. There are so many oldies here who have been here thru a lot. So, share with us. If DJT or AG says S3 is good, how long does it take from that point to it actually becomes S3? I will go first - min 2 years or before the midterm. Search up "THE DEA’S RULE TO RESCHEDULE CANNABIS TO SCHEDULE III: PROCESS AND TIMELINE"

Ok-Replacement9595

The proposed rule was published by AG Garland, and the public comment period has taken place. If you check the statute, the AG has equal authority to commense the rescheduling. Those steps took place without DEA signing off, which technically is entirely possible. All that is left to do is publish the final rule, or not. Also there was a time frame after the comment period that had long since lapsed.

infinite_cura

* **Cannabis rescheduling to Schedule III requires DEA action**, even after Trump calls for it. * **HHS review is already complete** — DEA has the recommendation. * Remaining steps: 1. DEA publishes proposed rule. 2. Public comment period (30–60 days). 3. DEA reviews and issues final rule. 4. Possible legal challenges could delay further. * **Timeline:** * Best case: \~5–6 months. * Normal case: \~9–12 months. * With lawsuits: could stretch longer. Realistically, final rescheduling wouldn’t be effective until **mid-to-late 2027** at the **earliest**.

Own_Fold_5212

Yeah, that’s where Trump is such an X Factor. If he asks for something he circumvents all process (needed or not). Rescheduling also isn’t something where he’s going to be fought by the democrats or voters on it at scale. He’s overstepped his authority on a lot of changes he’s pushed, rescheduling isn’t really an overstep when he can in fact just work through the federal agencies on it without any road blocks. He’s also not someone who lets subordinates think for themselves 😂. So if he wants to do it and DOJ and DEA are dragging feet for bad reasons that won’t fly.

infinite_cura

not a popular post, but even if he says 'ok S3' it takes several years to get it done as it requires all the procedural steps in the DEA. Guess how many times you will get fucked by everyone meanwhile.

KAI5ER

Oh I think they did. But they played by the rules and were hands off in the decision by the HHS and DEA. The problem is/was the DEA.

pop2012

He can tell his appointed DEA head to cancel the ALJ hearings and move to reschedule with the threat of firing him if he doesn't. Both a legal pathway, and one that feels very normal for this administration.

four_twenty_4_20

If Biden truly wanted it done, it would have been done. He could have easily installed a new DEA head when it was obvious that the one in place had no intention of following through.

KAI5ER

Hold on, we **did** complain about how shitty the Bidens attempt at rescheduling was. They attempted to time it to coincide with elections but failed to factor in the unwillingness/ ineptitude of the DEA to complete it. If The Biden admin started the process sooner we wouldn't be having this discussion.

SwordfishOk504

> Wow.. it's obvious that you have no clue what a strawman argument is given that there were zero strawman arguments in my comment. Given you've not even attempted to rebut my claim, I could easily point this accusation back at you. Especially since all you've done here is mock me, not actually engage in the debate. Your arguments were straw men because you misrepresented their points and then countered those misrepresentations rather than their actual argument. I'll go point by point: >1) The DEA head excluded cannabis from their list of enforcement priorities that came out several months ago. This is a straw man because their argument has no bearing on said DEA decision. >Yes, most Americans approve of being tough on crime, just like how most Americans approve of relaxing cannabis laws. Americans approving of relaxing cannabis laws is not a rebuttal to any point they made. This would only be a viable counterpoint if the OP had argued Trump won't legalize because Americans oppose it. >3) Yes Mike Tyson and Roger Stone are not Maga Bros This part isn't a strawman, it's just a blatant, absurd lie.

Tiaan

It's nice that you're attempting to be realistic but there's some big flaws in your take here: 1) The DEA head excluded cannabis from their list of enforcement priorities that came out several months ago. This same DEA head was tasked with leading the "crime cleanup" initiative in Washington DC. All cannabis-related efforts that we've seen so far from the DEA and DOJ are against illegal chinese growers and farms using illegal workers for labor, not against legal regulated businesses. 2) Yes, most Americans approve of being tough on crime, just like how most Americans approve of relaxing cannabis laws. I fully agree that as a populist-focused administration, the Trump admin considers public approval when making these decisions, but these are not in conflict with each other. It does not send mixed messages to be "tough on crime" while simultaneously working to reschedue cannabis so that it can be regulated and further taken out of the black market. 3) I don't know what you mean by the "bro" faction of MAGA... I don't see Mike Tyson or Roger Stone as being "MAGA bros" - Roger Stone was literally just in the oval office with Trump this weekend right after airing his podcast about how Trump should reschedule it. Furthermore, the core arguments pushed by the MAGA side on this issue have been how this is an 80/20 issue in terms of public support, how this benefits veterans and those seeking to use cannabis for medical use, how this hurts the cartels/black market and allows for more research. Everything here seems consistent with the above It's good to be critical but I think you may be missing the forest for the trees quite a bit here

KAI5ER

Trump can *announce intent* to move cannabis to Schedule III, but legally it still requires DEA’s final rulemaking. The “500K jobs and rate cut timing” theory is mostly political speculation. it’s true that optics matter, but the Fed won’t base monetary policy on cannabis rescheduling. The key tell is the **Federal Register publication** until that’s live, it’s all theater.

WollopDollop

Rescheduling is out of HHS's hands at this point, unless Trump/DEA takes an action to go backwards. What were you expecting to be asked?