DEA

SailMaleficent6183

Not for us. ALJ and DEA are running independent of the White House, congress etc

cobaltbluedaman

Double then. Cause you got inheritance too Mr. DEA

cobaltbluedaman

Inheritance from SEC AND DEA

Temporary-Alarm-744

Bro where have you been that’s been around for a decade and calling it gas station heroine is DEA propaganda 

UsedState7381

Has anyone seen the damn DEA's judge?

lifetwoshort

Not exactly. Still need the DEA to make it official. A positive S3 recommendation from ALJ could still be viewed as suspect. The language and bias matter a great deal. A flat out S3 is a win. An S3 with prejudice of any kind I would watch for the rug pull. Keep the hemp card alive also. So many pieces that are unsettled.

Kutukuprek

The COAO Act is a disappointing piece of legislation, but if Trump & Republicans holding all 3 of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives + appointment of the DOJ and the DEA administrator doesn't yield a rescheduling in the next 50 days, who can do anything for the sector? Only weak administrations can't make this happen when you hold all the relevant arms of government.

lifetwoshort

I get the emotion in that statement, however my discipline and patience has allowed me to accumulate 3x my GTI shares since Trump announced S3. It’s totally manipulated until S3 is officially announced by the DEA.

1-800-YOLO

The reason I mention subs almost everyday is because I'm like 70% ported into INDV since late may 2025  When I'd buy vape juice I watched the explosion of the synthetic kratom on the shelves and read into it and it's like the Crack of opiates, kicks in crazy fast, 2hr high, horrible withdrawals, and people use subs to quit  The DEA just schedule 1'd a bunch of kratom alkaloids and 7oh is next, been waiting since july 2025 for this ban  INDV is doing a merger with another bio company rn and that's kinda skewed my thesis but im still holding strong for at least the $8.47 per share dividend coming up  🤷‍♂️ now you know lol 

1-800-YOLO

My dawg!  The reason I mention subs almost everyday is because I'm like 70% ported into INDV since late may 2025  When I'd buy vape juice I watched the explosion of the synthetic kratom on the shelves and read into it and it's like the Crack of opiates, kicks in crazy fast, 2hr high, horrible withdrawals, and people use subs to quit  The DEA just schedule 1'd a bunch of kratom alkaloids and 7oh is next, been waiting since july 2025 for this ban  INDV is doing a merger with another bio company rn and that's kinda skewed my thesis but im still holding strong for at least the $8.47 per share dividend coming up  🤷‍♂️ now you know lol 

Uiooplmmao

After the ALJ recommendation, the next step is the DEA's final ruling, but look at how long that entire timeline drags out—is an ALJ recommendation alone even going to move the stock? Sure, Open Interest is high, TRUL has been running since April, and there are plenty of macro events lined up this week. But let's be brutally honest: when you look at a company like Jazz Pharmaceuticals that actually secured legitimate FDA approval, these weed companies have absolutely zero shame.

ENTRAPM3NT

As a trader who has made money on always every weed hype cycle none of that matters to me and has very little to do with the share price but to each their own. Tilray will continue to move sideways and down until ALJ makes their recommendations likely this month followed by the DEA making their final decesion. These 2 things alone are enough to pump the stock. They also have earnings in 3 weeks and it should include the world cup beer profits. The delution and poor ceo decisions are already priced in. The stock is primed for a short squeeze as well with almost 20% short float. If for some reason you gold through all that dont sell I think eventully big pharma will buy them out, at what price idk. Simon as already hinted this multiple times.

phantom_diorama

And, one last thing I promise I will not annoy you like this more Reading the short introduction on the link below it seems like Trump just kept the Biden directed rescheduling going. Biden told HHS while he was still in office in late 2022 to start doing it. HHS told the DEA in late 2023 to reschedule. DEA prosed a rule in May 2024 to reschedule. December 2025 Trump basically says Hey lets do this! Then... >On April 23, 2026, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche issued an order which (1) immediately placed both FDA-approved products containing marijuana and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license in Schedule III, and (2) provided for initiation of an expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III to begin on June 29, 2026. https://moritzlaw.osu.edu/research/federal-marijuana-rescheduling-process-and-impac

Silver-Pomelo-9324

So I hate Trump but ordering the DEA to reschedule medical marijuana to Schedule III is something that he's actually done. There is also a separate rescheduling order for all marijuana that is tied up by anti Marijuana advocates in court.

Russticale

SPY slow leak this morning.  Does cannabis relate to macro these days?    Is this the breakdown of Tlrv, which being 30% of the etf scares me.  Position accordingly - i see a fade until the DEA Admin goes public with their reschedule recommendation.  

fuentescoffee

On the recommendation timing a few of you are circling — worth separating the documents, because they're getting priced as one event and they aren't one event. The evidentiary record in the broader proceeding closed on August 17. Post-hearing briefs were the last filing anyone could make. What's left is a recommended decision from DEA Chief ALJ Derek Julius, and no rule imposes a deadline on him — the "late 2026" numbers going around are trade-press forecasts, not docketed dates. Then the part that gets skipped: the recommendation isn't the decision. It goes to the Administrator, who holds final authority, and publication follows that. A lot of the opposition's hearing strategy read like building an appellate record rather than persuading the judge, so a court challenge after the Administrator acts is close to a given either way. So it's three sequential events — recommendation, final action, publication — and none of the three is on a calendar right now. Worth being precise about which one you're actually waiting on.

TwoDrunkKittens

Where is everyone looking to see the ALJ recommendation (besides twitter)? Will it be on the DEA website? Federal Register? Will the recommendation from the ALJ to the DEA even be public? Thanks!

fuentescoffee

Worth flagging for anyone reading this as one more store on the pile: Georgia stopped being the market most people still have in their heads about ten weeks ago. SB 220 took effect July 1. The 5% THC cap is gone, replaced by a 12,000mg cumulative possession ceiling, and flower and vaporizers are on the menu for patients 21+ — smoking botanical cannabis is still not permitted, so inhalation is vape-only. Qualifying conditions widened at the same time: lupus, HIV and IBD added, and the "end-stage" limiter stripped from cancer, MS and Parkinson's. That last one is the change most likely to actually move the registry. So a Georgia store opened this month isn't comparable to one opened last year — different basket, different eligible pool. The number I'd want here is same-store growth at the existing Georgia locations since July 1, not the footprint count. One thing that cuts against footprint framing generally: post-rescheduling, licensed independent pharmacies with DEA registration can dispense in Georgia, and Trulieve said on July 1 it was already supplying a dozen-plus. If that channel scales, owned stores stop being a clean proxy for Georgia share.

fuentescoffee

u/Own_Fold_5212's parenthetical is doing more work than the "observing developments" line everyone's quoting. "Recognizing they restructured to do so" *is* the mechanism. Look at what the FAQ path actually asks for: register with DEA under the April order, produce an opinion of counsel that the operations comply, and then **not** consolidate the federally illegal activities in your SEC filings. That's built to function whether or not broad rescheduling ever lands. It's a workaround, not a waiting room — which is why I'd be cautious reading "observing developments" as a signal about where the DEA process ends up. An exchange can print that sentence for years. It also means the binding constraint is financial rather than legal. April moved two categories: marijuana in an FDA-approved drug product, and marijuana under a qualifying state medical license. Adult-use didn't move. So for most US operators, deconsolidating means taking the majority of revenue out of the consolidated statements and listing the medical entity plus an unconsolidated stake in the rest — and what's left still has to clear initial listing standards on its own numbers. So the thing worth modeling isn't whether Nasdaq is watching. It's which operators have a medical-licensed revenue share big enough to survive the subtraction.

KAI5ER

A **new boogieman** I just thought of. Everyone's hoping S3 hits by midterms. But what happens if its slightly off? The new risk is urgency dies after the election. Cole still hasn't signed. No political win to chase, and it becomes *"we'll get to it after X".* Just like the old DEA.

Loose-Dream7901

You’re conflating what the law is today with what Nasdaq’s framework permits if federal law changes. “Nasdaq is observing developments in this space, including the scheduled administrative hearing and proposed rulemaking by the DEA, and will provide updates as those administrative processes advance.” Specifically proposed rule making by the DEA including the schedule administrative hearing. The hearing in which is pushing full broader legalization from S1 to S3. If they were fighting for purely medicinal Trulieve would have been unable to list i.e violating existing standards. Selective reading on display

SuzyCreamcheezies

This pretty much says that a company can list on NASDAQ if they register with the DEA, are compliant with the FDA and follow federal law, which is... not surprising? In fact, the below text says that companies will need to deconsolidate adult use, much like Trulieve has. **"Nasdaq has observed situations where a company has an economic stake in an entity engaged in federally illegal marijuana activities or derives revenue based on agreements with such an entity.  Where such a company otherwise satisfies all applicable listing requirements, provides an Opinion that concludes that the relationship is in compliance with the DOJ Order and applicable requirements of the CSA, and the company does not consolidate the federally illegal marijuana activities in its consolidated financial statements in their SEC filings, the economic stake or agreement does not preclude listing on Nasdaq."** I still think you are "inherently incorrect" about the broader rescheduling language from the DOJ. How can you mirror licensing and registration for adult use when schedule 3 specifically relates to medical and research only? Don't you find it odd that the DOJ goes into such detail in terms of medical regulation, but says nothing about adult use? Almost as if it's not part of the plan?

Loose-Dream7901

Congress & Senate do not decide this process. Broader rescheduling is under AG Todd Blanche. All the DEA has to do is change cannabis broadly from S1 to S3, and mirror the same licensing registration process that exists for medical. The key is there needs to be federal compliance attached to S3 Per the NASDAQ Listing Application: **“Nasdaq is observing developments in this space, including the scheduled administrative hearing and proposed rulemaking by the DEA, and will provide updates as those administrative processes advance.”** So again, your point inherently incorrect mixed with now both DOJ release and NASDAQ official language which confirm this hearing is a dynamic consideration else it would be stated clearly. Here is the detailed application summary: “As noted in FAQ [1474](https://listingcenter.nasdaq.com/Material_search.aspx?materials=1474&mcd=LQ&criteria=2&cid=120%2C1%2C145%2C108%2C157%2C14%2C22%2C142%2C29%2C107%2C34%2C37%2C38%2C45%2C16%2C110%2C52%2C71%2C156%2C69%0A%0A), Nasdaq will only list companies whose activities are legal under applicable federal law or the applicable laws in the jurisdiction(s) where the company operates.  Where a company operates in jurisdictions where cannabis, including marihuana (referred to as “marijuana” herein) as defined in the U.S. Controlled Substances Act (the “CSA”), is legal, such company is eligible for listing (provided, of course, the company otherwise satisfies all applicable listing requirements). On April 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a final Order (the “DOJ Order”) rescheduling medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA.  While this rescheduling did not legalize marijuana, the DOJ Order did create a path for state-licensed medical marijuana companies to operate in compliance with federal law by registering with the DEA.  A company that follows that registration path would be eligible to list if it can provide Nasdaq with an opinion of counsel from a law firm, acceptable to Nasdaq, with expertise in controlled substance regulatory compliance confirming that the company operates in compliance with the DOJ Order and applicable requirements of the CSA (an “Opinion”).  At this time, federally illegal marijuana (*e.g.*, non-medical or other “adult use” activities) remains a Schedule I controlled substance.  As such, companies whose activities include federally illegal marijuana without having obtained appropriate authorizations (*e.g.*, FDA/DEA approvals) are currently ineligible to list.  Nasdaq has observed situations where a company has an economic stake in an entity engaged in federally illegal marijuana activities or derives revenue based on agreements with such an entity.  Where such a company otherwise satisfies all applicable listing requirements, provides an Opinion that concludes that the relationship is in compliance with the DOJ Order and applicable requirements of the CSA, and the company does not consolidate the federally illegal marijuana activities in its consolidated financial statements in their SEC filings, the economic stake or agreement does not preclude listing on Nasdaq. Pursuant to Nasdaq rules, listing determinations are made on the basis of information filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Where a newly listing company previously included federally illegal marijuana activities in its financial statements filed with the SEC, the company will have to include the complete deconsolidated financial information in an SEC filing for Nasdaq to rely upon for listing approval.  In addition, the company will have to represent in such SEC filing that its financial statements will not present the federally illegal marijuana activities on a consolidated basis in the company’s future SEC filings, unless the federal legal status of such currently federally illegal marijuana activities has changed such that the company can provide an updated Opinion. Nasdaq has historically permitted the listing of companies following applicable DEA and FDA rules for medical research and pharmaceutical development involving marijuana-derived products. The rescheduling expands opportunities for such research and development, and companies engaged in these activities continue to be eligible for listing. Nasdaq is observing developments in this space, including the scheduled administrative hearing and proposed rulemaking by the DEA, and will provide updates as those administrative processes advance. Listed companies with questions on these matters should engage early with their Nasdaq Listing Qualifications representative to discuss their specific facts and circumstances.  Companies considering listing should contact L

Many_Easy_V2

Enough of the BS, magical thinking, confirmation biases, not verifying ChatGPT, or only believing an answer you want. **As of August 28, 2026, the broader Schedule III rescheduling has NOT been finalized or approved.** We are still waiting for **DEA’s TerryCole** to make the final determination. And even that is preceded by several steps and time. Folks, stick to ACTION and substantiated FACTS. It’s about getting to the facts and not about winning an argument or spinning one.

Logansquarekushgod

`“US pot companies… can access capital markets as long as they register with the DEA as a medical company.”`

volckerwasright

"The heightened interest in IPOs for Pot Inc., comes after federal barriers that have long blocked access to banking services are beginning to topple. In December, a Trump executive order moved weed to a Schedule 3 controlled substance, meaning it’s no longer on par with heroin and can be used for medicinal purposes. Then came the April codification of the EO by the DOJ and the DEA into law." This is, at best, extremely misleading, and at worst a deliberate lie. Gasparino must be bagholding!

TwoDrunkKittens

anyone know where to check for the ALJ recommendation? I don't mean third party like twitter, but what the original source, DEA.gov? Federal Register?

Loose-Dream7901

There’s a bit more of a process after the judges recommendation. The difference this stage is a judiciary review. Once the recommendation is reached, it falls into the hands of the DEA who are the ones pushing it forward. So yes, not immediately.. but Trulieve will absorb harvest back upon adult use S3 as they will meet regulatory body standards. This is why currently CURA / GTII remain on OTC.

Loose-Dream7901

From the DOJ. The ALJ hearings are broad cannabis rescheduling. The narrative in this chat S3 only applies to medical is not valid. It’s why exchanges allowed Trulieve to list as S3 medical is currently enacted. It’s why GTI / CURA sit waiting from regulators. S3 for adult use is included in the ALJ hearings Per DOJ going into these June 29 hearings: Separately, the Department announced procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Under the prior administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2024, followed by a notice of hearing on August 29, 2024. Upon further review, the DEA is withdrawing the prior notice of [hearing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437811/dl) and terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation. This action will accelerate the administrative process, include firm deadlines, and allow DEA to proceed in the most expeditious manner consistent with federal law.

Loose-Dream7901

Again, literally from the justice department going into these hearings. You are incorrect. Separately, the Department announced procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Under the prior administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2024, followed by a notice of hearing on August 29, 2024. Upon further review, the DEA is withdrawing the prior notice of [hearing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437811/dl) and terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation. This action will accelerate the administrative process, include firm deadlines, and allow DEA to proceed in the most expeditious manner consistent with federal law.

Loose-Dream7901

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-places-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-products-containing-marijuana You’re incorrect literally from the Justice Department going into these hearings Separately, the Department announced procedural updates to expedite the ongoing rulemaking process required to fully remove marijuana from Schedule I and place it into Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Under the prior administration, a notice of proposed rulemaking was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2024, followed by a notice of hearing on August 29, 2024. Upon further review, the DEA is withdrawing the prior notice of [hearing](https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1437811/dl) and terminating those proceedings in order to move more efficiently toward the completion of marijuana’s complete redesignation. This action will accelerate the administrative process, include firm deadlines, and allow DEA to proceed in the most expeditious manner consistent with federal law.

Loose-Dream7901

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-places-fda-approved-marijuana-products-and-products-containing-marijuana Yes the entire ALJ hearing is broad rescheduling. Literally from the justice department website. “Medical” change from S1 to S3 means there is medical benefits. S1 after all means no medical benefit. I think you’re confused. “In accordance with President Trump’s December 18, 2025, Executive Order on Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research, the Justice Department and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) today announced the issuance of an [order](https://justice.gov/opa/media/1437751/dl) immediately placing both FDA-approved products containing marijuana and marijuana products regulated by a state medical marijuana license in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, as well as the initiation of an expedited administrative hearing process to consider the broader rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. The [new hearing](https://justice.gov/opa/media/1437741/dl), beginning June 29, 2026, will provide a timely and legally compliant pathway to evaluate broader changes to marijuana’s status under federal law. Together, these actions provide immediate and long-term clarity to researchers, patients, and providers alike while still maintaining strict federal controls against illicit drug trafficking.”

HigherGroundHoonigan

My guy. I'm not sure what the point of YOUR post is. You acknowledge that ChatGPT can't tell the future. You acknowledge that there are aspects such as the judge's political leanings/impartiality. Though you seem to have completely neglected the DEA administrator (The judge doesn't decide - he recommends. The DEA Administrator can then still do w/e they want). Yet you still want it as a "data point". The only thing worse than no data, is BAD data. And asking ChatGPT what it thinks would be be bad data, because it's not something objective. You aren't asking ChatGPT "What is the process like", or "Historically, how long does it take", or "Summarize the transcripts". You're asking a machine to "form an opinion" about something that not even a person next to the process could predict with any certainty due to the personal and subjective nature of it. Asking it to predict the outcome as a "data point" is no better than asking it to assign each outcome to a dice roll and then do a random number generation.

StarMaker7

Yes, Green Thumb Industries can potentially uplist to a major U.S. exchange like the NYSE or NASDAQ once federal cannabis rescheduling to Schedule III (S3) is fully finalized and implemented, though the exact timing depends on exchange policies and further regulatory clarity. \[[1](https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/rescheduled-but-not-listed-the-outlook-for-us-cannabis-companies-on-major-exchanges.html), [2](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/TLRY/pressreleases/3665559/should-you-buy-hold-or-sell-gtbif-stock-post-q2-earnings-release/)\] Management for [Green Thumb Industries](https://investors.gtigrows.com/) has stated that it remains in active discussions with major U.S. exchanges and intends to pursue an uplisting for the entire company when federal rules provide sufficient clarity. While the DEA's move to place cannabis under Schedule III reduces barriers—such as eliminating the burdensome Section 280E tax restrictions—major exchanges and brokerages still evaluate compliance, anti-money laundering policies, and federal banking frameworks before approving listings. \[[1](https://www.akerman.com/en/perspectives/rescheduled-but-not-listed-the-outlook-for-us-cannabis-companies-on-major-exchanges.html), [2](https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/green-thumb-just-made-unprecedented-094500163.html), [3](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/stocks/TLRY/pressreleases/3665559/should-you-buy-hold-or-sell-gtbif-stock-post-q2-earnings-release/)\]

HigherGroundHoonigan

That's.... not how it works. The hearings involved the government (DEA) taking the stance/position that it SHOULD be rescheduled and presented evidence as such. Groups were invited to argue/present evidence that opposes the government's stance. Feeding those transcripts into an LLM would be akin to feeding all the details of the OJ trial into an LLM and asking which direction it will go. It is a human individual making a decision on their own whether to recommend the rescheduling action or not. THEN, it's another and separate person(administration) that decides whether to A.) Follow that recommendation or B.) Do what it wants and ignore it which it is legally allowed to do.

hangingconduit

2,533 pages just to confirm the federal government can turn “move weed to Schedule III” into an 11-day courtroom miniseries. Still, the transcript could be useful. especially if it shows DEA’s own record supports rescheduling. but this is procedural progress, not the finish line. Need the judge’s recommendation and then the final rule before popping the champagne.

mfairview

AI Research 1. Final Adult-Use Rescheduling OrderExpected Outcome: Following the public release of the 2,533-page DEA transcript on August 25, 2026, Chief ALJ Derek Julius is highly expected to formally recommend shifting adult-use cannabis to Schedule III. DEA Administrator Terry Cole will then issue the final agency rule. This will effectively eliminate the 280E tax penalty for recreational multi-state operators (MSOs), mimicking the tax relief given to state-licensed medical operators.When to Expect It: Q4 2026 (October – November). Following the closing briefs from designated hearing participants, the administrative transition is expected to conclude before the winter recess. 2. SAFE Banking Act of 2026 (H.R. 9471) Committee VotesExpected Outcome: The bill faces a deeply divided Congress. However, because President Trump explicitly issued an Executive Order backing federal cannabis reclassification, the bill has a high probability of passing out of the House Financial Services and Judiciary Committees. It is expected to clear the House floor but face heavy structural gridlock in the Senate.When to Expect It: November – December 2026. Expect legislative momentum to peak during the post-election "lame duck" congressional session. 3. Decisions on MSO RICO Class-Action DismissalsExpected Outcome: Federal judges in Illinois and Connecticut are reviewing motions to dismiss Murray v. Cresco Labs and Duke v. Curaleaf. The court is expected to deny the MSOs' motions to dismiss. This will force the cases into discovery over whether MSOs illegally marketed recreational items as having clinical, unapproved medical benefits. Concurrently, Palomar Insurance' parallel lawsuits to completely deny policy coverage for these operators will likely proceed, creating a severe capital strain on corporate legal defense budgets.When to Expect It: Q1 2027 (January – March). Federal docket timelines for complex multi-party RICO actions typically rule on initial motions to dismiss within 6 to 9 months of their initial mid-2026 filing dates. 4. 2018 Farm Bill Hemp Loophole ClosureExpected Outcome: The enforcement date to officially close the structural loophole on unregulated hemp-derived cannabinoids will take effect. This is expected to instantly wipe out nearly 95% of existing synthetically derived or high-THC hemp products from gas stations and bodegas nationwide, consolidating the consumer market directly back into heavily regulated, state-licensed dispensaries.When to Expect It: November 12, 2026 (Locked-in regulatory effective date).

babaganoush-ish

From chatgpt: **My hypothetical Julius ruling** If I actually had to write the bottom line after this record, mine would probably look approximately like this: **FINDINGS** The record establishes that marijuana presents meaningful risks of abuse and adverse health consequences. The evidence further demonstrates substantial variation among marijuana products with respect to potency, formulation, route of administration and dosage. The opponents have presented credible evidence concerning cannabis-use disorder, psychiatric effects, impaired driving, high-potency products and limitations in portions of the medical literature. However, the evidence does not establish that marijuana lacks a currently accepted medical use. HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation concluded otherwise, and the Government presented evidence supporting that determination. The opposing parties identified limitations in that analysis but did not sufficiently undermine its central conclusion. Moreover, evidence concerning the risks associated with marijuana does not, without more, establish that Schedule I remains the appropriate classification. **CONCLUSION** After consideration of the administrative record and the applicable statutory factors, I would recommend that the marijuana presently subject to this proceeding be **transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act**, subject to the regulatory controls applicable under federal law. **But I would attach significant caveats** This is where I think Julius could surprise cannabis investors. A **Schedule III recommendation doesn’t require him to endorse the cannabis industry**. He could write a fairly harsh 100+ page decision cataloguing high-potency THC, psychiatric risks, impaired driving, dependence, questionable medical claims and deficiencies in state regulatory systems… …and still conclude: **Schedule III.** Those two things aren’t contradictory. In fact, after reviewing the testimony, I think that’s one of the more plausible outcomes: **a reluctant, tightly reasoned Schedule III recommendation with extensive findings about marijuana’s risks.** **What could change my 70–80% assessment?** The **post-hearing briefs**. That’s important because Julius’s preliminary order specifically said there would be no oral closing arguments; instead, parties would submit post-hearing briefs under 21 CFR §1316.64. And right now DEA’s public 2026 NPRM page lists all 11 transcripts plus the transcript/post-hearing briefing order, but **does not presently list the parties’ post-hearing briefs themselves**. Those briefs matter because a witness can give persuasive scientific testimony but still lose on the **law**. The briefs are where each side connects the testimony to the CSA and explains why Julius legally can—or cannot—reach Schedule III. So I wouldn’t move my probability substantially higher than \~80% until seeing those arguments. **One more important point** Even if my hypothetical Julius issues: **RECOMMENDATION: Schedule III** that **doesn’t itself reschedule marijuana**. Julius is the ALJ developing the administrative record and recommended findings. The ultimate agency rulemaking still has subsequent steps. DEA describes the process as formal rulemaking involving administrative review after the evidentiary proceeding.

babaganoush-ish

From chatgpt: **My hypothetical Julius ruling** If I actually had to write the bottom line after this record, mine would probably look approximately like this: **FINDINGS** The record establishes that marijuana presents meaningful risks of abuse and adverse health consequences. The evidence further demonstrates substantial variation among marijuana products with respect to potency, formulation, route of administration and dosage. The opponents have presented credible evidence concerning cannabis-use disorder, psychiatric effects, impaired driving, high-potency products and limitations in portions of the medical literature. However, the evidence does not establish that marijuana lacks a currently accepted medical use. HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation concluded otherwise, and the Government presented evidence supporting that determination. The opposing parties identified limitations in that analysis but did not sufficiently undermine its central conclusion. Moreover, evidence concerning the risks associated with marijuana does not, without more, establish that Schedule I remains the appropriate classification. **CONCLUSION** After consideration of the administrative record and the applicable statutory factors, I would recommend that the marijuana presently subject to this proceeding be **transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act**, subject to the regulatory controls applicable under federal law. **But I would attach significant caveats** This is where I think Julius could surprise cannabis investors. A **Schedule III recommendation doesn’t require him to endorse the cannabis industry**. He could write a fairly harsh 100+ page decision cataloguing high-potency THC, psychiatric risks, impaired driving, dependence, questionable medical claims and deficiencies in state regulatory systems… …and still conclude: **Schedule III.** Those two things aren’t contradictory. In fact, after reviewing the testimony, I think that’s one of the more plausible outcomes: **a reluctant, tightly reasoned Schedule III recommendation with extensive findings about marijuana’s risks.** **What could change my 70–80% assessment?** The **post-hearing briefs**. That’s important because Julius’s preliminary order specifically said there would be no oral closing arguments; instead, parties would submit post-hearing briefs under 21 CFR §1316.64. And right now DEA’s public 2026 NPRM page lists all 11 transcripts plus the transcript/post-hearing briefing order, but **does not presently list the parties’ post-hearing briefs themselves**. Those briefs matter because a witness can give persuasive scientific testimony but still lose on the **law**. The briefs are where each side connects the testimony to the CSA and explains why Julius legally can—or cannot—reach Schedule III. So I wouldn’t move my probability substantially higher than \~80% until seeing those arguments. **One more important point** Even if my hypothetical Julius issues: **RECOMMENDATION: Schedule III** that **doesn’t itself reschedule marijuana**. Julius is the ALJ developing the administrative record and recommended findings. The ultimate agency rulemaking still has subsequent steps. DEA describes the process as formal rulemaking involving administrative review after the evidentiary proceeding.

lifetwoshort

I’m buying more as soon as S3 is recommended by alj. Then I know DEA is a done deal, or I should say, I really believe it enough to bet on it! Good luck.

four_twenty_4_20

>Probably insane spike when Dems take house and senate over the fall? I doubt it. The dems started this process but if they were still in power they would have let the DEA say no to S3 yet again. Sad that it took a dick like trump to ram this through.

1-800-YOLO

I wish the DEA would ban the synthetic kratom already ffs

Zoso619toZoso803

DEA rescheduled!!!!!!!!!

Beastious

They also extended the Jefferies mandate by six months specifically to finish potential deals. That’s his framing. You don’t keep a strategic advisor on the clock to close nothing. The process is live. Then there’s the manufacturing side that keeps getting overlooked. They’re still running a single shift. Packaging is already set up to handle a doubling or tripling of volume. They’re actively evaluating taking over and converting a close by warehouse — a roughly two-year process they’re starting now so the capacity is ready for the next wave of products. That unused capacity, plus the DEA-controlled substance infrastructure and their reputation as a reliable supplier, is exactly the kind of domestic manufacturing asset that becomes more valuable if tariffs on finished generics move forward. It also makes them a more interesting partner or acquisition target for anyone who needs U.S. capacity. That’s not a side note — it’s part of the strategy the board is sitting on. Now look at the warrants through that lens. The overhang everyone treats as pure dilution risk turns into a potential tailwind under the exact scenario management is pointing toward: an uplisting-driven re-rate pulls the warrants into the money, exercise brings in cash, and the share structure gets cleaned up before Nasdaq — which is exactly the condition you want before institutions can buy. The same catalyst that re-rates the stock also resolves the warrant question. They work together. Scoreboard right now: $149M revenue, 77% growth, $49M operating income, debt down to $4.7M — numbers that already clear the Nasdaq bar — plus a CEO-dated uplisting around Feb 2027, an extended and active M&A process, meaningful unused manufacturing capacity that’s being expanded, and a brand negotiation on the anticoagulant that management rates as likely to pull entry to 2028. 

Wide_Gur_9963

Well, so far we got S3 medical. Time will tell on S3 overall. I'll get nervous if mid Sept passes and we get stonewalled. But to my recollection, this DEA (telling the judge they officially recommend S3) is very different from Anne Milgram's DEA.

Own_Fold_5212

Yeah, this is a pretty bad take 😂 No agency under Trump is going “against him”. The DEA made a good case, and the ALJ will make the recommendation for S3. If it stalls, it’s because of lawsuits me thinks. The GOP opposition against this also isn’t a serious threat, thank goodness this is agency driven…the house can’t “ban” or “unban” anything.

vsMyself

I don't get any of this. The DEA wouldn't be doing shit otherwise. Sure it's a lower priority for rec but the schedule 3 has nothing to do with making rec legal

Numerous_Put4717

its ticker is DEA

RJ5R

Tell them you are from the DEA and here to help That usually works

fuentescoffee

Both readings in here are half right, and the missing half is why the tape didn't move. April's order was real but narrow. The DOJ final order of April 22 (effective April 28) moved exactly two things to Schedule III: marijuana in an FDA-approved drug product, and marijuana under a qualifying state-issued **medical** license. Adult-use didn't move and is still Schedule I federally, in every state, including the fully legal ones. That order is final and is not what's in front of the judge. What closed Monday is the separate proceeding on whether to extend rescheduling to the rest. So it isn't "chiseled in stone" — nothing has been decided there yet. What's left is: Chief ALJ Derek Julius drafts a **recommended** decision on no deadline, sends it to the DEA Administrator, who holds the actual decision authority and isn't bound by it, then Federal Register, then near-certain litigation. A lot of the opposition's hearing strategy read like record-building for an appeal, which is what you'd do if you expected to lose at the agency. That's why there's nothing to price. There's no dated catalyst in that sequence — the recommendation lands whenever it lands. If you're modeling it, the line that moves is 280E. It reaches Schedule I and II, not III, so the medical side came out from under it this year and adult-use didn't. Which makes an operator's tax line a **mix** question right now — what share of revenue is medical vs. adult-use, and how defensibly they can allocate shared costs between two federal tax regimes under one roof. That mix is what converges if Julius recommends broader rescheduling and the Administrator adopts it.

heliumbox

You would think if S3 for weed is actually happening, an enormous policy shift for the country, congress would be detailing some regulations. (AI warning: Asked google just few random questions for funzi, as much of a shitshow as I was expecting) Moving recreational (adult-use) cannabis to Schedule III would create a massive legal paradox. By definition, Schedule III substances must have a "currently accepted medical use." [1, 2, 3] If the federal government theoretically moved recreational cannabis to Schedule III without creating a completely new law, recreational sales would not qualify for the medical pathways, meaning recreational dispensaries would become federally illegal Schedule III drug traffickers. [1, 4] The answers to your previous questions change dramatically if applied strictly to a "recreational Schedule III" framework: ## 1. Will recreational qualify for exemptions or pathways? No, not under the existing Schedule III framework. The Justice Department's expedited DEA registration portal exists explicitly because the state-licensed medical programs fulfill the "accepted medical use" requirement. [5, 6, 7] Recreational cannabis, by its very nature, is sold for personal enjoyment, not medical treatment. Because it lacks a medical framework, the DEA cannot issue a "recreational dispensing registration". A recreational dispensary selling a Schedule III drug without a medical prescription is committing a federal felony, much like a store selling unprescribed anabolic steroids or ketamine. [1, 8, 9, 10, 11] ## 2. Will the DEA decide intra-state laws? Yes, much more aggressively. For medical cannabis, the federal government defers heavily to state regulations. For a Schedule III recreational market, the DEA would have a mandate to shut it down. [1, 2, 4, 5, 12] * State vs. Federal Conflict: States could keep their recreational laws on the books, but operators would have zero federal protection. * The Budget Rider Exception: Medical cannabis is protected from federal prosecution by a strict congressional budget rider (the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer amendment). No such budget rider exists to protect recreational cannabis. The DEA would retain full authority to raid recreational facilities, regardless of state law. [1, 13] ## 3. How will vertical integration change? It would collapse completely. Under a strict Schedule III recreational rule, you cannot legally grow or distribute a controlled substance for non-medical use. [1] * If an operator attempted to use the medical DEA registration track to supply a recreational storefront, they would face immediate registration revocation and criminal charges for diverting controlled substances into an illicit market. ## 4. Who will decide taxes? The IRS, and 280E would still apply to recreational lines. [14, 15, 16] * The 280E Trigger: Section 280E penalizes businesses trafficking in Schedule I or Schedule II substances. If cannabis broadly moves to Schedule III, 280E technically lifts for the substance. [17, 18, 19, 20] * The Catch: The IRS code still penalizes the unauthorized trafficking of controlled substances. Because a recreational store cannot get a valid DEA registration to sell a Schedule III drug, their business is technically an "unauthorized distribution enterprise." The IRS would likely argue that recreational revenue is still subject to 280E or similar tax penalties due to its federally illegal operation status. [1, 14, 21] ## 5. Will recreational suddenly need to adhere to all medical drug requirements? Yes, which makes the recreational business model impossible. If a drug is in Schedule III, the Controlled Substances Act dictates it can only be legally possessed via a valid prescription. [1, 8, 22] An adult walking into a recreational dispensary to buy a pre-roll for the weekend cannot present a doctor's prescription or a pharmacist's mandate. Therefore, the business is in total non-compliance with the fundamental mechanics of Schedule III. [1, 8] ## The Bottom Line Schedule III is a medical bucket. If the federal government ever wants to legally accommodate recreational cannabis, it cannot simply change the schedule. Congress must pass an entirely new law to deschedule cannabis completely (like alcohol or tobacco), removing it from the Controlled Substances Act altogether. [1, 3, 23, 24, 25]

UsedState7381

That's the default stance of the DEA in regards to those ALJ hearings BTW, they were the proponent of the rule, same as hearings from last year that got cancelled. In theory this is expected. The "expeditiously" part is what is good looking to me.

Tunmer

Given that the DEA makes the final decision and the judge only makes the recommendation, I think things are looking up. God knows this sector needs some good news

skyplt29

DEA, which is charged with defending the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, said in its brief that “marijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.” The agency noted that under the law it must give “significant deference” to an “extensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties” of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling. “Currently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,” DEA said. “Such practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.” It also said that there is “substantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana’s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II” or Schedule I. “The vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.”

Tunmer

https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-and-anti-marijuana-groups-file-final-briefs-in-hearing-on-trump-administration-rescheduling-proposal/ Looks like positive news to me! “In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to “expeditiously recommend” that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III.”

GeoLogic23

I'm saying that this administration sat on it for a long time before doing anything. Just as long (or longer?) than the previous DEA. What were they doing for all of 2025? Trump doesn't demand recklessly fast results on everything lol just things that take no effort like tearing up other people's work. For example, I am still waiting for the Healthcare plan Trump has promised since 2015. Also still waiting on the day 1 fix for grocery prices. Still waiting on him to prove election irregularities (he's just lying). Did you finally get your Trump phone? Didn't move too quickly on those. Because they actually had to produce something. Trump himself said "a couple weeks" for cannabis a while back and then took how long to do anything? He says a couple weeks to all kinds of stuff. Have you not noticed that? Idk how you're calling out the DEA for 60 days when Trump is Mr. Two Weeks. Again, not saying the DEA aren't going to move quickly from this point onward. But if you actually look at what Trump has done, barely anything that has required real work has ever gotten done quickly. So idk why you'd make the assumption this is going to take the minimum time.

KAI5ER

Agreed. I’ve been very critical of the DEA in the past for exactly that reason. The old DEA seemed perfectly willing to make independent choices based on its own institutional interests and drag this out indefinitely. But this is a very different administration. For good, or mostly worse, Trump demands loyalty and recklessly fast results from the people and agencies beneath him. So I’m not sure the old DEA’s willingness to sit on this tells us much about how quickly the current DEA would move if Trump has actually decided he wants this done

GeoLogic23

This DEA sat on rescheduling for quite a long time before doing anything at all. The HHS review was completed years ago, so they could've done something very early in this term if they wanted to. Not saying they won't move expeditiously, but why make this assumption?

KAI5ER

The Old DEA. 60 days... everything was 60 days. Current establishment I assume will be the minimum required.

Own_Fold_5212

Ahh, I would love to see the markets moved😢 But alas, I think we need at minimum the ALJ recommendation but more likely final rule…everyone in the sector has been consistently shocked by how long and painful this journey has been. The hearing details were shared by attendees. The DEA argued it has medical use benefits (focused on narrow set of conditions) and doesn’t kill anyone (safety). Opponents challenged how the HHS recommendation was reached. At the end of the day the DEA / DOJ / admin are going to try to move it forward. Strongest legal argument against seems to be how HHS reached the conclusion.

Trayeboujee

I believe what your saying is true, but for now What could move the sector is what's actually contained in the briefs today DEA's defense of Schedule III How they address the currently accepted medical use (CAMU) issue How opponents attack HHS's 2023 scientific determination Any indication that the government believes Schedule III is legally defensible Any unexpected concession or weakness in either side's case

Own_Fold_5212

If only haha; today is the due date for post hearing briefs, closing arguments, and final evidence. The judge has to review all of that and come to a recommendation. It’s feasible it could come out in late October to early November but that would be on a “fast timeline”. There’s another 20 day window after the judge recommendation before it goes to DEA. Then they get to look at it all and push the rule. So it really doesn’t seem like the rule will be final before mid terms. I think we all expect the ruling to be S3 overall, but there’s still a lot of uncertainty on timeline.

fuentescoffee

On the "treats it like an industry" framing — there's a concrete test for it, and it's the part of the record that keeps getting compressed into a single event. What DOJ signed in April moved FDA-approved products and state-licensed *medical* cannabis to Schedule III. Adult-use was left in Schedule I pending the DEA administrative hearing that ran June 29 to July 15. That split is the investable part, because it means 280E relief isn't uniform across the group — it tracks each operator's medical mix, so a Florida-weighted book and an adult-use-weighted book are not in the same position. Caveat that matters: the IRS hasn't published guidance on how the split applies in practice, and lawmakers were still asking for it in June, so even the medical side isn't a clean "relief is booked" story yet. What's left is procedural: post-hearing briefs, an ALJ recommended decision, the Administrator's review, then a Final Rule in the Federal Register. Only the Final Rule moves adult-use. I haven't seen a recommendation published — if anyone has, I'd like the cite. For calibration on "expeditious": the last full DEA cannabis hearing in the 1980s ran roughly two years to a recommendation and about two more to a final order. Nobody expects that repeat. But "this administration is friendlier" and "the tax line changes this year" are separate claims, and only the second one shows up in filings.

Fun_Ad527

Is this offer to ACB shareholders just days before the DEA ALJ's due date for a recommended decision on Rescheduling telling, or not?

ChokaMoka1

DEA has entered the chat. 

BarbellPadawan

Nice try DEA, that’s entrapment.

lifetwoshort

I’m not talking that case. I’m not really concerned with the ALJ hearing as the DEA will do what Trump wants.

gotcree

MSOs have no idea how arduous the EU-GMP certification process really is. None of their facilities are built-out to any GACP/EU-GMP specs at the moment. That alone is a $2M-$5M opex investment. They'd still need to get an EU company to sponsor them, they'd send over their own QP, after they've been vetted then they would go to an EU regulator i.e. Germany via one of the various states. Each state is different and have their own, Cologne is very difficult but considered the gold standard. Even then if they were to get to that point, they are so backed up with other companies in Canada and abroad they're backed up 12-18 months before they could make their first visit and assessment. If it get's passed that and there's no major fixes, they'd send someone back again for the final inspection. If it get's past that it'll be another 90 days from there. U.S. regs are still a moving piece at the moment, you have to register with the DEA, get audited by them, approved etc., then move along the process. DEA has mutual recognition with a lot of EU countries, but medical cannabis in Europe only care that you're EU-GMP certified, they're beginning to crack down hard of GMP washing from Portugal. U.S. is 5 years away minimum before any type of exporting in my opinion.

BarbellPadawan

Any DEA agents in here?

UsedState7381

Most people around this space are expecting the judge to submit his recommendation by August 29th, but this date is not set in stone, it could be earlier, right after August 17th or it could be later than August 29th. After that, it's entirely on the the DEA administrator, Terrance Cole, to issue a final rule if he wants to implement S3 for all of cannabis, or keep recreational cannabis as S1 as it currently is. After that, there should be judicial reviews as that's what the prohibitionists are going to be gunning for to stall this out. If the prohibitionists fails on their legal action, S3 should be fully implemented as the new law for cannabis...Timing of that is completely up for guessing, but my guess is by middle of October and not earlier than that.

Own_Fold_5212

What’s a little funny is I do think the DOJ / DEA is moving with all urgency 🤣 But I mean come on, the judge needs a few weeks after Aug 17 to say something…then the DEA even if they’re ready immediately does something on Sep to Oct timeframe That all seems like best case which is hard to get in the world of government… Meanwhile we have hopes but no clue as to how or when shares will appreciate

Thumbszilla

After this week max pain for MSOS is between $3.00 - $4.00 through November 20th. It sure looks like the options market doesn't think we'll have an ALJ / DEA outcome before then, and it's probably correct. [https://optioncharts.io/options/MSOS](https://optioncharts.io/options/MSOS)

AbroadMediocre312

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2026/07/27/operation-southern-spear-has-not-slowed-cocaine-entering-us/ "In a recent assessment reviewed by The Washington Post, DEA analysts found the strikes had failed to affect the supply or price of cocaine in the United States" WHAT HAPPENED TO DEALING WITH THE AFFORDABILITY CRISIS?!

volckerwasright

In reality, SAM is totally locked out of this administration when this time 2 years ago Sabet was schmoozing with Milgram at DEA events.

UsedState7381

*Ahem* https://www.marijuanamoment.net/federal-marijuana-rescheduling-hearing-wraps-up-with-dea-judge-laying-out-next-steps/ 30 days from now we will have the deadline for the ALJ hearings participants to submit briefs  just for closing arguments, after that, if we get a recommendation on the same day, them it will be up for DEA administrator Terrance Cole to publish a final rule. If we get a positive final rule in our favor, then we will look forward to another 30 to 60 days for litigation and judicial reviews. If no delays and everything continues to go as smoothly as it did, everything should be wrapped up by mid October to end of October, again, right on time for midterms. Moreover: >The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn’t apply to Schedule III substances. This doesn't says anything about tax guidance from previous years, but it's not bad to assume that this guidance should only come out after all of the process is over, Treasury has no reason to jump ahead of the final rule here unless THEY DO NOT want to grant relief from previous years.

UsedState7381

I will only believe in this once we get the final rule recommendation and Terrance Cole(DEA administrator) to take up on it.

KAI5ER

And unlike the previous admin. I don't expect the DEA to try and punt it.

skyplt29

Well...it is all guesswork at this point. I have been following closely, so will try and shed light on my 'educated' guess. The hearings just ended. They were closed door. I am shocked by how little coverage it got. Radio silence, even by those (MSOs) who will be impacted. I cannot help but think a 'gag order' was determined to be the best course of action by the CEOs. We've all seen what happens when someone raises Trump's ire. From what little I read, it seems as though the DEA was pretty straightforward about their rationale for S3...medical. I expect it will take at least a month to six weeks. First week of September is what I surmise...but like pretty much everything else in this sector, I vastly underestimated the levels of fuckery that have transpired, from fake walls to sniffer dogs to MSOS landing a penny or two just under max pain week in and week out.

TCNNF_Moon-_

I am guessing ALJ will deliberate and deliver Friday. But with the DEA maybe will be a few more years. Psh

Own_Fold_5212

There was no case for S1 for decades and it stayed there haha There’s a very strong case for S3 (and more) The difference isn’t the evidence, it’s that the DEA is pushing it instead of opposing it When this finally happens idk how I’ll even feel 😂

skyplt29

"Anyone" on this subreddit who suggests "everyone" is doing something clearly does not know "anything" about "everything". I can only speak for "myself" as I don't know "anyone else" on this subreddit...it's not like we all go out to coffee together and discuss weedstocks or meet in someone's basement and do cult things. Nope, just making posts on weedstocks. I've been here since 2018 (in and out of LPs and MSOs as well as MSOS). I have had a few major wins (rode the Constellation 5B in Canopy taking me from 35 a share to 70 a share) and Aphria in 2021 from 8 to 18 (I jumped early on its way to 33...which would equate to 330 pre-split) but I also got burned big time. I was out on margin in anticipation of what was "supposedly" a sure thing (was even reported in the Globe and Mail) with a cigarette company about to do a major investment in Aphria only to get burned by Hindenburg. Then the whole carmalized lungs due to vaping fiasco. I think I can make a qualified guess that most retail investors have moved on to other sectors. Ten years of false hope and rug pulls. Personally, I am checking in far less, but not quite throwing in the towel just yet. I find it unbelievable we are a day before the S3 hearings wrap up and running at such low volume. This was the holy grail in 2021 when Biden got elected. I cannot see what could possibly happen in this sector that would ignite interest to the same levels of 2018 and 2021. Donald Trump could make a 3am Truth Social post about descheduling cannabis altogether and I think it would be met with a collective "meh". How long did the 20% tariff on the Strait of Hormuz idea last? Oh, that's right, all part of the "Art of the Deal". What a schmuck. I am an American citizen, and I cannot get over what a clownshow our government has made of cannabis reform...and not just the Trump train. Nixon made marijuana a Schedule 1 drug at the stroke of a pen to get 'hippies' and persons of color off the streets (where they were demonstrating against the Vietnam War). NO supporting evidence whatsoever. Now Schedule 3 takes DEA hearings, votes in Congress and the Senate, and Executive Orders. Meanwhile close to half of the 50 states just moved on and legalized. The last ten years or so I have watched both Democrats and Republicans turn this into a cluster fuck. In truth, I am surprised most of these MSOs have lasted as long as they have. I am not surprised that most retail investors have decided to move on. I'm here because I think there will be a "mini rally" when S3 news hits sometime later this Fall and maybe, just maybe I can get out with less of a loss. I own Cresco (1.40CDN break even). MSOS (7USD break even). TLRY (9USD break even). My most recent sells were about two months ago with Charlotte's Web at .72CDN (made 5 cents a share) and Green Thumb at 11.17CDN (made 17 cents a share). Not even close to FOMO on either of these companies. I'm just glad I got out with a small profit. I think Cresco and MSOS will hit my break even points. 50/50 on Tilray getting back to 9USD, maybe 8USD? I am going to hold and let the S3 play out as I do believe it will happen. Then if there is that "mini rally" I have my sell orders preset and hopefully they will fill.

Ok_Recording_4440

Really comes down to how they arrived at 3. 5 vs 2 part test. 2 part test has been used for other drugs if I understand correctly. Can anyone find a case where DEA/ALJ recommended a reclassification that was thrown out by another court? I believe that would be unprecedented? The financial interests in keeping weed schedule 1 are why we are where we are, that should be obvious and hopefully the courts will agree. 

Own_Fold_5212

Recap is pretty consistent with what most expected - 1. ALJ recommends S3 2. Push for final rule to S3 3. Lawsuits from opposition DEA core argument is it doesn’t kill anyone, has medical uses and is being prescribed by physicians…even the opposition broadly agree with that 😅 There are a lot of good questions like regulation of potency, but that’s out of scope of this exercise

skyplt29

I am hopeful that once these hearings are completed we will start to see some of these companies (and their CEOs) start to speak out. I appreciate the radio silence as nobody in the industry wishes to tick off the politicians and DEA...but at some point they need to step up and provide more clarity. If the S3 hearings result in (eventually) a positive outcome, I suspect (hope) there will be interest once again. Until then...well, another red day while the market is green. Glad to see Charlotte's Web recovered 1.4% of its losses yesterday.

Kutukuprek

This video features an interview with journalist Natalie Fertig about her experience attending the recent DEA administrative hearing regarding the rescheduling of cannabis. The opposition spent hours methodically arguing against rescheduling by highlighting potential medical harms, such as teen psychosis. However, the DEA bypassed these extensive arguments and focused on just two core points: confirming that cannabis has not directly caused any fatal overdoses and establishing that it has potential medical use. By securing admissions on these two points, the DEA effectively demonstrated that cannabis does not meet the strict criteria to remain a Schedule I substance. **Key Details from the Hearing:** **The Setting \[**[**02:00**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6p-u9xiAQ&t=120)**\]:** The hearing was incredibly dry and highly restricted, taking place in a sterile courtroom at the DEA headquarters in Pentagon City. Attendees had to sit in oversized pews and were barred from using laptops or phones. **The Opposition's Case \[**[**04:15**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6p-u9xiAQ&t=255)**\]:** The anti-rescheduling side methodically presented years of studies and tragic personal testimonies (including a mother whose teenage son experienced a severe psychotic break) to argue that cannabis is dangerous. **The DEA's "Mic Drop" \[**[**06:50**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6p-u9xiAQ&t=410)**\]:** While Fertig expected a lengthy cross-examination, the DEA only asked about three questions. They didn't attempt to dispute the negative side effects; instead, they simply established that marijuana doesn't directly kill people and has *some* medical utility. **Expert Concessions \[**[**15:28**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6p-u9xiAQ&t=928)**\]:** A major moment involved Dr. Kenneth Finn, a pain management specialist testifying for the opposition. Under questioning from the DEA, he conceded that nobody has stopped breathing from cannabis use and admitted he would be open to prescribing it if it went through standard FDA approval processes \[[18:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6p-u9xiAQ&t=1116)\]. **Legal Strategy \[**[**13:09**](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6p-u9xiAQ&t=789)**\]:** Overhearing the opposition's lawyers after the hearing, Fertig noted they seemed to fully expect the DEA to go through with the rescheduling and were already preparing their strategy to appeal or challenge the decision in court later. **--------------** All in all, a favorable read from Natalie Fertig. My opinion \- It's the best we can hope for: an S3 rescheduling + follow up lawsuits to block it \- We can never expect SAM to stop challenging, it's the whole purpose of their existence \- The likelihood of an appeal working on this next year to me has no/little legal basis \- In the meantime the law will have to continue \- The separate legal thing happening on the bifurcation of medical/recreational and granting only S3 to medical is a potential blocker, but let's see In the end, if Trump wants this it will be unwise for Republicans to go against his wishes. In the judiciary as well, as we've seen with his comments on the Supreme Court. And Democrats generally have had a pro-cannabis stance so coming out against this is also unwise. SAM and the various anti-cannabis groups like pharma/alcohol will keep pushing this but that's not a new thing.. Trump would have known about SAM and the money behind them when he first signed the EO last year. Being denied on an issue like cannabis will make him look weak. And if Trump cannot bear one thing, it's looking weak. Imagine if the rescheduling gets blocked, the EOY election message will be "Trump can't even get cannabis rescheduled, and that's with the house/senate. If an issue like cannabis can't get sorted under this admin, what can?" It feels like it'll be somewhat turbulent and look uncertain but will come out favorable for rescheduling in the end. [](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU6p-u9xiAQ)

Win11141

The DEA rescheduling hearing is nearly over, with Wednesday marking the final day of testimony. Based on what we've heard, it has been a disaster for prohibitionists, who have made numerous mistakes and been repeatedly corrected by the administrative law judge.

bananastock

I wanted to know how long after the hearings it will take to get final rule.........The below is AI While the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearings are scheduled to conclude no later than **July 15, 2026**, an immediate final ruling on adult-use/recreational cannabis will not happen overnight. Federal rulemaking requires a multi-step administrative process once the hearings wrap up. Here is the timeline of what has to happen next: # The Post-Hearing Process 1. **ALJ Recommendation (Weeks to Months):** After the hearing closes, Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Derek C. Julius must review the presented evidence, expert testimony, and hearing transcripts. He will then draft findings and a "recommended decision." There is no strict statutory countdown for this step—standard ALJ decisions often take 30 to 90 days, though complex federal dockets can take longer. 2. **DEA Administrator Review:** The ALJ’s recommendation is sent to the DEA Administrator, who reviews the findings to make a final determination. 3. **Final Rule Publication:** If the DEA decides to reschedule marijuana as a whole, they will draft and publish a Final Rule in the Federal Register. # The "Expedited" Factor This process is operating under an accelerated timeline. In December 2025, an Executive Order was issued directing the Attorney General to complete the rescheduling process "in the most expeditious manner in accordance with Federal law." Because of this mandate, the post-hearing review process will likely be compressed compared to traditional bureaucratic timelines. # Pending Legal Hurdles Even when the DEA issues a Final Rule for adult-use/recreational cannabis, it will not be the end of the road. When the Department of Justice issued its final order in April 2026 that immediately moved FDA-approved and state-licensed **medical** marijuana to Schedule III, multiple organizations and state attorneys general filed lawsuits in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to block it. You should expect any final rule expanding Schedule III to adult-use cannabis to face immediate and aggressive legal challenges, which could delay the actual implementation.

ExtraBar7969

There’s no reason for any stores to close yet. It’s up to state authorities first to make arrests, unless the DEA gets more funding and wants to get authoritative real quick like you all think. I’m looking at the glass half full, not half empty. This issue has been a rocky road for decades. Nothing new. Grab a joint and chill.

Great_Permission_86

This is false. [Despite the April executive order, the US DEA.gov site still lists it as Schedule I as of July 13th, 2026.](https://www.dea.gov/drug-information/drug-scheduling)

sumguysr

It could have been completely descheduled like most drugs. Instead they put it in the same category as ketamine and anabolic steroids, drugs with medical use but high abuse potential. By law they have to be dispensed by a pharmacist for a valid prescription. The DEA literally investigates doctors who prescribe too many controlled substances. Why reschedule it instead of descheduling it unless you're going to crack down on it?

AverageNo130

>DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing Pauses for Day After Moving Ahead of Schedule...MH

RogueJello

So the honest timeline: Hearing concludes: ~July 15, 2026 Post-hearing briefs: weeks to ~2 months ALJ recommendation: weeks to months after that DEA Administrator's Final Rule (the actual "ruling"): plausibly late 2026, effective ~Q1 2027 on the expedited track Litigation: potentially extending durability well into 2027 or beyond So far the markets have waited until final ruling comes in, then there's a delay after that.

Own_Fold_5212

Recognizing your intended message was likely more that medical and rec can be in different schedules as an outcome - Fortunately DOJ / DEA / admin are very aligned (from all visible info) on broad shift to schedule 3…it doesn’t look like they have any intent for any other outcome Stylistically it’s not an admin that lets courts stop things where they can 😅 (which is wrong in most cases)…or that allows their agencies / circles to go against the admin For awhile all evidence (with a very uncertain timeline) has pointed to a final rule of S3 overall (no bifurcation of medical and rec). Unclear how strong the objections to the “process” are in court, but it seems evident that’s it’s those challenges that are the slow down / risk

AverageNo130

>SAM Witness Acknowledges Marijuana Fits Schedule III Definition During DEA Rescheduling Hearing MH

AverageNo130

NuggMD CEO Charlie Russell told Marijuana Moment, referring to news that the agency has been [focusing testimony on the medical benefits of cannabis and its relative safety](https://www.marijuanamoment.net/dea-and-fda-highlight-how-marijuana-is-safer-than-alcohol-and-opioids-during-rescheduling-hearings-opening-day/) "the testimony the DEA put on record has been more convincing than I think many consumers and stakeholders expected.” “Early reports have increased my confidence that the hearing will result in full rescheduling,” he said. MM

UsedState7381

It's a good thing that at least the opposition to S3 on the ALJ is a bunch of incompetent morons that aren't making the case for schedule 2 then...But I wouldn't rule this scenario out just yet because this does sounds like the ideal compromised scenario that the DEA could favor.

KAI5ER

Fun little tidbit of news unintentionally from from SAM. **The Schedule III "Gotcha" Moment**: During a remarkably brief, **five-minute cross-examination** by the DEA, Dr. Madros (SAM's star witness) was asked whether cannabis fits the legal definition of **Schedule III**, and she answered ***yes.***

skyplt29

My take on the low volume is bagholders (like me) are resigned to not selling before S3 hearings are done, and potential buyers are not willing to take a chance on what might possibly be yet another rug pull. The DEA is making the same argument I have been making; there is evidence of medical benefits, thus S3 across the board. I've never really understood the splitting between rec and medical, but others have showed a couple of other examples. So, despite every bone in my body wanting to hit the 'sell' button as I watch world events like Iran and Ukraine just continue to go on and on and on...I am holding out for these hearing to end. I am not expecting an announcement on 15 Jul, but I sure hope we get some decent clarity. What a journey. Glad to see Green Thumb making a decent move this morning.

valuestonkees

I just got **all in** again on this one, doubled my money 2 times on OGI since covid on false corrections like are happening now (near 52 wks. low). Massively underpriced compared to other cannabis stocks and in my mind one of the only safe bets due to being backed by British American Tobacco. **Huge catalysts that will make this stock explode or at least regain it's price (double):** \-Current Market Cap ($CAD) +/- 195M, 2026 Guidance 350M+ \-Currently undervalued due to a sector wide correction non related to this company. \-They acquired several companies in legal markets (Canada, Germany) as well as the USA. \-Q3 (August 12th) will have a big revenue increase due to their buyout of Sanity Group in Germany's legal market (added revenue) \-USA ALJ DEA hearing (due date July 15th) for schedule 3 going in favor of Cannabis which will drive institutional investment later on as it finalizes & raise cannabis stocks as a whole later this month. \-BAT keeps investing in OGI at a strong double (true) valuation & who knows, they could acquire OGI completely later on (for long term investors). \-& tons more don't want to make this a book, you get the point, as always do your own research & draw your own conclusions, thought I'd share my recent research on this overlooked stock! This time there are much more catalysts than the last times I was invested in it.

KAI5ER

Using the last of my Fable5 access ;) **The government came out swinging and rested fast.** The DEA's lead counsel opened by framing the entire hearing around "currently accepted medical use" (CAMU) — arguing that if even one accepted medical use exists, marijuana legally cannot stay in Schedule I. The government presented just two witnesses: Dr. Dominic Chiapperino of the FDA, who described the scientific process behind the Schedule III recommendation, and Dr. Corey Burchman, a pain physician who testified about transitioning patients from opioids to marijuana. The government rested its case-in-chief within four days. **Crucially, the legal framing favors rescheduling:** HHS's scientific and medical determinations on CAMU bind the DEA by statute, and Julius said he can't entertain arguments about whether the HHS two-part test is legally permissible. That dramatically limits what the opposition can attack. **The opposition has shifted strategy.** NDASA's witnesses focused on workplace drug testing and transportation safety rather than challenging the medical science — and legal observers note their arguments may do opponents more good in judicial review or public messaging than before the ALJ on the merits. Translation: they're building a record for the D.C. Circuit appeal, not trying to win the hearing. **SAM's Kevin Sabet is publicly rattled** — calling the government's testimony "surreal" and claiming they're "lying through their teeth". That's not what winning sounds like. **What's left:** SAM, DUID Victim Voices, Finn, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, Drum, and the four states present after the recess — so this week through July 15. Updated odds: I'd nudge **Schedule III finalization up to \~85%**. The hearing is going about as well as the pro-rescheduling side could hope. The post-order Barr lawsuit remains the real fight.