No, Cannabis Rescheduling Won’t Flood the Streets or Fuel Crime

Critics of federal cannabis reform claim it benefits criminals, but experts say rescheduling is key to regulation, research, and tax fairness.

On September 1, 2025, nine House Republicans, including Arizona Representative Paul Gosar, signed a letter urging U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to reject the Drug Enforcement Administration’s proposal to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. Citing concerns over youth exposure, criminal cartel empowerment, and public health deterioration, the lawmakers positioned themselves against a federal policy shift that has gained traction among researchers, health professionals, and the American public. The letter, however, relies heavily on outdated narratives rather than contemporary evidence. The case for rescheduling cannabis is not only rooted in science and equity, but also in economic pragmatism and democratic momentum.

Understanding the Timeline and Federal Shift

The DEA's rescheduling process began in earnest following an August 2023 recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services, which found that cannabis has accepted medical uses and a lower potential for abuse compared to Schedule I substances. Since then, a steady drumbeat of policy analysis, public comment, and scientific review has pushed the federal government closer to enacting the first major reclassification in over half a century.

Far from being a legalization free-for-all, Schedule III status would maintain federal oversight while allowing legitimate businesses to operate under more reasonable tax rules and enabling rigorous scientific research. In contrast to the Republican letter’s dire warnings, rescheduling would not permit dispensaries to pop up on every corner overnight, nor would it erase state-level laws or safety regulations.

Dispelling the Misinformation: What Schedule III Actually Does

Reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III would not legalize recreational marijuana. Rather, it would remove cannabis from the category of drugs deemed to have no accepted medical use and high abuse potential—a scientifically indefensible claim in 2025. The change would permit more expansive medical research, including access to federal grants, and allow cannabis companies to deduct normal business expenses under Section 280E of the IRS tax code.

As it stands, Section 280E prevents cannabis operators from writing off payroll, rent, and other standard costs, placing them at a stark disadvantage compared to other industries. The impact is most acute for small, legal businesses attempting to compete against unregulated sellers. Contrary to the GOP letter’s implication, cartels do not pay taxes; the IRS burden falls solely on compliant entrepreneurs trying to build above-board enterprises.

Youth usage is another point of confusion. According to a 2023 JAMA study, states with regulated cannabis markets report lower levels of underage use than prohibition states, largely due to age-gated retail systems and public education campaigns. The idea that rescheduling will increase youth access contradicts what both public health data and real-world regulation outcomes show.

Winners and Losers: Who Gains from Rescheduling?

The biggest beneficiaries of rescheduling would be legitimate stakeholders, not the criminal underworld. Legal businesses, particularly small operators and craft producers like those in Arizona’s thriving cannabis scene, stand to gain fairer tax treatment and regulatory clarity. Many of these businesses, including partners and peers of CIGAWEEDS, currently operate under razor-thin margins thanks to 280E constraints. Rescheduling would help level the playing field and offer these community-rooted entrepreneurs a shot at sustainability.

For researchers, the shift would lift long-standing barriers to studying cannabis’ full therapeutic profile. Currently, obtaining DEA approval and sourcing study-grade cannabis is a bureaucratic maze that delays and distorts findings. Schedule III would unlock real research opportunities, aligning cannabis with substances like ketamine and anabolic steroids—both of which are studied and prescribed with strict controls.

Public health agencies would also benefit. With better data and federally funded research, agencies can design smarter campaigns around use, addiction prevention, and treatment. More importantly, the criminal justice system would have one fewer tool for disproportionately targeting communities of color. The ACLU has long documented how marijuana prohibition fuels racial disparities in arrests and sentencing. Rescheduling wouldn’t eliminate these injustices, but it would significantly weaken one of their legal foundations.

Counterarguments and Real-World Risks

Rescheduling is not without its skeptics. Some critics fear increased normalization could lead to greater overall use, or that big corporations would edge out smaller players in a more formalized market. These concerns warrant attention. Yet history shows that prohibition does not prevent use—it only pushes it underground. Legal markets, when structured thoughtfully, offer tools for oversight, quality control, and consumer education. These mechanisms are completely absent in illicit economies.

Data from the RAND Corporation supports this position. In a 2021 report, the think tank found that well-regulated legal markets erode illicit activity by offering safer, transparent alternatives. The fear that rescheduling would "reward cartels" ignores this evidence and instead recycles rhetoric more common in the Nixon era than in today's cannabis economy.

Metrics That Matter Going Forward

To judge the success of rescheduling, several indicators will be worth watching. First, youth usage rates in states with maturing legal frameworks. The JAMA findings will need updating post-rescheduling to confirm trends. Second, shifts in illicit market activity—particularly whether black-market share declines as legal businesses expand under more favorable conditions.

Third, the financial viability of small businesses should be assessed once 280E no longer burdens them. Anecdotes from MJBizDaily in August 2025 already indicate cautious optimism among independent operators who see rescheduling as a lifeline. Fourth, public health metrics like emergency room visits, addiction treatment rates, and incidence of cannabis use disorder will need close monitoring, ideally with expanded NIH-funded studies now made possible by Schedule III.

Arizona at the Crossroads: Gosar vs. Voters

In Arizona, Rep. Paul Gosar’s signature on the anti-rescheduling letter stands in stark contrast to his constituents. Voters in the state approved adult-use legalization in 2020 with nearly 60% in favor, and the market has since grown into a $1 billion industry. CIGAWEEDS and similar brands have thrived by focusing on compliance, community, and cannabis education—none of which resemble the dystopian outcomes Gosar predicts.

His stance risks alienating not just voters, but also the small businesses and medical patients his district includes. While Gosar leans into prohibitionist fear, the rest of Arizona’s cannabis community appears ready for a future grounded in data, fairness, and economic opportunity. It’s a disconnect that highlights how out of step some federal lawmakers are with evolving state norms and consumer expectations.

Evidence Speaks Louder

Criticism of rescheduling often hinges on the conflation of cannabis normalization with public endangerment. But the facts don't support that leap. Brookings Institution legal scholars have systematically debunked the idea that rescheduling equals deregulation. Likewise, former DEA and FDA officials interviewed by Politico have called Schedule I status "pseudoscientific" and long overdue for reevaluation.

Public opinion, too, has shifted decisively. A 2024 Gallup poll found 73% of Americans support cannabis legalization, including majorities across party lines. To frame rescheduling as an extremist gift to criminals ignores the bipartisan, evidence-based momentum that underpins the reform movement.

The current Schedule I status is not a neutral policy position; it is a historical artifact born of political panic and racial animus. Maintaining it in the face of modern science and democratic will is not cautious governance—it’s willful neglect.

Federal rescheduling of cannabis to Schedule III is not a panacea, but it is a necessary step toward more honest, effective, and equitable cannabis policy. The September 1 letter from House Republicans reflects a stubborn allegiance to outdated fears rather than a commitment to evolving facts. In the end, rescheduling offers a path forward that empowers communities, protects public health, and supports legal operators over illicit profiteers. That’s not a threat to America’s youth or safety. It’s a threat to the status quo—and that’s long overdue.

***

Cigaweeds is the ultimate choice for discreet and convenient cannabis prerolls. Made with premium flower and natural hemp tips, our prerolls deliver a smooth and satisfying smoke every time. Whether you prefer indica, sativa, or hybrid strains, we have something for you. Our products are lab-tested and compliant with state regulations, ensuring quality and safety. You can find our prerolls at select retailers across Arizona, or order online and get them delivered to your door. Cigaweeds also collaborates with High Grade, a leading cultivator of exotic and rare cannabis strains, to bring you exclusive and limited-edition prerolls that will blow your mind.

Visit our website to learn more about our strains, our blog, and our store. 

Follow us on Instagram to stay updated on the latest news and promotions.