
Daniel T. McKillop
Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Date: September 18, 2023

Partner
201-896-7115 dmckillop@sh-law.com
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This recommendation from the country’s top health agency will have significant implications for the cannabis industry, but it is only one step towards legalization.
Last year, President Joe Biden had asked Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra and Attorney General Merrick Garland to evaluate how cannabis is classified under federal law. According to a letter leaked to Bloomberg, HHS has determined that cannabis no longer deserves its Class I status under the CSA.
The Class I designation is reserved for substances with no accepted medical use and have a “high potential of abuse.” In light of new “data and science,” HHS is recommending that the DEA reclassify cannabis as Class III, a designation given to drugs with a “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.” Common examples of Class III drugs include ketamine, anabolic steroids, and Tylenol with codeine.
As HHS officials have emphasized, the agency’s recommendation is just the first step in the rescheduling process. As explained by an HHS spokesperson:
While HHS’s scientific and medical evaluation is binding on DEA, the scheduling recommendation is not. DEA has the final authority to schedule a drug under the CSA (or transfer a controlled substance between schedules or remove such a drug from scheduling altogether) after considering the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria and HHS’ scientific and medical evaluation. DEA goes through a rulemaking process to schedule, reschedule or deschedule the drug, which includes a period for public comment before DEA finalizes the scheduling action with a final rulemaking.
While the exact impact of rescheduling is currently being debated, a few things are certain:
While rescheduling cannabis would be a monumental change, there is a lot that remains unaddressed. Most importantly, it is clearly not the same as legalization, and it would not make adult-use cannabis businesses legal under federal law. For full legalization, cannabis needs to be removed from the CSA entirely.
Nonetheless, a win is a win. Removing the tax challenges posed by Section 280E and improving access to cannabis medical research are important changes that will benefit the industry tremendously. Rescheduling may also provide the momentum to push through other key reforms, such as the SAFE Banking Act.
Going forward, we encourage cannabis businesses to stay on top of legal developments, as the DEA will now review the recommendation and conduct its own rulemaking process.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact Dan McKillop, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.
This article is a part of a series pertaining to cannabis legalization in New York, New Jersey and the United States at large. Prior articles in this series are below:
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

Arbitration resolves disputes privately before an arbitrator whose decision is usually final, while litigation resolves them in court with full rights of appeal. Whether a business ends up in arbitration or litigation is often decided when it signs the contract, long before any dispute arises. Key Takeaways When facing a contract dispute, carefully consider your […]
Author: Graham Staton

Can you own part of a business in New Jersey without a written agreement? Yes, it is possible. Under New Jersey’s Uniform Partnership Act, a partnership can arise when two or more people carry on a business as co-owners for profit, whether or not they ever intended to form one. Ownership doesn’t necessarily depend on […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki

For New Jersey businesses, crisis preparedness should be viewed as a legal and operational function, not simply an emergency-management exercise. A well-designed crisis response plan can help preserve evidence, protect confidential communications, meet reporting obligations, limit unnecessary exposure, and prevent an already difficult situation from becoming a larger legal problem. Key Takeaways A serious crisis […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Monmouth County is entering a significant new phase of development. For those looking to acquire property or undertake a new project, understanding the market opportunity is only the beginning. The more important question is whether a particular property can actually be developed as contemplated and what approvals, agreements, and other conditions will be required to […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Whether a client’s prompts to a generative AI tool and the documents it produces are protected from disclosure depends on the case type, who claims protection, and whether counsel was involved. In United States v. Heppner, a New York federal judge ruled that a criminal defendant’s communications with an AI platform were protected by neither […]
Author: Chris Seelinger
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!