[[{“value”:”
A few weeks ago, someone at a holiday party asked “Whitt, why doesn’t Budding Trends take on the weighty legal issues of the day and instead resort to cheap pop culture references and puns?” I thought about responding with a quote from “Run Like an Antelope” but then it hit me: Maybe we should give some thought to a more high-minded discussion about the practical implications of marijuana rescheduling. (Editor’s note: This exchange did not actually happen.) So, I guess set the gear shift for the high gear of your soul, and let’s dive in.
It has been said that our greatest hopes and our worst fears are seldom realized. I think the recent efforts by DEA to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III is a good example of both. Those looking for news that marijuana is soon to be freely available nationwide will be disappointed, as, we suspect, will those who fear that rescheduling will immediately destroy the existing marijuana industry. It’s like Tom Petty reminded us, “most things I worry about, never happen anyway.”
None of This Matters if Marijuana Is Not Rescheduled, and That’s Far from a Settled Question
All of this is, of course, moot if marijuana is not rescheduled. While rescheduling is considered by many to be a fait accompli (oh yeah, Budding Trends dropping French on you) – and I agree it is more likely than not that marijuana will be rescheduled, although not in 2025 – there are a number of potential roadblocks standing in the way. We previously wrote about the process here.
But even if marijuana is not rescheduled in the near future, hopefully the discussion below will be helpful in thinking through the practical implications if marijuana is rescheduled in the future.
280E in the Rearview
It is widely assumed by many that one of the certain impacts of rescheduling is that marijuana operators would no longer be subject to the draconian tax consequences of 280E.
We previously wrote on the subject:
One of the most significant impediments to the growth of marijuana operators, and dispensaries in particular, is 26 U.S.C 280E. That one-sentence provision may be the biggest hurdle to the development of the marijuana industry in the United States. It dictates that:
“No deduction or credit shall be allowed for any amount paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business if such trade or business (or the activities which comprise such trade or business) consists of trafficking in controlled substances (within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act) which is prohibited by Federal law or the law of any State in which such trade or business is conducted.”
280E has crippled the marijuana industry, often exacting an effective tax rate north of 60% for operators. “Within the meaning of schedule I and II of the Controlled Substances Act” is the ballgame. If marijuana is rescheduled to Schedule III, 280E would no longer apply and marijuana operations would be taxed as normal businesses – provided that Congress did not specially enact a marijuana tax.
Obviously, state tax laws may still penalize marijuana businesses akin to 280E, but some states proactively exempted licensed cannabis businesses from those impacts.
One question that has stuck in my mind is whether rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would remove state-legal operators from the ambit of 280E, or would that benefit only be afforded to businesses who manufactured, distributed, and sold FDA-approved Schedule III products (i.e., not most state-licensed operators at present)?
This is a question of statutory interpretation, and I think it comes down to how the government characterizes marijuana that is not compliant with Schedule III requirements. Is non-compliant marijuana still a Schedule III substance? If so, does it somehow become Schedule I or II? If not, then it would appear that that 280E does not capture non-compliant marijuana because that provision appears to be limited on its face to Schedule I and II substances. I think the better reading is that, while non-compliant marijuana operators may face consequences as discussed immediately below, 280E will no longer include marijuana.
Another related question of great interest to marijuana operators currently sitting on huge overdue tax bills is whether rescheduling marijuana would have a retroactive effect eliminating the existing tax liabilities for marijuana operators. Generally speaking, changes to tax laws are not retroactive unless Congress expressly says so. It strikes me as very unlikely that lawmakers will be interested in allowing marijuana operators who have not paid their full tax bills for years (and in some instances publicly admitted as much) to simply walk away from those obligations.
State Medical Programs
So, if marijuana is rescheduled, what happens to existing marijuana businesses operating under the auspices of state laws? This, as well as the fate of adult-use operators discussed immediately below, may be the most consequential yet unclear aspects of rescheduling.
State-licensed marijuana operators have existed in a sort of legal limbo since their inception. How, if at all, will the rules change for state-licensed operators if marijuana is rescheduled?
The way I see it, there are three paths forward for state-licensed marijuana operators if marijuana is rescheduled:
The federal government, in a break from more than a decade of quasi-official federal policy, could actually follow the Controlled Substances Act and require marijuana operators to meet the requirements for Schedule III substances.
There is no practical change and the federal policy of non-enforcement of most marijuana operations remains in place, along with a similar posture from the states with marijuana regimes.
There is no immediate change in federal enforcement policy, but states tighten marijuana rules over time to allow for a gradual change such that access to marijuana is not immediately shut off as the federal government and marijuana operators take the steps necessary to treat marijuana like other Schedule III substances.
In a nutshell, the path chosen will answer what I believe is the most interesting and critical question in this whole discussion: Does the government intend for marijuana scheduling to be a dead letter or does the government intend to regulate marijuana as a controlled substance?
That answer will govern whether and, if so, how the federal government will regulate state-licensed cannabis operators – including potential enforcement actions.
Of the three paths above, the first strikes me as the least likely and the last strikes me as the most likely. Why? I am skeptical that the federal government would shut down existing access to marijuana (i.e., state-licensed operators) under the guise of making marijuana more available. That certainly does not comport with the statements of the political supporters of rescheduling or the spirit of rescheduling. And make no mistake, it will take years of clinical trials and FDA approval for the first marijuana medication (in a specific formulation with a specific indication) to be approved for use by patients.
I do think, however, that there will be political pressure from certain companies that do develop FDA-approved marijuana medications to curtail the state markets. Why would a company spend the substantial time and money to develop a Schedule III medication for FDA approval for a specific indication when someone can just buy marijuana to be used for any purpose from a dispensary down the street?
State Adult-Use Programs
Like state-licensed medical marijuana operators, state-licensed adult use operators have also been operating in legal purgatory, albeit with probably less legal certainty than medical operators.
To be very clear: Rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act will do absolutely nothing to the legality of adult-use marijuana. Schedule III regulates medications prescribed by physicians and does not contemplate the recreational use of any Schedule III product.
But what does this actually mean for adult-use programs and individual operators as a practical matter? Well, as with several of the points above, we’ll see.
It is certainly possible that the federal government will continue its hands-off approach to adult-use marijuana programs. It is also possible that the federal government – and potentially some state governments – will use the ability to access federally legal marijuana by prescription to scrap existing adult-use programs. But if I was a betting man (and I am), I would bet that at least in the short term there would not be much impact, if any, to adult-use regimes.
Interstate Commerce
When it comes to transporting marijuana across state lines with Schedule III approval and appropriate federal and state licenses, interstate commerce should not be a problem.
When it comes to transporting unlicensed marijuana, theoretically it would remain illegal, and it will come down to the federal government’s appetite to enforce interstate transportation of marijuana.
Banking
Here is another instance where it depends on whether the federal government insists that marijuana products comply with the rules of Schedule III.
If the federal government insists on strict compliance with Schedule III, then any non-conforming products would likely fall within the ambit of anti-money laundering statutes. If, on the other hand, the government treats all marijuana as Schedule III, then banks may be able (albeit perhaps uninterested initially) to bank all marijuana businesses.
Private Investment
I expect there will be an immediate influx of private capital to marijuana businesses if marijuana is rescheduled. Momentum will (at least appear to) be on the side of marijuana businesses. A number of funds that have formal or informal policies governing investment in marijuana businesses will immediately investigate the opportunities. And investors will be even more motivated because it appears that 280E would no longer provide a substantial tax headwind for growth of those businesses.
This could all be thwarted if the federal government immediately makes clear that it will vigorously enforce the requirements of Schedule III, meaning that it will be extremely cash-intensive to develop profit-generating products. As noted above, I think that is unlikely, but it would certainly be an impediment to obtaining private capital.
Big Pharma/Pharmacies
The multibillion-dollar question: What role, if any, will big pharmaceutical companies and pharmacies play in the event marijuana is rescheduled?
I suspect big pharma won’t rush into the marijuana space, in part because of all the uncertainties discussed above and in part for reputational reasons. But I will be on the lookout for quiet investments by Big Pharma in companies researching and developing marijuana formulations that meet the requirements of Schedule III.
If things break a certain way, you may be able to get the best weed ever made courtesy of a brand-name pharmaceutical company. But I do believe we are years away from that happening.
Intellectual Property
This area of the law could be particularly interesting because the USPTO will have a layer of input on top of the Department of Justice and state regulators. If a product complies with Schedule III, it will have the ability to be protected by United States intellectual property laws, including trademarks and patents. If it does not comply with Schedule III, the USPTO could independently conclude that such products may not avail themselves of those protections.
Conclusions
[Deep exhale] For years, cannabis activists and legal scholars have debated the possibility and the wisdom of rescheduling marijuana. Now that we may – and I stress may – be on the horizon, it seems there are just as many questions as answers about what the implications of that change would be. So much of those implications depend on things that we do not yet know. For example, will a Trump HHS/DOJ/DEA take a different position than the Biden HHS/DOJ/DEA? Will states change their rules in response to rescheduling? And how will financial institutions and private investors react to those developments.
“}]] A few weeks ago, someone at a holiday party asked “Whitt, why doesn’t Budding Trends take on the weighty legal issues of the day and instead resort to cheap pop culture references and puns?” I thought about responding with a quote from “Run Like an Antelope” but then it hit me: Maybe we should give some thought to a more high-minded discussion about the practical implications of marijuana rescheduling. Read More
