Op-Ed: Why Cannabis Rescheduling Matters, But Still Falls Short

We’ve always stood for decriminalization and full legalization of cannabis, and that hasn’t changed. Moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III isn’t enough; not even close. It’s still a half-measure that keeps the plant criminalized and controlled. Yet, we’ll take it (for now), because it offers something we can’t ignore: immediate relief for people and businesses who continue to bear the weight of prohibition’s cruelties.

Voltaire once said: le mieux est l’ennemi du bien. The best is the enemy of the good. In cannabis, this truth is staring us in the face.

For decades, we have pushed for the best: full descheduling, the end of prohibition, freedom for the plant and for the people who built this movement. That fight is far from over. But right now, the reform on the table is rescheduling cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule 3.

It is not the destination and it is not liberation. But it is a step forward. And that’s better than standing still or going back.

Incrementalism is not capitulation

Some voices in our community warn that celebrating Schedule 3 is a mistake, given that it keeps cannabis criminalized. They say it falls short of the dream. And they are right, in part. Schedule 3 will not free prisoners, erase the stigma or guarantee equity for small growers and legacy operators.

But incrementalism is not capitulation. Taking one step toward justice does not mean abandoning the march to full justice. It means we are moving.

Think of Uruguay. In 2013, it became the first country in the world to legalize adult-use cannabis. The law was criticized as clunky and incomplete; supply was limited. Many were frustrated, but Uruguay had broken the ice. Just by starting, it created space to improve and, over time, the system became stronger. That is the logic of progress: start, then refine.

The real impact of Schedule 3

Cannabis has been trapped in Schedule I for decades, labeled as having “no medical value” and “high potential for abuse.” That label has been a weapon against science and a chokehold on the industry.

Moving to Schedule 3 would shift two massive barriers:

• Taxes. Section 280E prevents cannabis businesses from deducting ordinary expenses, which means effective tax rates of 60%, 70%, even 80%. Under Schedule 3, 280E would no longer apply, and cannabis companies could finally operate like businesses instead of criminals. For many small shops and growers, this is the difference between shutting down and surviving.
• Research. Scientists would gain clearer paths to study cannabis: more clinical data, more evidence, more legitimacy. Not total freedom, but an opening. With data comes proof and, with proof, comes power. The catch-22 of “no research allowed, no research available” begins to crumble.

What Schedule 3 does not do

There’s a real fear in the movement that rescheduling means handing cannabis to Big Pharma and giant multistate operators while shutting out the grassroots. But the reality is more nuanced.

Schedule 3 does not lock cannabis into a pharmaceutical-only box or erase state programs; dispensaries will still exist and state-licensed operators will still run markets. The FDA could, in theory, claim more oversight, but that is neither automatic nor immediate.

Will large companies benefit? Yes. But so will small ones. Relief from 280E and access to banking are lifelines for everyone. This is not the death of craft cannabis, but a shift in the terrain: it’s a change that carries risks and opportunities for both sides.

Where we go from here

Descheduling remains the goal. Cannabis should be treated like alcohol: regulated, accessible, and free from the chains of the Controlled Substances Act. That is where this movement is heading, but the road is not a straight line.

Change in America almost never comes in one sweeping act. Civil rights, LGBTQ rights, women’s rights… None were achieved in one day, with one law. They advanced on stepping stones, through imperfect victories that laid the foundation for bigger ones.

Cannabis is no different. Schedule 3 is not legalization or liberation, but it is momentum. And momentum is what turns movements into victories.

The crossroads

We are standing at a crossroads. Some will reject Schedule 3 as too little. Others will call it a breakthrough. Both are true: it is not enough, yet it is a breakthrough.

What matters now is what we do with it. If we treat Schedule 3 as the finish line, we fail. If we treat it as a milestone, we can build on it. Step by step, from Uruguay to the United States, from prohibition to freedom.

The plant deserves liberation and the people deserve justice. Schedule 3 does not deliver either in full, but it moves us closer. And right now, closer is better than stuck.

We will take this step. And then we will keep walking until cannabis is truly free.

Photo by Ian Hutchinson on Unsplash

<p>The post Op-Ed: Why Cannabis Rescheduling Matters, But Still Falls Short first appeared on High Times.</p>