Declassifying Cannabis as a Schedule 1 Drug: How Can It Be Done and What Will the Effects Be?
A look at federal legislative efforts, over the past few years, to amend the Controlled Substances Act.
November 26, 2021 at 10:00 AM
8 minute read
The legalization of cannabis is growing at an exponential rate. As of this past year, all but four states have some form of legal-cannabis industry ranging from medical cannabis to recreational adult-use cannabis. However, despite the approval of legalization among so many state governments, the federal government has yet to advance federal legalization of cannabis.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) continues to classify cannabis as a Schedule I drug on the Controlled Substance Act (CSA); therefore, according to the DEA, it is considered to have "a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use." As a result of this classification, patients who use cannabis for medical reasons cannot legally enter federal land, travel by air or other federally regulated modes of transportation, and could be arrested and federally prosecuted for engaging in activity not authorized under the CSA. Even individuals who have not been subject to criminal prosecution and organizations engaged in cannabis-related activities in violation of the CSA, including participants in the state-legal cannabis industry, may face collateral consequences arising from the Schedule 1 classification of cannabis. To mitigate the collateral consequences of this classification, Congressional legislators have made numerous legislative proposals on a federal level over the past few years to amend the CSA. This article touches upon these federal legislative efforts.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Don’t Blow It: 10 Lessons From 10 Years of Nonprofit Whistleblower Policies
- 2AIAs: A Look At the Future of AI-Related Contracts
- 3Litigators of the Week: A $630M Antitrust Settlement for Automotive Software Vendors—$140M More Than Alleged Overcharges
- 4Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 5Linklaters Hires Four Partners From Patterson Belknap
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250