The DEA’s role in the Biden administration’s proposal to reschedule cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III is raising serious questions among marijuana consumers. A recent poll reveals a staggering 96% of cannabis users don’t believe the agency is an unbiased advocate for the reform it’s tasked with supporting.
Consumers Question DEA’s Credibility
The poll, conducted by cannabis telehealth platform NuggMD, surveyed 677 marijuana users between January 16-19. An overwhelming majority expressed skepticism about the DEA’s ability to advocate fairly for the proposed reclassification. Just 4% of respondents felt the agency could act as an impartial defender of the rule change.
Andrew Graham, NuggMD’s head of communications, summed up the issue: “Cannabis consumers are directly impacted by federal prohibition, and the DEA enforces those laws. When an agency polls at 4% among a key stakeholder group, it’s clear there’s a significant policy or personnel issue—or both.”
The margin of error for the survey was 3.7%, but even with adjustments, the results paint a damning picture of consumer confidence in the DEA.
Historical Resistance Fuels Distrust
Much of the skepticism stems from the DEA’s historical opposition to amending the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) regarding marijuana. For decades, the agency has resisted rescheduling cannabis, maintaining its classification as a Schedule I substance—a category reserved for drugs with no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.
Criticism of the DEA’s involvement in the current rescheduling process intensified after allegations surfaced that the agency unlawfully collaborated with witnesses opposed to the reform. This alleged misconduct during the administrative hearings further eroded trust among advocates and consumers.
Adding to the controversy, former DEA Administrator Anne Milgram did not sign off on the Justice Department’s proposal to reclassify cannabis. Instead, it was signed by then-Attorney General Merrick Garland, a break from traditional procedure.
Leadership Concerns Complicate Matters
The DEA’s leadership vacuum has compounded the uncertainty surrounding the rescheduling process. The agency is currently headed by Acting Administrator Derek Maltz, a former DEA official with a contentious stance on cannabis. Maltz has previously linked marijuana use to school shootings, endorsed the discredited “gateway drug” theory, and argued that DOJ hijacked the rescheduling process for political reasons.
Advocates fear that Maltz’s interim appointment could signal a step backward for marijuana reform. Meanwhile, other candidates reportedly under consideration for permanent leadership, such as Jack Riley, share similar anti-cannabis views. The possibility of such appointments has left stakeholders wary of the agency’s intentions.
The Ongoing Fight for Rescheduling
For now, the rescheduling hearings are on hold. Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney recently granted an appeal to pro-reform participants, citing concerns over the DEA’s conduct during the process. However, the timeline for next steps remains unclear.
Adding to the complexity, President Donald Trump has yet to nominate a permanent DEA leader. His initial pick, Florida Sheriff Chad Chronister, withdrew from consideration after facing backlash from conservative lawmakers for his progressive stance on marijuana decriminalization.
Meanwhile, Trump’s nominee for attorney general, Pam Bondi, has not clarified her position on key cannabis policy issues. Her stance could significantly influence the rescheduling process and other federal marijuana enforcement policies.
What’s at Stake?
If cannabis is reclassified as a Schedule III substance, it would mark a significant shift in federal drug policy. The change would acknowledge marijuana’s potential medical benefits and reduce some regulatory barriers, although it would not legalize the drug at the federal level.
However, the DEA’s perceived bias threatens to undermine the credibility of the process. Advocates argue that genuine reform requires not just policy changes but also a shift in how federal agencies approach cannabis regulation and enforcement.
- 96% of cannabis users distrust the DEA to fairly advocate for rescheduling marijuana.
- Historical opposition and allegations of misconduct have fueled skepticism.
- Leadership changes and interim appointments add further uncertainty.
- The outcome of the rescheduling proposal could significantly impact federal cannabis policy.
As the process unfolds, the stakes are high—not just for cannabis consumers, but for the broader conversation around drug policy reform in the United States.