A decision on a major policy shift on marijuana won’t come until after the presidential election

WASHINGTON — A decision on whether a reclassification should take place marijuana as a less dangerous drug in the US will not be until after the Presidential elections in Novembera timeline that increases the likelihood that it could become a powerful political issue in the exciting race.

The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration last week scheduled a hearing for Dec. 2 to hear comments on the proposed historic change in federal drug policy.

The hearing date means a final decision could come as soon as the next administration. While it’s possible it could come before the end of President Joe Biden’s term, it would move fairly quickly if it were issued before Inauguration Day, according to cannabis advocate Brian Vicente.

That could shed new light on the presidential candidates’ positions on marijuana. Vice President Kamala Harris has supported decriminalization of the drug, saying it is “absurd” to place it in the DEA’s Schedule I category alongside heroin and LSD. The Democratic candidate’s stance has shifted over the years; she once oversaw enforcement of cannabis laws and opposed legalized adult recreational use in California when she ran for attorney general in 2010.

Former President Donald TrumpThe Republican candidate on Saturday signaled his support for a legalization measure in Florida, after previously saying he increasingly agrees that people should not be sent to prison for the drug that is now legal in several states, “regardless of whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing.”

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump said he supported medical marijuana and that pot should be left up to the states. But during his first term, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions an Obama-era policy repealed leaving federal authorities unable to crack down on marijuana trafficking in states where the drug is legal.

Trump’s campaign did not immediately respond to a question about his position on reclassifying the drug.

The Justice Department proposed reclassifying it in May, saying the change would recognize marijuana’s medical uses and acknowledge that it has less potential for abuse than some of the nation’s most dangerous drugs. The proposal, which would not legalize marijuana for recreational use, came after calls for review from Biden, who called the change “monumental.”

The DEA said it has not yet taken a position on whether to make the change. A memo said the issue would be considered as the federal rulemaking process unfolds.

The new classification would be the most significant change in U.S. drug policy in 50 years and could be a powerful political issue, especially with younger voters. But it faces opposition from groups such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

President Kevin Sabet argues that there is not enough data to move cannabis to the less dangerous Schedule III category, alongside ketamine and some anabolic steroids. The DEA’s decision to hold the hearing is “a huge victory in our fight to have this decision guided by medical science, not politics,” he said in a statement, adding that attorneys general from 18 states support his opposition.

The hearing sparked some outrage among marijuana industry players, though the DEA’s decision to hold one was not surprising.

“While the outcome may be better in the end, I think we’re so used to delays that it’s just a little disappointing,” said Stephen Abraham, chief financial officer at The Blinc Group, a supplier of cartridges and other hardware used in pot vapes. “Anytime you delay or hold up resources from the legal market, that’s to the benefit of the illicit market.”

The bill, which was signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland in place of DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, followed a recommendation from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal drug policy has lagged behind that of many states in recent years, with 38 states already legalizing medical marijuana and 24 legalizing its recreational use.

Lawmakers from both major political parties have pushed for the change as marijuana has become increasingly decriminalized and accepted. A Gallup poll last year found that 70 percent of adults support legalization, the highest level yet recorded by the polling firm and more than double the roughly three in 10 who supported it in 2000.

The marijuana industry has also been growing rapidly, and state-licensed pot businesses are eager to restructure, in part because it would allow them to take federal tax deductions for business expenses that are not available to businesses involved in the “trafficking” of Schedule I or II drugs. For some of Vicente’s clients, the change would effectively reduce the tax rate from 75% to 25%.

Some legalization advocates also hope that redistricting could convince Congress to pass legislation aimed at opening the doors of banks to cannabis businesses. Currently, the drug’s legal status means that many federally regulated banks are reluctant to lend to such businesses, or even provide payment or other basic services.

Rescheduling could also make it easier to do research on marijuana, since it’s difficult to conduct authorized clinical trials with Schedule I substances. Some advocates for medical marijuana patients worry that the debate has already become deeply politicized and that the focus on the potential impact of rescheduling on the industry has taken the focus off of the people who could benefit from it.

“We were hoping that we could finally take the next step and create the national medical cannabis program that we need,” said Steph Sherer, founder and president of Americans for Safe Access. The organization advocates for placing cannabis in its own drug category and establishing a medical cannabis office within DHS.

However, the direct effect of the redistricting on the nation’s criminal justice system would likely be less, as federal prosecutions for simple possession have been relatively rare in recent years.

___

Peltz reported from New York.