A proposed federal shift in marijuana policy could mark one of the most significant changes to cannabis regulation in decades.
SEATTLE — A proposed federal shift in marijuana policy could mark one of the most significant changes to cannabis regulation in decades, though its immediate impact remains uncertain especially in Washington where marijuana is already legal.
The U.S. Department of Justice is moving to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I drug — a category reserved for substances considered to have no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse — to Schedule III, which recognizes medical value and carries a lower risk of dependence. The change is part of an ongoing federal rulemaking process and has not yet taken effect.
If finalized, the reclassification could expand opportunities for scientific research and allow cannabis businesses to take standard tax deductions that are currently prohibited under federal law. However, marijuana would remain illegal at the federal level, and recreational use would be unaffected.
Advocates say the move represents a long-awaited shift in how the federal government views cannabis. The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), a national nonprofit that has long lobbied for marijuana reform, described the change as largely symbolic but meaningful.
“This is an executive branch admission that cannabis has medical value, which is something that advocates and patients have known for decades now, and is also a recognition of the legitimacy of state regulatory programs governing medical cannabis,” said Morgan Fox, the group’s political director.
At the same time, Fox noted the proposal could create new legal complexities, particularly as federal and state laws continue to diverge. He said the evolving policy landscape is likely to face legal challenges and reflects broader tensions in how marijuana is regulated nationwide.
In Washington, the impact of the proposed change is less clear. The state was among the first in the nation to legalize recreational marijuana and operates a unified system in which both medical patients and adults 21 and older purchase cannabis through the same state-licensed retail stores.
Maryam Mirnateghi, owner of Canna West Seattle, said about 20% of her customers use cannabis for medical purposes — a share higher than the statewide average, highlighting the continued role of medical use even in a mature recreational market.
Still, Mirnateghi said the proposed federal change does not yet provide clear answers for business owners.
“But I don’t think, as far as a cannabis business operation goes, it really gives us any answers, one way or another quite yet,” she said.
Mirnateghi described the potential shift as a positive step, particularly for consumers, but emphasized that its real-world implications remain uncertain.
“I think it really opens the door to access for better quality products,” she said. “It really helps. [It] will help with understanding the efficacy of the products. So I think overall, that’s fantastic and very necessary. But I think as far as the general policies go, it doesn’t change a whole lot yet.”
Industry groups in Washington echoed that sentiment, saying they are still reviewing the proposal to determine what, if any, immediate effects it could have on the state’s regulated marketplace.
Experts say one of the most immediate benefits of reclassification would be the easing of restrictions on research. For decades, marijuana’s Schedule I status has limited scientists’ ability to study the drug, even as millions of Americans have used it for medical purposes such as chronic pain, sleep disorders and the side effects of cancer treatment.
Reclassifying marijuana to Schedule III could allow researchers to more easily study products currently sold in legal markets, potentially leading to better data on safety, effectiveness and appropriate medical use.
Still, the broader legal landscape remains complicated. Marijuana is legal for medical use in most states and for recreational use in many, yet federal law continues to prohibit its possession and sale.
Until the federal rulemaking process is complete, businesses and regulators alike say they are watching closely — waiting to see how a long-debated policy shift ultimately takes shape.
To ensure diverse coverage and expert insight across a wide range of topics, our publication features contributions from multiple staff writers with varied areas of expertise.
