An essay published Friday in The Yale Law Journal sharply criticizes the Biden Administration’s plan to reschedule marijuana, calling it “legally and logically indefensible” and urging full federal decriminalization instead.
The piece, written by Jennifer D. Oliva, a professor at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, argues that rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would only entrench federal control over marijuana rather than dismantling the outdated and racially biased foundation of prohibition.
“Rather than remedying the federal government’s racist and scientifically unsound criminalization of marijuana,” writes Oliva, “the Schedule III approach exacerbates the problem.” She contends that marijuana was originally banned in the 1930s through a campaign rooted in misinformation, racial prejudice, and political motives, not scientific analysis.
The essay points out that more than half of all U.S. states have legalized marijuana in some form, with many allowing recreational use, but federal law continues to prohibit it entirely. Rescheduling to Schedule III, Oliva argues, would treat marijuana more like prescription drugs such as ketamine and anabolic steroids, which remain tightly regulated by the DEA and FDA. This move, she warns, would further marginalize state-legal marijuana industries by forcing them into a regulatory framework they weren’t designed for.
Oliva calls for full descheduling—completely removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act—and allowing states to regulate it as they see fit. She argues this approach would better align with public opinion, state policy, and the scientific understanding of marijuana’s safety profile relative to other substances.
The essay is part of a broader collection in The Yale Law Journal titled “Decriminalizing Drugs,” which explores the legal and policy implications of rolling back federal drug enforcement in favor of public health strategies.
