In a newly published legal analysis, Denver-based attorney and international drug policy expert Jason Adelstone outlines a compelling case that the U.S. Attorney General has the authority to unilaterally reschedule marijuana—without needing approval from Congress or input from health agencies.
Adelstone points to a rarely discussed provision of federal law, 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(1), that grants the Attorney General the authority to reschedule substances in order to comply with international treaty obligations. Unlike the more commonly cited rescheduling process involving the Department of Health and Human Services, this statute allows for swift, unilateral executive action.
“All it would take is a press release and a pen,” Adelstone writes, noting that current Attorney General Pam Bondi could shift marijuana from Schedule I to a lower schedule—such as Schedule III—immediately, citing treaty compliance with the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. That move would eliminate the burdensome IRS tax code provision 280E, which prevents legal marijuana businesses from deducting ordinary expenses.
While litigation would likely follow, Adelstone argues the statutory authority is clear and would remain in effect during court proceedings. He also warns that the same provision could be used in reverse—a future Attorney General could place marijuana back into Schedule I without Congressional input, highlighting the instability of relying solely on executive action.
“The real solution lies with Congress,” Adelstone concludes. “Only a legislative fix can provide durable protection from policy reversals and regulatory uncertainty.”
Adelstone also criticizes the marijuana industry’s lobbying efforts, calling them largely ineffective despite millions spent. He suggests a more politically strategic approach is necessary—one that acknowledges how Washington works and adjusts accordingly.
A longtime advisor on cannabis law and international policy, Adelstone has worked with U.S. and global stakeholders on regulatory issues surrounding marijuana reform. His latest analysis throws new weight behind the argument that one signature could ignite sweeping change—but that only Congress can make it last.
