An analysis published today by the journal Addiction finds that while less than 7% of the public opposes marijuana rescheduling, 63.50% say a move to Schedule III doesn’t go far enough.

Researchers from Johns Hopkins University, La Trobe University and the University of California San Diego examined 42,913 public comments submitted to Regulations.gov between May 21 and July 22, 2024, in response to the DEA’s proposed rescheduling of marijuana. Using a mix of manual review and large language model analysis, the study categorized comments based on whether they supported, opposed, or viewed the proposal as insufficient.

The findings show that 28.85% of comments supported rescheduling to Schedule III, while just 6.74% opposed the change. A clear majority—63.50%—said the proposal did not go far enough, instead favoring further rescheduling or full descheduling.

Among those supporting the proposal, the most common reasons cited were marijuana’s therapeutic benefits (56.7%) and potential economic impacts (27.8%). In contrast, opposition comments focused entirely on public health risks, with 100% citing concerns in that category, alongside worries about addiction (71.4%) and underage use (57.1%).

For those who said Schedule III was insufficient, therapeutic benefits were again a leading factor (37.8%), followed by economic considerations (28.6%) and criminal justice reform (26.5%).

The study’s authors say the results highlight strong public backing for federal marijuana reform, but also underscore that a significant majority of engaged commenters want more sweeping changes than what’s currently proposed.

The analysis comes just two days after the DOJ issued an order rescheduling FDA-approved and state-licensed cannabis to Schedule III, while putting in place an expedited process to rescheduling all cannabis (with a hearing set for June 29).