The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has released the complete transcripts from its 11-day marijuana rescheduling hearing, offering the most detailed account yet of the evidence presented both for and against moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III.

The roughly 2,500-page record covers testimony presented from June 29 through July 15 before DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius. It shows the federal government firmly defending Schedule III while opponents focused on marijuana’s potential health effects, federal workplace testing, impaired driving, youth access and criminal activity.

The government was the only designated party affirmatively defending the proposed move. The seven outside parties participating in the hearing opposed rescheduling or raised concerns about its potential consequences.

The most consequential testimony came from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official who said marijuana has an accepted medical use for three conditions and is better aligned with Schedule III than substances in Schedules I or II. However, witnesses opposing rescheduling challenged the government’s methodology and emphasized the differences between standardized cannabinoid medications and marijuana products sold through state-licensed dispensaries.

The testimony also revealed disagreement within DEA, concessions from several witnesses opposing the move and repeated disputes over whether the hearing should consider the consequences of state legalization.

Below is a detailed breakdown of the major testimony and admissions contained in the full DEA transcripts.

The Government Made an Unambiguous Case for Schedule III

The government opened the hearing by stating that it was the proponent of the proposed rule and that the evidence would establish that marijuana “can no longer remain in Schedule I.”

Government attorneys emphasized that the proceeding concerned federal regulation rather than legalization. Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not federally legalize its recreational use, and the manufacture, distribution, dispensing and possession of marijuana would remain subject to applicable provisions of the Controlled Substances Act.

Marijuana products would also remain subject to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.

The scope of the hearing was narrower than the original 2024 proposal. An April 2026 order had already transferred marijuana covered by state-issued medical licenses, along with any FDA-approved marijuana products, to Schedule III. The hearing concerned marijuana not already covered by that action, including unlicensed, recreational and illicit marijuana.

The government’s central argument was that Schedule I substances cannot have a currently accepted medical use in the United States. Once the Department of Health and Human Services determined that marijuana has such a use, the government argued that it could no longer legally remain in Schedule I.

Dr. Dominic Chiapperino of the FDA’s Controlled Substance Staff testified that the agency found credible scientific support for marijuana’s use in treating:

• Pain
• Nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy
• Anorexia associated with a medical condition

Only one accepted medical use is necessary to disqualify a substance from Schedule I. The FDA identified three.

Chiapperino said the agency then compared marijuana with substances already placed in Schedules I through IV. The review examined abuse potential, withdrawal, physical dependence and psychological dependence.

The substances used for comparison included heroin, fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, cocaine, ketamine, benzodiazepines, zolpidem and tramadol. Alcohol was also considered, although it is not federally scheduled.

The FDA ultimately concluded that marijuana’s characteristics were most consistent with Schedule III.

Chiapperino acknowledged that finding a currently accepted medical use for scheduling purposes is not the same as granting FDA approval to marijuana as a prescription drug. The finding does not establish that every marijuana product is safe, effective or appropriate for every patient.

Instead, it recognizes that medical use is occurring extensively under state programs and that credible scientific evidence supports at least some of those uses.

The New Medical-Use Test Was a Central Point of Dispute

Much of the hearing focused on the two-part test used by HHS to determine whether marijuana has a currently accepted medical use.

Under that test, the government examined whether there was widespread medical use under state-authorized programs and whether credible scientific evidence supported at least one of those uses.

Opponents argued that HHS should have continued using a stricter five-part test applied in previous marijuana scheduling reviews. That test required a known and reproducible chemistry, adequate safety studies, adequate and well-controlled efficacy studies, acceptance among qualified experts and widely available scientific evidence.

Chiapperino acknowledged that marijuana would not have passed the traditional five-part test. However, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel determined in 2024 that the two-part test is legally sufficient even when a substance has not received FDA approval. Government attorneys repeatedly told the judge that the legal validity of that test was binding on the Justice Department, DEA and the tribunal.

Opponents were still allowed to challenge how the test was applied and the weight that should be given to the resulting findings.

A Sitting DEA Scientist Revealed an Internal Divide

One of the hearing’s most notable developments involved Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye, a pharmacologist working in DEA’s Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section.

Akinfiresoye was called as a witness by Smart Approaches to Marijuana despite being a current DEA employee. She testified about a December 2024 scientific review of marijuana that she prepared in her official role.

Akinfiresoye said the review was prepared in coordination with colleagues, received approval within her section and was an official DEA document.

She also testified that the 2024 notice proposing Schedule III was published before DEA’s own eight-factor analysis was complete. According to Akinfiresoye, the agency still lacked information when the proposed rule was released.

Her section applied the older five-part medical-use test and reached a different result than HHS. It concluded that marijuana failed the test because it lacks standardized chemistry and dosing, sufficient well-controlled studies establishing efficacy, consensus among qualified experts and sufficiently consistent scientific information.

Akinfiresoye acknowledged that those findings conflicted with HHS’s conclusion that marijuana has a currently accepted medical use. She also acknowledged that the Office of Legal Counsel had found the two-part approach legally acceptable.

Her testimony documented a divide within the federal system: HHS and the FDA found that marijuana has an accepted medical use under the two-part test, while scientists working inside DEA reached the opposite conclusion after applying the older standard.

That disagreement does not necessarily allow DEA to disregard the HHS finding. Federal law gives HHS significant authority over the scientific and medical portion of scheduling decisions, while DEA retains responsibility for the final scheduling action.

Pain Doctor Described Moving Patients Away From Opioids

The government’s second witness was Dr. Corey Burchman, a former anesthesiologist and pain-management physician who discussed his experience treating patients with both opioids and marijuana.

Burchman testified that he had helped some patients discontinue or substantially reduce their opioid use by transitioning them to cannabinoid medications or botanical marijuana. He described opioid withdrawal as considerably more severe than marijuana withdrawal and emphasized the risk of fatal opioid overdoses.

He also discussed advising patients about marijuana products, concentrations, dosing and methods of consumption.

Opponents challenged the scope of his experience. During questioning, Burchman acknowledged that botanical marijuana cannot currently be prescribed under conventional federal rules and that physicians generally provide recommendations rather than prescriptions containing a specific product, standardized dose, quantity and refill instructions.

He also acknowledged risks associated with marijuana, including potential mental health effects in susceptible patients, and said he would not recommend it during pregnancy.

The testimony illustrated one of the government’s strongest practical arguments: Marijuana may provide some pain patients with an alternative to opioids. It also demonstrated the regulatory complications caused by the absence of standardized products and conventional federal prescribing rules.

Harvard Professor’s Schedule III Testimony

Dr. Bertha Madras, a professor of psychobiology in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, testified for Smart Approaches to Marijuana.

Although she was addressed as “doctor,” Madras holds a Ph.D. and is not a physician or pharmacist. She does not treat patients. The government challenged portions of her testimony concerning clinical treatment on that basis, although the judge allowed the testimony and said the issue could affect how much weight it received.

Madras argued that marijuana should remain in Schedule I, citing addiction, psychiatric risks, inconsistent products and what she characterized as weak evidence supporting medical benefits.

She acknowledged that Marinol and Syndros, two FDA-approved medications containing nearly pure THC, are already in and belong in Schedule III. However, she distinguished those medications from marijuana itself, noting that they have fixed doses, standardized formulations and extensive prescribing information.

Madras also agreed that marijuana research is complex, that qualified researchers can reach different conclusions and that more than 50,000 marijuana-related studies are available through PubMed.

She made another notable concession while comparing marijuana with opioids. Madras explained that cannabinoid receptors are largely absent from the part of the brain that controls breathing and said marijuana “will not kill you with an overdose” through the respiratory suppression associated with opioids. She maintained, however, that marijuana could contribute to deaths through impaired driving, suicide and other indirect causes.

Opposing Pain Physician Acknowledged Medical Benefits

Dr. Kenneth Finn, a Colorado pain physician who opposed rescheduling, presented extensive testimony about product inconsistency, addiction, psychosis, suicide and the limitations of state medical marijuana systems.

Finn described obtaining a Colorado medical marijuana card after a short telehealth consultation in which the recommending physician did not review his medical records, assess his claimed pain level or discuss drug interactions.

He also challenged the idea that marijuana can treat chronic pain as a single condition, noting that neuropathic, musculoskeletal and other forms of pain have different causes and may respond differently to treatment.

Under government questioning, however, Finn made several important concessions.

He agreed that certain components of marijuana can be medically beneficial and acknowledged that he had previously recommended marijuana to some of his patients. He also agreed that marijuana does not cause the respiratory shutdown associated with opioid overdoses.

On redirect, Finn said he stopped recommending marijuana after patients reported that it did not relieve their pain and caused adverse effects, including chest pain and heart palpitations.

Finn said he would consider recommending a cannabinoid product if it underwent rigorous scientific testing and was demonstrated to work.

His testimony showed that even an opposing physician who questioned marijuana’s use as conventional medicine did not characterize the plant or its components as entirely devoid of therapeutic potential.

Opponents Raised Concerns About Federal Workplace Testing

The National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association focused its case on workplace and transportation testing.

Its witnesses argued that existing federal testing authority was written around Schedule I and Schedule II substances. They warned that moving marijuana to Schedule III could disrupt mandatory testing for millions of transportation and other safety-sensitive employees unless federal rules or executive orders are changed.

Patrice Kelly, who spent more than three decades working on Department of Transportation drug-testing policy, described the relationship between DOT and HHS testing standards. Mary Jo McGuire, executive director of the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, discussed the potential effects on employers, testing laboratories and medical review officers.

The witnesses also questioned how a medical review officer would evaluate a positive marijuana result when a worker has received a state medical marijuana recommendation rather than a conventional prescription filled by a pharmacy.

The government disputed some of the organization’s legal interpretations and questioned whether the testimony was directly relevant to deciding marijuana’s proper schedule. The hearing did not conclusively resolve whether rescheduling would require changes to federal workplace-testing rules.

Impaired Driving and Traffic Deaths Received Extensive Attention

DUID Victim Voices founder Ed Wood testified that moving marijuana to Schedule III would increase consumption and, in turn, increase impaired driving.

Wood founded the organization after his son was killed in a crash involving drivers who had consumed multiple drugs, including marijuana. He argued that marijuana impairment is more difficult to measure than alcohol impairment because blood THC levels do not consistently correspond with a person’s level of impairment.

He said the federal government had not adequately examined how rescheduling could affect traffic deaths and argued that increased marijuana consumption could produce thousands of additional deaths annually.

Those figures were presented as projections rather than documented outcomes of Schedule III placement. Rescheduling itself would not establish nationwide adult-use legalization.

Physicians Focused on Psychosis, Addiction and Product Potency

Several opposing witnesses concentrated on marijuana’s potential psychiatric effects.

Emergency physician Dr. Karen Randall described patients she had treated for cannabis use disorder, cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, psychosis, accidental ingestion and other incidents. Her testimony relied heavily on individual emergency-room cases, including children and teenagers exposed to high-dose marijuana products.

Laura Stack gave emotional testimony about her son Johnny, who experienced psychosis and died by suicide after years of marijuana use. Stack subsequently founded Johnny’s Ambassadors, an organization focused on youth marijuana prevention.

The witnesses argued that increasing product potency has changed marijuana’s risk profile and that adolescents and people predisposed to psychotic disorders face particularly serious dangers.

Yale Expert Made Two Important Concessions

Dr. Deepak D’Souza, a Yale University psychiatrist and longtime marijuana researcher, testified for the states opposing rescheduling.

D’Souza presented evidence linking THC with temporary psychotic symptoms and an elevated risk of psychosis among vulnerable people, particularly with frequent use and high-potency products.

Under government questioning, however, D’Souza made two important concessions.

First, he acknowledged that one of his published articles stated there was evidence supporting legitimate medical use for marijuana or cannabinoids in a limited number of conditions, particularly chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and neuropathic pain.

He qualified that statement by saying he was primarily referring to isolated cannabinoids rather than botanical marijuana.

Second, he agreed that psychosis is a potential outcome rather than the expected outcome for marijuana consumers. Asked whether most people who consume marijuana will develop psychosis, D’Souza responded, “Most people will not have psychosis.”

The government also confronted D’Souza with a recent interview in which he said the overwhelming majority of people who use marijuana do so in moderation and do not experience negative consequences. D’Souza agreed that the statement was accurate.

He added that rising THC potency may be contributing to increased rates of psychosis and maintained that the psychiatric risks currently outweigh marijuana’s demonstrated benefits.

Some Opponents Blurred Rescheduling and Legalization

A recurring disagreement involved whether the hearing should consider the consequences of state legalization when deciding marijuana’s federal schedule.

The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation opposed rescheduling through testimony from Agent Erica Stephens. She discussed marijuana seizures, diversion from legal states, high-potency products and criminal organizations involved in distribution.

Stephens repeatedly referred to Schedule III as “deregulation.” When Julius asked what she meant, she said she was using deregulation synonymously with rescheduling.

The government’s questioning highlighted that moving a substance to a lower schedule is not the same as removing it from federal control. It also noted that diversion occurs with Schedule II medications such as oxycodone and Adderall.

That exchange demonstrated that criminal diversion does not necessarily determine whether a substance belongs in Schedule I, since controlled medications in other schedules are also illegally distributed.

Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal testified for Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska about illegal cultivation in Northern California. He described environmental contamination, unlicensed growing operations, labor trafficking, organized crime and violence connected with the illicit marijuana market.

Government attorneys emphasized that much of Honsal’s testimony concerned California’s experience with medical and recreational legalization rather than the narrower question of federal Schedule III placement.

Honsal also acknowledged that some benefits resulted from California’s regulatory system. He said local regulations helped law enforcement distinguish licensed operators from illicit growers and forced some bad actors out of Humboldt County.

His testimony suggested that legalization did not eliminate the illicit market but that regulation provided law enforcement with clearer distinctions between legal and illegal activity.

Official Corrections Prevent a False Schedule III Admission

The transcripts contain red text and strikethroughs reflecting corrections ordered by Julius after the parties reviewed the initial record.

One correction prevents a potentially significant mischaracterization of testimony.

The original Day 9 transcript appeared to show pharmacist Phillip Drum, an opponent of rescheduling, saying marijuana should maintain its current status in “CS-III.” Julius’ transcript-correction order changed both instances from “CS-III” to “CS-I.”

The statement was a transcription error, not an admission that marijuana belongs in Schedule III.

The corrections affecting Madras’ testimony principally addressed names, speaker identifications and transcription mistakes. None changed her position that botanical marijuana should remain in Schedule I.

The DEA is scheduled to make fully corrected versions of the transcripts publicly available by August 26.

What the Judge Must Now Decide

At the conclusion of the hearing, Julius said the record included 11 days of testimony and thousands of pages of admitted documents.

The judge stressed that the question is not whether marijuana is harmless, whether every claimed medical use is supported or whether recreational marijuana should be federally legal.

The question is whether marijuana, as defined by the Controlled Substances Act and excluding products already in Schedule III, should be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III.

The transcripts show that the government established a relatively straightforward legal case: Marijuana cannot remain in Schedule I if it has a currently accepted medical use, and HHS identified three such uses. The FDA also concluded that its abuse and dependence profile most closely aligns with Schedule III.

Opponents created a substantial record concerning product inconsistency, psychiatric risks, impaired driving, youth exposure, workplace testing and illegal markets. They also documented limitations in the evidence used by HHS and disagreement among scientists working inside the federal government.

However, many of their arguments addressed the consequences of marijuana use, commercialization or state legalization rather than the specific statutory distinction between Schedule I and Schedule III.

Julius will issue a recommended decision after reviewing the testimony, exhibits and written closing arguments submitted by the parties.

His recommendation will not be the final decision. The designated parties will have an opportunity to file exceptions before DEA Administrator Terry Cole makes the agency’s final determination.