Understanding the Implications of Medical Cannabis Rescheduling: An Interview with Paul Armentano

Leading up to the Jun 29 rescheduling hearings, we had the pleasure of sitting down with Paul Armentano, Deputy Director of NORML. The interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

The rescheduling announcement has led to a number of questions from businesses and consumers. Could medical cannabis rescheduling open the door to interstate commerce, and what are the remaining barriers?

Let me begin with an important caveat. I am not a lawyer. I’m giving my layperson thoughts and perspectives. None of this should be taken as legal advice.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s order creates a pathway for state-licensed businesses to apply for federal licensure. While I don’t have a crystal ball, I’d presume that at some point in the future, these state-licensed businesses that register with the DEA will be provided with some sort of clarity regarding whether they can participate in interstate commerce with one another.

But this will likely not happen right away. We’re talking about changes to a federal policy that has been in place for over five decades and encompasses a wide range of different statutes and agencies. Additionally, it’s possible that some state governments may be averse to the idea of widespread interstate commerce, not because they’re opposed to medical cannabis expansion per se, but because their intent when crafting their medical marijuana policies was to regulate and gatekeep this market in a way that primarily benefits local businesses and residents, not out-of-state interests.

Is there a world where medical cannabis rescheduling could lead to a national medical card?

I don’t think so. This is not a country that is fond of creating and issuing new national cards. And the majority of the public isn’t very fond of them either. I mean, it took over two decades to get the Real ID at airports. 

In lieu of a national medical cannabis card, how likely is it that we might see a federal policy change that allows patients to travel across state lines with medical cannabis?

I do think there will come a time when state-registered patients can travel freely from one legal state to another. Some legal experts believe that day is already here, though they include a lot of caveats to go along with their perspective. I think interstate travel will become explicitly permissible down the road, but there needs to be further clarification and guidance provided by the requisite federal agencies before that happens. 

In an ideal world, this sort of guidance would have been provided at the same time the rescheduling order came down. But these agencies aren’t necessarily coordinating with one another. Little by little, I think we’ll see greater clarity evolve. If not, this issue, like many related cannabis policy issues, will end up in the courts, and you’ll end up with case-by-case decisions being handed down. 

Medicare currently has a pilot program that will cover up to $500 worth of hemp-derived CBD products for a limited number of Medicare patients. What would have to happen for insurance to cover or reimburse patients for medical cannabis evaluations or products?

If insurance companies wanted to begin reimbursing patients for their out-of-pocket medical cannabis expenditures, I believe that they could go ahead and decide to do so right now. But historically, they have been resistant to this idea. I doubt this longstanding resistance will change overnight, though perhaps rescheduling will encourage lawmakers to amend state medical cannabis statutes in a manner which demands that insurance companies treat cannabis like other traditional medicines. Insurers may balk at such a demand, and ultimately this might become the subject of litigation. 

Is there legal precedent for how that sort of litigation might play out?

Again, I’m not a lawyer. But the insurance companies’ primary arguments against providing coverage has been the federal government's stance that cannabis had no medical value. For the time being, they’ve lost this argument. 

Speaking of cannabis arguments, medical cannabis rescheduling means the federal government is now officially acknowledging the medical benefits of cannabis. Given that shift, how do you anticipate prohibitionist talking points changing?

It was my hope that federal rescheduling would mean we no longer have to continue to make the case on behalf of patients that cannabis possesses legitimate utility, or push back on the narrative that cannabis possesses a risk profile that is so adverse that it belongs in the same category as heroin. But that hasn’t happened, at least not yet. In fact, I’ve been somewhat surprised to the degree that many ideological opponents and prohibitionists have dug their heels in even further since the Administration took action.

In many ways, medical patients are under greater rhetorical attack today than just a few years ago. Parties that have rarely pushed back on anything the Trump administration does are vocally pushing back on rescheduling. And the mainstream media is all too frequently amplifying their voices. 

Fortunately, public support for medical cannabis remains around 90%, and this includes growing support among medical health professionals. I think rescheduling only strengthens the public’s resolve. 

While medical cannabis has been rescheduled, adult-use cannabis remains Schedule I, and a hemp THC ban is looming. Could the push back on recreational and hemp markets lead to greater mistrust of cannabis just as the federal government is finally acknowledging the plant’s medical applications?

I think there is a concerted effort going on right now from those opposed to cannabis legalization to purposefully blur the lines between regulated and unregulated cannabis markets. They highlight the most egregious activities taking place in the unregulated market as a way to try and undermine public support for legal markets – hoping the public won’t recognize the difference. It’s reached a point where even the use of the word “cannabis” is becoming almost meaningless. An unregulated cannabis product available at a gas station is a very different product from one a patient might obtain from a state-regulated retailer or dispensary. Yet both products will interchangeably be referred to as ‘marijuana’ or ‘cannabis.’ 

The New York Times editorial board engaged in this sleight of hand recently. Throughout their editorial, which was critical of cannabis legalization, they highlighted problems associated with the unregulated marketplace, such as the production and sale of products intended to mimic name brands. But those products are actually not permitted in legal markets and are only available in the unregulated market. 

I provided a response to the Times, which they ultimately published, setting the record straight. I’ve had to do a lot of that lately. That’s one of the reasons that NORML, and advocacy groups like NORML, are as important now as ever. 

What would you say to people who believe organizations like NORML are no longer needed now that medical cannabis has been rescheduled?

That’s a very naïve and short-sighted opinion. In reality, we only see political and cultural changes in this country when there are groups actively agitating for those changes. Absent that level of advocacy, political change typically stops altogether and hard fought political gains are lost.

It should be clear to everybody that our political and ideological opponents aren’t going away. In fact, in the last few years they’ve restructured, they’ve tweaked their arguments, and they’re now sitting on a larger war chest of financial resources than at any time in their history. They are ready to engage in a very long and protracted battle. And if there aren’t advocates continuing to hold the line and fighting to protect the important gains that we’ve made, we’re likely going to see the pendulum begin to swing back in the direction of prohibition. In fact, we’re already seeing that now in some cases. We can look at a state like Nebraska where the public overwhelmingly voted in support of comprehensive medical cannabis access and the legislature basically has said “Yeah, we’re going to do everything we can not to do that.” Or Ohio, where the legislature recently repealed a number of core elements of that state’s voter-approved legalization law, such as recriminalizing the personal possession of any cannabis product not produced in the state.  

In short, there will always need to be advocacy groups in this space in order to ensure that there is someone looking out for the interests of the tens of millions of responsible cannabis consumers.

Speaking of cannabis advocacy, the DEA announced the participants for the rescheduling hearings, and the list seems to only include anti-cannabis groups and individuals. Given that, what would you say is the best case scenario coming out of the Jun 29 rescheduling hearings?

The DEA’s decision is disconcerting at the very least. A fair administrative process should include the voices of those most directly affected by federal cannabis policy: consumers, patients, and the communities that have lived under prohibition. Excluding NORML and other advocacy groups from this hearing deprives the record of that perspective.

Further, the judge’s order maintaining that the proceedings will not be broadcast to the public in any way raises additional concerns. This is a topic of national interest and the outcome of these proceedings will have significant ramifications for tens of millions of Americans. Yet the general public is being purposefully kept in the dark.

Is there a potential outcome from the hearings that you don’t think enough people are talking about?

The fact that the administrative rescheduling process is neither transparent nor expeditious, nor is it designed to be. Most importantly, the process is not complete until a final order has been issued, adopted, and the legal challenges to that order have been exhausted. That latter part of the conversation, I believe, has been largely neglected over the last few years. 

Currently, Todd Blanche’s rescheduling order is being challenged by a number of different parties, including the AG’s of multiple states. We don’t know when or how that litigation is going to be resolved. If and when we get an order from the DEA’s administrative law judge, that order can also be subject to litigation. It’s very likely that these legal challenges will prevent this issue from being resolved for quite some time to come. 

What can you tell us about the recent Supreme Court decision involving cannabis and the 2nd Amendment? I know NORML was involved in that case.

Indeed. We filed an amicus brief arguing that the federal government’s categorical ban on firearm ownership for individuals with a history of marijuana use is overtly unconstitutional. Justices on the Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our position.

Leading up to the hearing, NORML also brought several successful challenges to the federal ban in various lower courts, including a high-profile legal challenge in the 11th Circuit. 

NORML’s position on this matter has always been clear: Responsible adults do not forfeit their Second Amendment rights merely because they consume cannabis, absent any individualized showing of dangerousness. 

How can consumers continue advocating for acceptance and smart cannabis policies in 2026 and beyond?

At the end of the day, the most effective advocates are patients and consumers. They have led the way and they need to continue to do so. 

Simply flipping the switch and saying cannabis is no longer prohibited doesn’t mean there isn’t work to be done to ensure these now legal consumers are treated respectfully and fairly. That’s where continued advocacy comes in. 

For instance, NORML advocates that consumers shouldn’t be subject to overly burdensome taxation. We argue that parents shouldn’t fear losing their children simply for their cannabis use. That consumers and patients shouldn’t be discriminated against in the workplace for their off-the-job use of cannabis. These are all issues that require sustained advocacy even after cannabis is legalized.

So consumers need to get involved with groups like NORML and they must continue advocating for equal treatment under the law, treatment equal to those who use other traditional medications or recreational substances. Political change doesn’t happen without advocacy. And political gains can be lost without continued advocacy.

For those who wish to get involved, NORML provides a list of ways to take action. Or you can donate to NORML through their website.

Speaking of advocacy, how can consumers, patients, and businesses in the industry reconcile enjoying the benefits of rescheduling when there continue to be many thousands of individuals serving time for non-violent cannabis offenses?

I think there is a growing understanding among advocates and others that even as we move this issue forward, we also have to acknowledge and address the injustices that occurred in the past.

And I think we’re doing so. We’ve seen millions of individuals with marijuana related convictions have those convictions expunged at the state level over the last ten years. We’ve seen tens of thousands of people have their sentences commuted. We’ve seen states enact resentencing laws which allow people who were incarcerated for marijuana crimes to have those terms revisited or be let out of prison altogether. 

Lawmakers and advocates have made it clear we can’t forget about the people who suffered under prohibition. I’m very proud of that fact.

For new consumers and non-consumers, messaging around hemp-derived THC, the illicit market, adult-use cannabis, and medical marijuana programs can become confusing. How can advocates, organizations, and lawmakers educate the public about risks and knowledge gaps without vilifying the regulated market?

I don’t think advocating for better regulatory policies or greater clarity in any way takes away from acknowledging the public policy gains we’ve made so far. One of the unique takeaways in having this state-by-state patchwork system of cannabis regulations is that we have a 30,000 foot view of what policies work best and what policies don’t work as well. We have seen some instances where regulation has done a good job, and we’ve seen other examples of where regulation has fallen short. 

I say that acknowledging that everybody went into this with the best of intentions. Sometimes there are outcomes that are inadvertent and unforeseen, and when that happens we learn from our mistakes and we rectify them. 

When it comes to what issues we need to focus on in order to make the legal market better, the answers are fairly clear. We want a market that is as transparent as it can be, where consumers have the most information possible so that they can make responsible and evidence-based choices. When we see elements of the market that are falling short of those goals, whether it involves better product testing, more accurate labeling, more prominent public education, more universal criteria of what components are tested for…we need to address them. 

Over time we’ll see the regulated cannabis markets continue to evolve. I’m not fearful of future changes, as long as those changes focus on putting consumers’ health and safety first.

Additional information on cannabis rescheduling and its implications is available from the NORML Facts Sheet, ‘Cannabis Rescheduling: Myths Versus Reality.’

Paul Armentano is the Deputy Director of NORML — the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws and he is the author of the book Clinical Applications for Cannabis & Cannabinoids, which has been translated and published internationally.

The information in this article and any included images or charts are for educational purposes only. This information is neither a substitute for, nor does it replace, professional legal advice or medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. If you have any concerns or questions about laws, regulations, or your health, you should always consult with an attorney, physician or other licensed professional.