The Drug Enforcement Administration is set to hold hearings on a proposal that would shift marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. This reclassification, if enacted, would officially recognize all cannabis products—from flower and pre-rolls to vape cartridges and edibles—as having a currently accepted medical use. But critics argue that such a move would place political expediency ahead of scientific rigor.
Dr. Russell Kamer, a clinical associate professor at New York Medical College and a practicing physician for 30 years, warns that the decision should be based on evidence, not ideology. “The question of legalizing recreational marijuana is one of personal ideology,” he says, but whether a substance qualifies as a medicine is a scientific fact that can be proven or disproven.
What Makes a Drug a Medicine?
Kamer points out that legitimate medicines must demonstrate safety, efficacy, consistent manufacturing, known dosing, and an acceptable risk-benefit profile through rigorous clinical trials. The marijuana sold in state-licensed dispensaries, he argues, meets none of these criteria. While the FDA has approved purified cannabinoids like THC and CBD for specific medical uses, crude cannabis products have not undergone the same level of scrutiny.
The Department of Health and Human Services has cited the existence of state medical marijuana programs as evidence of broad medical acceptance. However, Kamer notes that in Colorado, where data is available, only 0.1 percent of healthcare practitioners with prescribing authority issued more than 70 percent of all medical marijuana certifications. Meanwhile, roughly 98 percent of eligible practitioners issued none at all.
“That is not widespread medical acceptance,” Kamer asserts.
Research Barriers or Red Herring?
Proponents of rescheduling often argue that marijuana's current classification creates unnecessary barriers to research. But Kamer counters that research proving a drug is an effective medicine normally precedes its classification as such. “To do otherwise is putting the cart before the horse,” he says. In fact, cannabis research is thriving—approximately 4,000 scientific papers are published annually, and the NIH database now indexes more than 53,000 cannabis publications.
Kamer also warns of the public health consequences. Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would send a misleading message that cannabis is a validated treatment. In his work as a medical review officer, he has spoken with parents who, believing marijuana is medicine, accepted their teenagers' use of cannabis for anxiety. Yet data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Development Study—the largest long-term study of brain development in U.S. youth—shows that teen users experience reduced acquisition of memory, attention, and thinking skills compared to non-users.
Potency and Health Risks
Today's marijuana is far more potent than in previous generations. Kamer has seen cases of cannabis-induced psychosis and cannabis hyperemesis syndrome—illnesses that did not exist when he was in medical school 40 years ago. He notes that the debate over marijuana has become deeply polarized, with advocates often overstating benefits and opponents overstating harms. Policymakers, he urges, should reject both extremes and put science ahead of politics.
The broader political context is also relevant. The Trump administration's executive order directing the attorney general to expedite the Schedule III rulemaking was titled “Increasing Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research,” highlighting the political pressure behind the move. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently ruled unanimously to shield a marijuana user's gun rights under the Second Amendment, further complicating the legal landscape.
As the DEA hearings approach, the core question remains: Is this decision driven by scientific evidence or by political calculation? For Kamer and many in the medical community, the answer is clear—and troubling.
