Rescheduling Marijuana Isn’t Liberty—It’s a Tease
The Half-Measure of Rescheduling
Biden’s administration kicked off the process of changing marijuana to a Schedule III classification. This change would make marijuana more accessible from a medical perspective, but he never got it across the finish line. Trump’s administration is considering getting Biden’s plan back in motion, but the plan was and is a half measure. Recent reports suggest Trump’s administration is actively considering accelerating the Schedule III move, potentially completing what Biden started—but even this doesn’t go far enough. Trump, who initially took more of a states’ rights stance, now seems aligned with Biden’s approach that doesn’t actually expand personal freedom.
The move would effectively reclassify marijuana from Schedule I, which treats it the same way as heroin, down to Schedule III. This would represent a massive shift in how the federal government views cannabis by acknowledging the medical benefits and lower abuse potential, but it misses the point. The real debate here is about personal choice and freedom.
Acknowledging the Benefits
We do need to acknowledge some benefits of the proposed change. Medical research will grow with the change, and tax burdens will be lifted off of legal dispensaries. Right now, Section 280E of the tax code forces cannabis businesses to pay effective tax rates of 70% or higher because they can’t deduct ordinary business expenses like rent, utilities, or employee wages. Rescheduling would remove this burden, and allow these companies to operate like any other business. Prices could drop for consumers, though only for medical consumers.
The Real Issue: Personal Freedom
Trump has said he’s “100% in favor” of medical use, but remains skeptical of recreational use, even pointing to IQ concerns. What both Biden and Trump miss is that individuals’ bodies should not be governed by the government. It’s not up to someone’s arbitrary opinion on whether something is good or bad for you. Of course chronic use wouldn’t be in an individual’s best interest, and the research does support that. But eating McDonald’s every day isn’t good for you either, and nobody’s monitoring what you eat.
Opponents point to DUIs as a risk, but driving impaired would still be punishable—the same as with alcohol. Here’s the key principle: government coercion only makes sense to protect others. You can have freedom of choice and still face punishment when you endanger someone else.
Countering Opponents’ Fears
Opponents claim legalization would cause a health panic—that it’s addictive, kills motivation, causes accidents, and ultimately destroys families, education, especially in poorer neighborhoods. They breathe life into the old gateway drug myth: crime would spike, trafficking would surge, violence would follow. Conservatives correctly state that marijuana can undermine rational thinking and responsibility. Others have more outlandish claims that restricting personal freedom actually creates more freedom for non-users, who won’t become victims of bad policy.
The evidence disproves these claims. Research on Colorado and Washington found no long-term increases in violent or property crime after legalization. Police ended up solving significantly more violent and property crimes once legalization freed up resources that were previously wasted on marijuana enforcement. Legal states have pulled in billions in tax revenue for schools and public services. Colorado has collected over $3 billion since legalization, with the first $40 million annually going into public school construction.
The gateway drug fear? Youth marijuana use actually declined in states that legalized. In Colorado, teen use dropped from 22% in 2011 to 12.8% in 2023. Washington saw similar decreases. There has not been a strong statistical finding that Marijuana leads to “harder” drugs. The predicted disasters were exaggerated.
Why Prohibition Fails
Here’s what we need to decide: is personal autonomy more important than government control over what you put in your body? If they can decide what’s good or bad for you, that’s a blueprint for oppression in other areas of life. We own our bodies. The government doesn’t own us.
Prohibition—as we once saw with alcohol—created violence, arrests, and imprisonment. That’s not public safety. It hits the poorest communities the most, which ironically is the very concern opponents claim to have. The real outcome leads to broken families and generational involvement in the criminal justice system. Even if we kept the classification as is, there are significant downsides. Black markets appear and grow, accompanied by gang violence and police corruption. The drug doesn’t disappear—prohibition just creates the crime opponents fear.
A Better Path: Full Legalization
During Trump’s first term, he favored state control over federal action. This didn’t resolve anything at the federal level and actually pits fed against state, leaving everything murky. If Trump signs off on rescheduling, that’s a step forward, but only a step.
The argument isn’t about health effects. The argument is whether you truly have control over your own body. Rescheduling has clear benefits—it eliminates the Section 280E tax burden and gives cannabis businesses access to banking and medical research—but it doesn’t address personal freedom. Full legalization would go much further. It would allow for interstate commerce, create thousands of jobs, and let the industry operate like any other sector. We’d be better off pursuing approaches that grow both personal and economic freedom. Here, we could achieve both. I’m not advocating for or against using marijuana. I’m saying you should have autonomy over your own body. With momentum building—even under Trump—now is the time to push past rescheduling toward complete freedom for adults.