Key Takeaways
- The DEA Marijuana rescheduling hearing revealed notable testimony, showing government witnesses admitting low harm rates for marijuana and lack of rigorous evidence against it.
- Opponents of rescheduling faced challenges, as their claims often fell apart during cross-examinations, revealing biases and unfounded concerns.
- Cannabis reform supporters were excluded from the hearing, leading to a one-sided discussion dominated by anti-rescheduling voices.
- Rescheduling to Schedule III would ease tax burdens for operators but neglects legacy operators and doesn’t address broader legalization issues.
- The next steps involve a nonbinding recommendation from Judge Julius on whether marijuana remains a Schedule I substance or moves to Schedule II or III.
For weeks, everyone had a take on what happened inside a hearing that was never streamed or recorded for the public. Now there are receipts. The Drug Enforcement Administration has posted the corrected day-by-day transcript from proceedings held June 29 through July 15, and the public can finally read exactly what witnesses said under oath.
The record matters because it lets us test testimony against evidence. We can compare the government’s position with its opponents’ claims, and we can document precisely whose perspectives were left out of the room. DEA Administrator Terry Cole invited only opponents of reform to participate as designated parties, so the transcript captures a lopsided fight where the loudest voices were all pulling in one direction.
This isn’t a deep dive into every corner of the transcript. But there are a handful of moments worth flagging. Contradictions, concessions, and questionable claims that stand out, and that have real implications for patients, operators, and legacy businesses.
We’ve compiled all transcripts from the 11 days of testimony, which you can find here. Please note that the page numbers cited in this article correspond to the combined transcripts linked above.
Who Was in the Room and Who Was Shut Out
Cannabis reform supporters were not invited. NORML and other pro-rescheduling groups asked to participate and were denied, told they did not meet the definition of an “interested person.” The seven anti-rescheduling parties who did get seats were Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, DUID Victim Voices, Dr. Kenneth Finn, Dr. Phillip Drum, and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska.
That imbalance shapes the entire record. Seven parties spent the bulk of the hearing arguing against reform, while the government carried the case for rescheduling largely on its own. The proceedings were not livestreamed, despite official promises of transparency, which is why the corrected transcript is the first real chance for the public to judge the testimony for itself.
What the Government Actually Conceded
The government’s own witnesses handed the record some of its most useful admissions. Dr. Dominic Chiapperino, testifying for the government, conceded that marijuana’s harm rate sits at the bottom of the pack. “As a rate, in almost every database, harms associated with marijuana was generally lower than all of the comparators or a good number of the comparators,” he testified.
He also confirmed that single-entity marijuana overdose deaths are extremely rare and usually tied to a secondary event like an accident or fall (Page 77). Over a 10-year span, marijuana produced the lowest absolute number of overdose deaths of any substance studied, at 5,957 (Page 89).
DEA attorney James Schwartz framed the government’s stance plainly on day one: “The Government is not putting forth any evidence to suggest that marijuana is not dangerous… controlled substances must be evaluated by the risks they pose balanced with the medical use they provide” (Page 31-32). The government’s brief argued marijuana no longer fits Schedule I because more than 30,000 practitioners now treat over six million patients across 43 jurisdictions.
Cracks in the Government’s Science
The concessions cut both ways. Chiapperino admitted the FDA’s two-part test for accepted medical use is “not as rigorous in the standard of evidence” as the older five-part test (Page 410), and that marijuana would likely have failed that older test because its clinical studies were only “pilot study size” (Page 436).
He also conceded the FDA never reviewed the quality of individual state programs (Page 259), did not evaluate high-potency delta-8 products (Page 209), and included anxiety in its analysis even though it failed the Part 1 test (Page 468). These gaps give reform opponents real material to cite in the appeals already moving through the D.C. Circuit.
Where the Anti-Rescheduling Case Fell Apart
For all their airtime, the opponents struggled to land clean punches. On drugged driving, DUID’s Ed Wood conceded the projected “6,000 additional traffic deaths” figure could not actually be pinned on marijuana. “We can’t say that those 6,000 deaths were all due to marijuana,” he admitted (Page 1444). He also conceded that the 5-nanogram THC limit “does not discriminate between impaired and non-impaired” (Page 1497) and that blood THC does not correlate with brain impairment (Page 1482).
Dr. Kenneth Finn, an anti-rescheduling expert, conceded that components of the plant have “anti-nociceptive or pain-relieving qualities” (Page 1632) and that he had personally recommended marijuana to patients (Page 1670). He also admitted marijuana does not cause users to stop breathing (Page 1670).
The Testimony That Should Embarrass the Prohibition Camp
Some of the most damaging moments came from opponents’ own witnesses. Dr. Randall relied on internet memes and unverified photos of babies allegedly smoking, admitting under cross-examination that she did not know if the images were real or where they came from (Page 2171, 2182). She repeatedly conceded that the pediatric harms she presented were actually cases of diversion, meaning illicit access by minors, not failures of regulated medical use (Page 2175-2185).
NDASA’s Mary Jo McGuire conceded she is not a doctor, pharmacist or toxicologist, and that her opposition rests mainly on drug-testing lab concerns rather than medicine (Page 1119-1121). Government counsel also flagged that the DEA’s own scientist, Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye, had authored an analysis 18 months earlier concluding that marijuana had no medical use, yet the DEA never called her to testify.
What the Record Means for Patients
Under the already-enacted reclassification, certified patients holding state-licensed medical marijuana now carry certain federal protections. A draft ATF gun form even acknowledges medical cannabis as federally legal, dropping its prior mention of medical use from the prohibited category.
The limits still bite, though. The Department of Transportation confirmed that truckers and pilots still cannot use medical marijuana, and the military maintains its ban for service members. For everyday patients, the transcript reinforces what many already knew from experience: the harm profile is low, and access under state programs is real, even if federal law remains a patchwork.
What Operators and Legacy Businesses Need to Watch
For licensed operators, the headline consequence is 280E. A move to Schedule III would lift the tax penalty that blocks cannabis businesses from taking standard federal deductions. DEA has already opened a registration process for state-legal manufacturing, distribution and testing businesses to access federal benefits tied to the reform.
Legacy operators get far less. Rescheduling does nothing to expunge records or free people still sitting in prison for cannabis. It does not touch interstate commerce, state licensing or possession rules. The people who built this industry before legalization remain largely locked out of the benefits now being handed to registered players.
Why Rescheduling Is a Step, Not the Finish Line
Let’s be clear about what rescheduling does and doesn’t do. Moving cannabis to Schedule III keeps it inside the Controlled Substances Act and under DEA authority. It acknowledges medical value and eases the tax burden, and that’s genuine progress worth recognizing.
But it leaves the plant federally controlled, keeps recreational use illegal at the federal level, and does nothing for the legacy community that carried cannabis through prohibition. Descheduling, removing cannabis from the CSA entirely, is the only path that treats the plant honestly and closes the door on the enforcement machine that put people like Edwin Rubis behind bars for decades. Rescheduling is a step in the right direction. It is not the destination.
What Happens Next?
Judge Julius now weighs the testimony, exhibits and post-hearing briefs before issuing a nonbinding recommendation on whether cannabis stays in Schedule I or moves to Schedule II or III. Schedule II remains a real possibility that many observers overlook, especially given how one-sided the record is.
After the recommendation, designated parties get 20 days to file exceptions with supporting evidence and citations. The record then goes to Administrator Terry Cole for a final decision, with no fixed deadline attached. Meanwhile, consolidated lawsuits from state attorneys general, reform opponents and a pharmaceutical company continue to challenge the process in the D.C. Circuit.
Frequently Asked Questions
The 2,533-page transcript shows the government conceding that marijuana has a low harm rate and a currently accepted medical use, while the seven anti-rescheduling parties relied heavily on anecdotes, unverified images and causation claims that fell apart under cross-examination.
DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius released the fully corrected transcript on August 25, 2026, covering all 11 hearing days held from June 29 through July 15, 2026.
No. The corrected transcript is part of the administrative record. Judge Julius must still issue a nonbinding recommendation on Schedule I, II or III, after which the record goes to the DEA administrator for a final decision.
Rescheduling moves cannabis to a lower tier like Schedule III but keeps it under the Controlled Substances Act and DEA control. Descheduling removes it from the CSA entirely, which is the only outcome that fully ends federal prohibition.
