21
New Articles
Find Your Next Job !
One of the questions I have been asked most often since the Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a final order moving FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act is whether the federal government’s decision to move state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III will make it more likely that states expand access to existing medical programs or, in the states that still have no program, that new ones are adopted. My answer is: yes, but modestly, and unevenly. The signal matters more than any mechanical legal effect. Let me explain what I mean.
For purposes of this analysis, the question breaks into three inquiries. First, will rescheduling accelerate expansion in states that have existing medical programs but where access is limited — states like Texas, Iowa, and, until just recently, Georgia? Second, will it move the remaining states without any comprehensive medical program to adopt one? And third, will patients in states with both medical and adult use programs migrate to the medical program in meaningful numbers? These are different questions, and the rescheduling order bears on them in different ways.
The rescheduling order is a federal action with federal effect. It moves state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III on the federal controlled substances schedule. It creates a DEA registration pathway for state-licensed operators. It eliminates the Section 280E tax disallowance for those operators prospectively. What it does not do is require any state to create a medical marijuana program, expand an existing one, certify more physicians, register more patients, or approve more dispensary locations. The order is permissive at the state level, not mandatory.
States can continue doing exactly what they were doing before rescheduling, and most will in the short term. The federal acknowledgment that medical marijuana has accepted medical use does not override state law or state legislative prerogatives. A state legislature that has blocked medical cannabis bills for a decade can continue doing so. The order changed the federal posture toward state programs; it did not change committee chairmanships.
With that caveat established, the rescheduling order is a genuine political tailwind for medical access expansion, for a specific reason that has less to do with the legal mechanics and more to do with the political environment in the states where expansion has been blocked.
The hold-out states — both those with restrictive existing programs and those with no program at all — are, almost without exception, states with Republican-controlled legislatures and Republican governors. The obstacle to medical cannabis expansion in those states has not been public opinion. A YouGov/Economist poll conducted in April 2026, just before the rescheduling order took effect, found 84% of Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use, including 81% of Republicans. The obstacle has been the political risk calculation facing individual Republican legislators who have not wanted to be seen as endorsing a substance that remains illegal under federal law and that may still be perceived — despite the changing polling data — as risking the support of their conservative base.
That calculation has now changed or at least been nuanced. A Republican president, acting through a Republican attorney general, has issued an order that formally declares state-licensed medical marijuana to have accepted medical use under federal law. Blanche framed the order as “delivering on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options.” That is a very different political sentence than anything available to conservative state legislators during the Obama or Biden years. A Republican state legislator in a conservative state can now vote for a medical program and describe that vote as consistent with, rather than in defiance of, federal policy under a Republican administration. That is a real political shift, even if it is not a legal one.
The rescheduling order’s effects are likely strongest in states that already have medical programs but where access has been constrained by low THC caps, narrow qualifying condition lists, limited physician participation, or inadequate dispensary infrastructure. Georgia is the best current example.
Georgia signed SB 220, the “Putting Georgia’s Patients First Act,” on May 12, 2026 — just two weeks after the rescheduling order took effect. The bill removes the previous 5% THC potency cap and replaces it with a possession limit of 12,000 milligrams, adds new qualifying conditions, including lupus and severe arthritis, and allows vaporization as a delivery method for patients over age 21. The Georgia bill had been building legislative momentum before April 28, but the timing is notable. The rescheduling order did not cause the Georgia expansion, but it at least arguably provided political cover for Republican legislators who might otherwise have hesitated. The bill passed the Senate 38-14 and the House 144-21 — margins that reflect broad bipartisan comfort with the expansion.
The same dynamic is available in other states with restrictive existing programs. Texas’s Compassionate Use Program allows only extremely low-THC products and covers a limited range of conditions. Iowa’s medical cannabis program caps patient purchases at 4.5 grams of THC per 90 days — a limit that advocates have described as insufficient for many patients’ medical needs. Tennessee has a CBD-only framework with no THC product access. All of these states have Republican-controlled legislatures that have repeatedly resisted expansion. The federal signal that state-licensed medical marijuana now has federal recognition as medicine gives expansion advocates a new argument: not “we should do this despite federal law,” but “the federal government has now confirmed what we have been saying about the medical value of this plant.”
This is not a guarantee that expansion will happen. Legislative dynamics, committee assignments, and individual member concerns will continue to play a role. But the political cost of expansion has likely decreased in these states, and that matters for the margin cases.
As of the rescheduling order’s effective date, roughly nine states had no comprehensive medical marijuana program: Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and — until Georgia’s recent expansion — Georgia. Nebraska voters approved a medical cannabis program in November 2024 but implementation is still underway. The question is whether rescheduling tips any of the remaining hold-outs.
My assessment is that rescheduling helps at the margins in this category, but the hold-out states are hold-outs for structural reasons that a federal scheduling change alone does not dissolve. Each deserves a brief individual look:
There is a third category that the existing-program versus no-program framing misses entirely, and it may be where rescheduling produces its most immediate practical consequences. These are states that have both a medical marijuana program and an adult-use program — states like Colorado, California, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and a growing number of others — where the adult-use market has effectively swallowed the medical market whole. In most of these states, the overwhelming majority of consumers who could qualify for a medical card have simply stopped getting one. The adult-use dispensary down the street is easier, cheaper in upfront registration costs, and requires no physician certification. The medical program has, in practical terms, become a secondary feature of the market rather than its foundation.
Rescheduling has the potential to reverse that dynamic, or at least to meaningfully reallocate demand. State-licensed medical marijuana — specifically, the state-licensed medical marijuana covered by the rescheduling order — is now a Schedule III substance under federal law; adult-use cannabis purchased from an adult-use dispensary is not. The rescheduling order was expressly limited to state-licensed medical programs and DEA-approved medications. It did not reschedule adult-use marijuana. That distinction, which might seem academic, could have real consequences for consumers as federal policy evolves.
There are a number of ways a medical card could become more attractive in a dual-program state. First, health insurance: If state-licensed medical marijuana is a Schedule III substance, it becomes at least theoretically possible for health insurers — or, more realistically, health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts — to begin treating physician-recommended medical marijuana as a reimbursable medical expense. No insurer has announced such a policy yet, but the legal barrier that existed under Schedule I classification is now materially lower for state-licensed medical marijuana. A consumer who obtains a physician certification and purchases from a licensed medical dispensary is in a categorically different federal legal posture than one buying from an adult-use store. For patients with genuine medical needs who are spending meaningful money on product, that distinction could be worth the cost and effort of getting a medical card.
Second, and more immediately, taxes: Many dual-program states impose lower sales tax rates on medical marijuana than on adult-use product. In some states the difference is substantial — Illinois, for example, imposes an adult-use cannabis tax that can reach 34% or higher depending on the product’s THC concentration, while medical marijuana is taxed at a significantly lower rate. Consumers who were previously indifferent to the distinction — because both programs were federally illegal and the main practical difference was a registration fee and a doctor’s visit — may now weigh the calculus differently. If state-licensed medical marijuana carries federal legal recognition and a lower state tax burden, the value proposition of maintaining a medical card improves. Tack on the fact that medical marijuana operators are no longer subject to 280E and can pass along those savings to consumers — a benefit not currently available to adult-use operators — and the playing field tilts even more towards medical programs.
Third, product access: In many dual-program states, medical dispensaries are authorized to carry higher-potency products, larger purchase quantities, or product formulations not available on the adult-use side. Those distinctions have existed for years, but consumers who had no reason to think about their federal legal status often ignored them. In a post-rescheduling world, patients with serious conditions may find it worthwhile to formalize their patient status both for the product access advantages and for whatever downstream federal recognition that status may eventually carry.
None of this is automatic, and there are countervailing considerations. Getting a medical card still requires a physician certification, which takes time and money. States vary in how straightforward that process is. And the federal benefits that state-licensed medical marijuana status might eventually confer — FSA reimbursement, potential insurance coverage, federal employment protections — are still largely prospective rather than realized. The DOT guidance discussed elsewhere on this blog makes clear that rescheduling has not yet translated into federal workplace protections for medical marijuana users in safety-sensitive industries. But for the average adult consumer in a dual-program state who qualifies for a medical card and has been buying at the adult-use counter out of convenience, the calculation just got more interesting. Dispensary operators and attorneys in dual-program states should be paying attention to whether their medical patient enrollment numbers start to move.
Even in states where rescheduling tips the political balance toward adoption, there is an important gap between legislative action and functional patient access. A state that enacts a medical cannabis program still has to build the licensing and regulatory infrastructure to make it work. Alabama authorized its medical cannabis program in 2021 and is only now, in mid-2026, on the verge of its first dispensary sale. There is no federal shortcut to a functional state market. States considering new programs in the wake of rescheduling should look at Alabama’s experience and plan accordingly.
There is also a broader structural limitation worth stating plainly. Public opinion on medical marijuana in the hold-out states is not the obstacle. The obstacle is that legislative gatekeepers in a small number of states have been able to prevent floor votes on bills that would almost certainly pass if they reached a vote. Rescheduling changes the political cost of expansion, but it does not change the rules of parliamentary procedure or the composition of key committees. In states where leadership is committed to blocking medical cannabis, the federal signal alone will not unlock the door.
The April 2026 rescheduling order is a genuine political boost for medical access expansion at the state level. Its effects are likely most durable in existing-program states where expansion legislation was already building momentum and needed political cover rather than creation from scratch.
In dual-program states where the adult-use market has eclipsed the medical program, rescheduling creates a new incentive structure that may quietly drive medical patient enrollment back up — as consumers absorb the implications of state-licensed medical marijuana now carrying federal Schedule III recognition that adult-use purchases do not.
In no-program states, the order improves the political environment but does not overcome the structural obstacles that have made those states hold-outs in the first place.
The deepest effect of rescheduling on state-level access may not be visible for another year or two. As the research community, the medical profession, and state legislators absorb what it means for the federal government to have formally acknowledged medical marijuana’s therapeutic value, the political calculus in conservative states will continue to evolve. The order did not end the state-level access debate. It changed its terms.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC
Find Your Next Job !
One of the questions I have been asked most often since the Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche signed a final order moving FDA-approved marijuana products and state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act is whether the federal government’s decision to move state-licensed medical marijuana to Schedule III will make it more likely that states expand access to existing medical programs or, in the states that still have no program, that new ones are adopted. My answer is: yes, but modestly, and unevenly. The signal matters more than any mechanical legal effect. Let me explain what I mean.
For purposes of this analysis, the question breaks into three inquiries. First, will rescheduling accelerate expansion in states that have existing medical programs but where access is limited — states like Texas, Iowa, and, until just recently, Georgia? Second, will it move the remaining states without any comprehensive medical program to adopt one? And third, will patients in states with both medical and adult use programs migrate to the medical program in meaningful numbers? These are different questions, and the rescheduling order bears on them in different ways.
The rescheduling order is a federal action with federal effect. It moves state-licensed medical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III on the federal controlled substances schedule. It creates a DEA registration pathway for state-licensed operators. It eliminates the Section 280E tax disallowance for those operators prospectively. What it does not do is require any state to create a medical marijuana program, expand an existing one, certify more physicians, register more patients, or approve more dispensary locations. The order is permissive at the state level, not mandatory.
States can continue doing exactly what they were doing before rescheduling, and most will in the short term. The federal acknowledgment that medical marijuana has accepted medical use does not override state law or state legislative prerogatives. A state legislature that has blocked medical cannabis bills for a decade can continue doing so. The order changed the federal posture toward state programs; it did not change committee chairmanships.
With that caveat established, the rescheduling order is a genuine political tailwind for medical access expansion, for a specific reason that has less to do with the legal mechanics and more to do with the political environment in the states where expansion has been blocked.
The hold-out states — both those with restrictive existing programs and those with no program at all — are, almost without exception, states with Republican-controlled legislatures and Republican governors. The obstacle to medical cannabis expansion in those states has not been public opinion. A YouGov/Economist poll conducted in April 2026, just before the rescheduling order took effect, found 84% of Americans support legalizing marijuana for medical use, including 81% of Republicans. The obstacle has been the political risk calculation facing individual Republican legislators who have not wanted to be seen as endorsing a substance that remains illegal under federal law and that may still be perceived — despite the changing polling data — as risking the support of their conservative base.
That calculation has now changed or at least been nuanced. A Republican president, acting through a Republican attorney general, has issued an order that formally declares state-licensed medical marijuana to have accepted medical use under federal law. Blanche framed the order as “delivering on President Trump’s promise to expand Americans’ access to medical treatment options.” That is a very different political sentence than anything available to conservative state legislators during the Obama or Biden years. A Republican state legislator in a conservative state can now vote for a medical program and describe that vote as consistent with, rather than in defiance of, federal policy under a Republican administration. That is a real political shift, even if it is not a legal one.
The rescheduling order’s effects are likely strongest in states that already have medical programs but where access has been constrained by low THC caps, narrow qualifying condition lists, limited physician participation, or inadequate dispensary infrastructure. Georgia is the best current example.
Georgia signed SB 220, the “Putting Georgia’s Patients First Act,” on May 12, 2026 — just two weeks after the rescheduling order took effect. The bill removes the previous 5% THC potency cap and replaces it with a possession limit of 12,000 milligrams, adds new qualifying conditions, including lupus and severe arthritis, and allows vaporization as a delivery method for patients over age 21. The Georgia bill had been building legislative momentum before April 28, but the timing is notable. The rescheduling order did not cause the Georgia expansion, but it at least arguably provided political cover for Republican legislators who might otherwise have hesitated. The bill passed the Senate 38-14 and the House 144-21 — margins that reflect broad bipartisan comfort with the expansion.
The same dynamic is available in other states with restrictive existing programs. Texas’s Compassionate Use Program allows only extremely low-THC products and covers a limited range of conditions. Iowa’s medical cannabis program caps patient purchases at 4.5 grams of THC per 90 days — a limit that advocates have described as insufficient for many patients’ medical needs. Tennessee has a CBD-only framework with no THC product access. All of these states have Republican-controlled legislatures that have repeatedly resisted expansion. The federal signal that state-licensed medical marijuana now has federal recognition as medicine gives expansion advocates a new argument: not “we should do this despite federal law,” but “the federal government has now confirmed what we have been saying about the medical value of this plant.”
This is not a guarantee that expansion will happen. Legislative dynamics, committee assignments, and individual member concerns will continue to play a role. But the political cost of expansion has likely decreased in these states, and that matters for the margin cases.
As of the rescheduling order’s effective date, roughly nine states had no comprehensive medical marijuana program: Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and — until Georgia’s recent expansion — Georgia. Nebraska voters approved a medical cannabis program in November 2024 but implementation is still underway. The question is whether rescheduling tips any of the remaining hold-outs.
My assessment is that rescheduling helps at the margins in this category, but the hold-out states are hold-outs for structural reasons that a federal scheduling change alone does not dissolve. Each deserves a brief individual look:
There is a third category that the existing-program versus no-program framing misses entirely, and it may be where rescheduling produces its most immediate practical consequences. These are states that have both a medical marijuana program and an adult-use program — states like Colorado, California, Illinois, Michigan, Massachusetts, and a growing number of others — where the adult-use market has effectively swallowed the medical market whole. In most of these states, the overwhelming majority of consumers who could qualify for a medical card have simply stopped getting one. The adult-use dispensary down the street is easier, cheaper in upfront registration costs, and requires no physician certification. The medical program has, in practical terms, become a secondary feature of the market rather than its foundation.
Rescheduling has the potential to reverse that dynamic, or at least to meaningfully reallocate demand. State-licensed medical marijuana — specifically, the state-licensed medical marijuana covered by the rescheduling order — is now a Schedule III substance under federal law; adult-use cannabis purchased from an adult-use dispensary is not. The rescheduling order was expressly limited to state-licensed medical programs and DEA-approved medications. It did not reschedule adult-use marijuana. That distinction, which might seem academic, could have real consequences for consumers as federal policy evolves.
There are a number of ways a medical card could become more attractive in a dual-program state. First, health insurance: If state-licensed medical marijuana is a Schedule III substance, it becomes at least theoretically possible for health insurers — or, more realistically, health savings accounts and flexible spending accounts — to begin treating physician-recommended medical marijuana as a reimbursable medical expense. No insurer has announced such a policy yet, but the legal barrier that existed under Schedule I classification is now materially lower for state-licensed medical marijuana. A consumer who obtains a physician certification and purchases from a licensed medical dispensary is in a categorically different federal legal posture than one buying from an adult-use store. For patients with genuine medical needs who are spending meaningful money on product, that distinction could be worth the cost and effort of getting a medical card.
Second, and more immediately, taxes: Many dual-program states impose lower sales tax rates on medical marijuana than on adult-use product. In some states the difference is substantial — Illinois, for example, imposes an adult-use cannabis tax that can reach 34% or higher depending on the product’s THC concentration, while medical marijuana is taxed at a significantly lower rate. Consumers who were previously indifferent to the distinction — because both programs were federally illegal and the main practical difference was a registration fee and a doctor’s visit — may now weigh the calculus differently. If state-licensed medical marijuana carries federal legal recognition and a lower state tax burden, the value proposition of maintaining a medical card improves. Tack on the fact that medical marijuana operators are no longer subject to 280E and can pass along those savings to consumers — a benefit not currently available to adult-use operators — and the playing field tilts even more towards medical programs.
Third, product access: In many dual-program states, medical dispensaries are authorized to carry higher-potency products, larger purchase quantities, or product formulations not available on the adult-use side. Those distinctions have existed for years, but consumers who had no reason to think about their federal legal status often ignored them. In a post-rescheduling world, patients with serious conditions may find it worthwhile to formalize their patient status both for the product access advantages and for whatever downstream federal recognition that status may eventually carry.
None of this is automatic, and there are countervailing considerations. Getting a medical card still requires a physician certification, which takes time and money. States vary in how straightforward that process is. And the federal benefits that state-licensed medical marijuana status might eventually confer — FSA reimbursement, potential insurance coverage, federal employment protections — are still largely prospective rather than realized. The DOT guidance discussed elsewhere on this blog makes clear that rescheduling has not yet translated into federal workplace protections for medical marijuana users in safety-sensitive industries. But for the average adult consumer in a dual-program state who qualifies for a medical card and has been buying at the adult-use counter out of convenience, the calculation just got more interesting. Dispensary operators and attorneys in dual-program states should be paying attention to whether their medical patient enrollment numbers start to move.
Even in states where rescheduling tips the political balance toward adoption, there is an important gap between legislative action and functional patient access. A state that enacts a medical cannabis program still has to build the licensing and regulatory infrastructure to make it work. Alabama authorized its medical cannabis program in 2021 and is only now, in mid-2026, on the verge of its first dispensary sale. There is no federal shortcut to a functional state market. States considering new programs in the wake of rescheduling should look at Alabama’s experience and plan accordingly.
There is also a broader structural limitation worth stating plainly. Public opinion on medical marijuana in the hold-out states is not the obstacle. The obstacle is that legislative gatekeepers in a small number of states have been able to prevent floor votes on bills that would almost certainly pass if they reached a vote. Rescheduling changes the political cost of expansion, but it does not change the rules of parliamentary procedure or the composition of key committees. In states where leadership is committed to blocking medical cannabis, the federal signal alone will not unlock the door.
The April 2026 rescheduling order is a genuine political boost for medical access expansion at the state level. Its effects are likely most durable in existing-program states where expansion legislation was already building momentum and needed political cover rather than creation from scratch.
In dual-program states where the adult-use market has eclipsed the medical program, rescheduling creates a new incentive structure that may quietly drive medical patient enrollment back up — as consumers absorb the implications of state-licensed medical marijuana now carrying federal Schedule III recognition that adult-use purchases do not.
In no-program states, the order improves the political environment but does not overcome the structural obstacles that have made those states hold-outs in the first place.
The deepest effect of rescheduling on state-level access may not be visible for another year or two. As the research community, the medical profession, and state legislators absorb what it means for the federal government to have formally acknowledged medical marijuana’s therapeutic value, the political calculus in conservative states will continue to evolve. The order did not end the state-level access debate. It changed its terms.
More Upcoming Events
Sign Up for any (or all) of our 25+ Newsletters
You are responsible for reading, understanding, and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free-to-use, no-log-in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates, or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys, or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws, the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 2070 Green Bay Rd., Suite 178, Highland Park, IL 60035 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll-free (877) 357-3317. If you would like to contact us via email please click here.
Copyright ©2026 National Law Forum, LLC