The most consequential shift in cannabis policy in more than 50 years is now happening. A December 2025 executive order from President Trump has directed the federal government to down-schedule cannabis from Schedule I (illegal) to Schedule III (a lawful drug designation with a lower level of harm than Schedules I or II) . This is despite the alarming lack of research evidence for medicinal cannabis.

Rescheduling cannabis will provide significant tax advantages to the industry, allowing billions in previously banned business expense deductions that could hugely boost marketing efforts, research, or both. The executive order (EO) does not explicitly recognize cannabis as medicine. It also does not set national standards for cannabis labeling, dosages, or youth protection, all of which are essential.

Whether you view the EO as long overdue or ill-advised, the key questions now are how this change will be implemented, who will control the downstream effects of cannabis, and whether public health experts or lobbyists seeking to accelerate commercial momentum will define what happens next.

Currently, any cannabis warning labels are inconsistent across states, often minimal, and frequently omit critical risks, such as mental health effects, breastfeeding harms, and other dangers stemming from high-potency cannabis products.

The executive order simultaneously instructs federal agencies—particularly the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration—to expand, streamline, and lower barriers to cannabis/cannabinoid research.

Indeed, the now-history LSD-like Schedule I status of cannabis imposed hurdles to research. Nevertheless, considerable research has been done, even though a special license was necessary to use the drug in studies. However, rescheduling marijuana doesn’t guarantee adequate research funding, FDA approval for cannabis, THC, or CBD, or high-quality research.

What Drug Experts Say

Among the EO’s most vocal critics is Kevin Sabet, drug policy expert who served both Republican and Democratic administrations and now president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana, who sees the order as devoid of public health wisdom. Sabet warns that rescheduling signals medical endorsement despite cannabis’s association with significant health risks, especially for young users. Sabet highlights that the EO moves cannabis from Schedule I (not legal) to Schedule III (controlled but legal), although the medicinal effects of cannabis have never been FDA-proven or approved.

Harvard’s Kevin Hill, M.D., supports rescheduling for improving research facilitation, arguing that current cannabis use lacks clinical guidance. He emphasizes funding as crucial for quality research. Hill ‘s position is pragmatic: Lack of scientific certainty is not a reason to avoid research—it’s the reason research is needed.

Hill also places responsibility for research funding on states and industry. Legal cannabis markets generate billions in revenue, yet only a fraction is reinvested in rigorous research, prevention, or treatment. Ethical stewardship, he argues, demands that those profiting from cannabis bear responsibility for understanding its risks and benefits.

Thirty percent of cannabis users, including adolescents, develop a substance use disorder, according to Mt Sinai School of Medicine’s Dr. Yasmin Hurd. She emphasizes the importance of pairing research expansion with clear regulations to avoid exacerbating risks linked with cannabis.

A crucial area for future research is safe and effective dosing of THC (the intoxicant in cannabis) amid imminently rising sales of high-potency products. Large-scale, longitudinal studies tracking neurodevelopmental outcomes in relation to timing and potency of cannabis exposure are essential.

At the same time, policymakers face a proliferation of unregulated intoxicating cannabinoids sold outside state-licensed cannabis systems. Products such as delta-8 and other synthetic or semi-synthetic cannabinoids are widely available in gas stations and convenience stores, often with minimal oversight. These products disproportionately attract youth, undermining consumer safety. Closing loopholes has become a public-health necessity.

Recognizing the Rising Risks

Some media reports suggest the EO was pushed through despite vociferous objections highlighting the risks of cannabis use among adolescents and young adults. The link between early-age cannabis exposure and increased risk of schizophrenia, mood disorders, and long-term functional impairment is no longer speculative. The disorders carry lifelong healthcare, social, and economic costs. Yet current data are insufficient to guide prevention efforts. Without guidelines, prevention efforts will remain reactive and politically vulnerable. Nowhere are the stakes higher than among adolescents and young adults.

One of the nation’s leading scientists and long-time vocal opponents of legalizing cannabis, Yale’s Deepak D’Souza, M.D., has focused on the increasing amount of cannabis, its increased potency, frequency of use, and duration of effects, causing severe consequences in young people. Cannabis and some of its constituents produce acute impairments in memory, attention, executive function, impulsivity and risk-taking behaviour, and psychomotor coordination, critical for driving a car. Nora Volkow, M.D., director of the National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) has underscored the need for balanced research, acknowledging both benefits and risks of cannabis.

Dose is another urgent research priority, since higher THC concentrations are associated with increased risks of psychosis, cannabis use disorder, cardiovascular events, and cognitive impairment. More isn’t always better. A post-rescheduling agenda should include an investigation into minimum effective doses, upper safety thresholds, and the feasibility of reducing THC concentrations while preserving potential therapeutic effects.

Since rescheduling will be interpreted as an implicit medical endorsement, regardless of official intent, a national, evidence-based prevention strategy is needed, modeled on successful tobacco-control frameworks Such a strategy needs to include school-based education, clinician training, parental guidance, and public-health messaging that’s scientifically grounded rather than moralistic/alarmist.

Federal consumer protection agencies need to become empowered to monitor misleading cannabis advertising.

Finally, the integrity of emerging research depends on maintaining a firewall between scientific inquiry and commercial influence. Industry participation in research isn’t inherently problematic, but it must be governed by transparency, independent oversight, and conflict-of-interest safeguards.

Acceptance Without Complacency

The December 2025 executive order is now a reality. There is likely to be a huge cash infusion without regulation, causing a commercialization boom in cannabis, with the potential to harm our youth more than ever. Industry needs to step up and fund academic research.

Youth protection and guardrails are indispensable. A good start would be warning labels, funding of prevention efforts directed toward teens and young adults, and increasing NIDA’s funding for cannabis/THC/CBD translational research .

If cannabis products remain legal and available, consumers need clear, standardized warnings reflecting the best available evidence on cannabis use disorder and psychosis risk; impaired driving; memory effects; and adolescent brain vulnerability. Public health warnings should not be optional, nor diluted by marketing language implying medical endorsement where none exists.