Public Attitudes Toward the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Proposal to Reschedule Marijuana: A Cross-Sectional Mixed-Methods Analysis

Abstract

Introduction

On May 21, 2024, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a proposed rule to reschedule marijuana from schedule I to III under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), followed by a 60-day open comment period. The purpose of this study was to analyze the public attitudes regarding the proposed rule and identify trends based on time of comment submission and recurring arguments throughout the comments.

Methods

This was an observational, cross-sectional, mixed-methods study. Comments from the proposal were stratified according to the submission date as early (May 21 to June 11), mid- (June 12 to July 2), and late (July 3–22) respondents. Investigators were assigned an equal number of comments to code as in favor of, against, or no clear position on rescheduling. Comments were further coded based on type of comment (form letters, personal anecdotes), rationale for comment (racism, decriminalization, safety, and economic factors), and whether descheduling was favored. Chi-square tests were used to analyze categorical data. A random sample of comments was selected to assure a 5% margin of error.

Results

More than 42,000 comments were submitted. Of these, 380 comments were selected and coded, with 42% (n = 158) in support of rescheduling, 55% (n = 211) against rescheduling, and 2.9% (n = 11) with no clear position. Of all comments coded, 71% wanted to go further and were in support of descheduling. The early responses consisted of a majority in favor of rescheduling, while the mid- and late responses consisted of more comments against rescheduling (X² [2, N = 369] = 35.8, p < 0.00001). Of the comments against rescheduling, a large majority supported descheduling (X² [2, N = 265] = 32.0, p < 0.0001). As for comment structure, 69% (n = 263) of all comments coded were form letters, while 8.4% (n = 32) were personal anecdotes.

Conclusion

The number of comments in support of rescheduling decreased with time, only dominating the early respondent wave. Despite a larger number of negative attitudes toward the DEA’s proposed rule of rescheduling marijuana from schedule I to III, a majority of comments supported taking a step further to deschedule marijuana all together.

Introduction

The medical use of marijuana, specifically the psychoactive drug derived from the Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica plants, has been one of the major topics of debate for centuries and continues to be a topic of interest today. As of August 2024, marijuana is legalized for medical use in 33 states in the USA and for recreational use in 24 states, two territories and the District of Columbia despite the fact that marijuana has remained as a schedule I controlled substance since inception of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970 [1, 2]. This controversy has been questioned for a few decades in multiple petitions (September 7, 1972; April 18, 2001; July 8, 2011) sent to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) requesting for marijuana rescheduling [2]. More recently, the government of the USA requested that the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “initiate the administrative process to review expeditiously how marijuana is scheduled under federal law [3].”

The CSA categorizes controlled substances into five schedules based on the abuse potential, currently accepted medical use (CAMU), and safety under medical supervision. Marijuana placement under the schedule I controlled substance is based on a conclusion that it has a high potential for abuse, no CAMU, and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision. Recently, HHS proposed a new CAMU test, assessing widespread medical use under state programs as credible scientific support for treatment. HHS has found an extensive clinical use of marijuana in the USA and recommended it as having CAMU. The Attorney General supports these findings, leading the HHS to recommend that marijuana be controlled in schedule III of the CSA, opening up a door for a new petition to reschedule marijuana [4].

Rescheduling of a controlled substance is a legal motion to place a controlled substance in the appropriate schedule. Based on the new findings, the drug can either move up or down the schedules. Schedule-specific laws, such as prescribing authority, medical use, handling, and delivery apply to the drug in that schedule. Descheduling, on the other hand, results in complete removal of the substance from the CSA. Substances such as alcohol and tobacco are descheduled drugs. If a previously scheduled controlled substance is removed from the scheduled drugs, all previous regulations attached to it will no longer apply.

Federal agencies are required to provide an opportunity for the public to comment on a new rule or regulation and to consider the comment section before making a final decision. Regulations.gov is a public forum that offers full documents of petitions and regulations under the review of the government. Anyone can submit a comment within the open comment period. While ample public participation in regulatory processes is encouraged, and health surveys reveal differences between early and late responders, little is known about how the timing of responses, or waves of respondents, affects the type and quality of feedback in regulatory public comment periods. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate whether there are differences in the quality and content of comments submitted by early, mid-, and late waves of respondents [5, 6]. The secondary goal of the study was to dive deeper into the comments and analyze public perceptions on rescheduling. This study will bring more light into the matter by integrating the quantitative and qualitative data together as well as explore the differences in responses over time.

Methods

Study Design

This was an observational study with a mixed-methods analysis approach. We used the Regulations.gov website, examining DEA-2024-0059-000 as the source of data [2]. This open-source, federally supported website is the official internet resource for collecting public comments. The comment section was open to the public from May 21, 2024, to July 22, 2024. There were no inclusion or exclusion criteria, and no demographic data were available to the public.

Data Collection

On Tuesday, July 23, 2024, all responses submitted to Regulations.gov between May 21, 2024, and July 22, 2024, were downloaded into an Excel file. No responses were excluded as each individual comment was determined to represent a separate opinion. All responses were stratified into three, 3-week groups: early (May 21 to June 11), mid- (June 12 to July 2), and late (July 3–22) respondents. These classifications were determined based on the convenience sake of the equal distribution from the 9-week open comment period. The percentage of total responses from each group was multiplied by the predetermined sample size to calculate the number needed per wave to make up the sample. Using the random number generator function in Excel, a random sample from each stratified wave was selected. Each researcher was assigned 95 comments for coding. The sample size for the entire sample was calculated using the Sample Size Calculator tool accessible through Qualtrics.

Data Analysis

Prior to collecting the sample collection and data analysis, the researchers created and agreed upon precise definitions for each coding category. Example responses were selected to develop consensus among the investigators of the wording within the commenters’ responses. For example, if the commenter used language that was in favor of rescheduling, meaning the use of supportive words such as “I support…,” “I think this is a good idea…,” “Moving in the right direction…,” those were considered positive for rescheduling of marijuana. Drivers of the argument were considered any mention of safety, economics, decriminalization, or racism. Personal anecdote was any comment that used personal experience as part of their argument. Form letters were determined as responses that were repeatedly provided by more than one commenter, either word-for-word or near word-for-word. The researchers determined that these were likely provided by an organization to submit to the public commentary. A random sample of the same 10 comments was selected to be coded separately and compared by each investigator to ensure proper use of the definitions and consistent coding techniques. Any questions that arose during coding were brought to the other investigators to agree upon a collective answer.

For the primary endpoints, comments were coded in categorical data and counts were reported in sums of comments in support of the coding. Chi-square tests were used to analyze categorical data. All p values were set at 0.05. For the secondary outcomes, comments were identified for themes and further explained using a conventional content analysis approach.

Results

Baseline Characteristics

On July 23, 2024, we downloaded all 42,008 comments submitted to Regulations.gov in response to the DEA’s proposal to reschedule marijuana. Of these, 16,374 (39%) were submitted within the first 3 weeks, 10,370 (25%) in the following 3 weeks, and 15,264 (36%) during the final 3 weeks. To obtain an adequate sample with a 5% margin of error at a 95% level of confidence, a minimum sample size of 380 comments was required. The sample was stratified based on the distribution of comments received during each wave. Subsequently, we needed to analyze a random sample of 149 comments from the first 3 weeks, 94 from the following 3 weeks, and 137 from the last 3 weeks.

Distribution of general opinions is shown in Table 1. Of the 380 responses, a majority (69%) were form letters, suggesting that a subanalysis of these comments would be necessary. More than half of the comments were against rescheduling, and only 3% had no clear position. As the percentage for “no clear position” was so low (3.0%), it was not included in the statistical analysis. Although the majority did not support the petition to reschedule marijuana, 71% of all comments actually preferred descheduling of marijuana altogether. Specifically, 53% of comments supporting rescheduling wanted to take the change further and suggested descheduling, while 86% of negative rescheduling comments did not think the petition sufficient and supported removal of marijuana from the CSA instead.

Table 1.

Descriptive statistics

​	N = 380 (%)
Commenter position on rescheduling
In favor of rescheduling	158 (42)
Against rescheduling	211 (55)
No clear position	11 (3)
Commenter position on descheduling
In favor of descheduling	268 (71)
Type of response
Personal anecdote	32 (8)
Form letters	263 (69)
Other well-thought-out responses	85 (22)
Themes
Racism	175 (46)
Decriminalization	188 (49)
Safety	132 (35)
Economic	127 (33)

Quantitative

Primary outcome results are depicted in Figure 1. Early respondents (May 21 to June 11) were more likely to be in support of rescheduling, whereas later respondents (July 3–22) were more likely to be against rescheduling (X² [d.f. = 2, N = 369] = 35.8, p < 0.00001). Although the majority of mid- and late respondents were against rescheduling, most of them were actually in support of descheduling, as shown in Figure 2 (X² [d.f. = 2, N = 265] = 32.0, p < 0.00001).

Fig. 1.

Percentage of responses in favor of rescheduling marijuana compared to responses against rescheduling marijuana divided into early, mid-, and late waves.

Fig. 2.

Percentage of responses in favor of descheduling and in favor of rescheduling marijuana compared to responses in favor of descheduling and against rescheduling marijuana divided into early, mid-, and late waves.

There was a statistically significant difference in distribution of the supporting arguments in early, mid-, and late waves (X² [d.f. = 6, N = 380] = 36, p < 0.00001). Table 2 shows the distribution of the drivers of the argument throughout the different waves of respondents. In comparison with early respondents, mid and late talked more about the decriminalization and racism associated with the marijuana.

Table 2.

Distribution of the drivers of the argument throughout the different waves of respondents

​	Early (n = 149)	Mid (n = 94)	Late (n = 137)	p value
Safety	60 (41%)	25 (28%)	45 (33%)	p < 0.00001
Racism	51 (34%)	55 (59%)	65 (47%)
Decriminalization	57 (38%)	57 (62%)	73 (54%)
Economic	25 (17%)	25 (27%)	77 (56%)

Subanalysis

Due to the high percentage of form letters, we conducted a secondary analysis that excluded all comments coded as “form letters” to ensure independence of observations and focus solely on individual opinions. Without form letters, there were no statistically significant differences between the waves of respondents (early vs. mid. vs. late) in commenter position on rescheduling (X² [d.f = 2, N = 117] = 5.4, p = 0.07), position on descheduling (X² [d.f = 2, N = 117] = 1.3, p = 0.52), or drivers of the argument (X² [d.f = 6, N = 117] = 0.8, p = 0.99).

However, when comparing those individuals submitting comments with and without form letters, there was a significant difference in the distribution of their position on rescheduling, with those submitting using a form letter decidedly against rescheduling (67%) versus those without using a form letter (31%) (Table 3). The form letter responses also differed significantly in terms of position on descheduling, with most form letters in favor (84%). Similarly, form letter responses more frequently addressed concerns regarding racism, decriminalization, safety, and economics.

Table 3.

Subanalysis comparing results between form letter responses and non-form letter responses

​	Without form letters	Form letters	p value
	N = 117	N = 263
Commenter position on rescheduling
In favor of rescheduling	70 (60%)	88 (33%)	p < 0.00001
Against rescheduling	36 (31%)	175 (67%)
No clear position	11 (9%)	0 (0%)
Commenter position of descheduling
In favor of descheduling	56 (48%)	222 (84%)	p < 0.00001
Themes
Racism	5 (4%)	170 (65%)	p < 0.00001
Decriminalization	18 (15%)	170 (65%)
Safety	33 (28%)	99 (38%)
Economic	17 (15%)	110 (42%)

Qualitative

This section will present the results of the qualitative analysis of public comments regarding the DEA’s proposal to reschedule marijuana. The analysis identified comments representing themes that provide insight into public opinion. Comments were reviewed and selected based on their ability to effectively represent the dominant beliefs expressed in the dataset. We will examine the types of comments first and then address the themes embedded in those comments.

Types of Comments

Personal Anecdotes. The personal anecdotes display the complex impact of cannabis on individuals’ lives. These comments provide a spectrum of experiences with cannabis, reflecting both its potential benefits and its risks.

The medical benefits were highlighted by many commenters. Individuals reported effective relief from insomnia, highlighting the potential for cannabis to aid in sleep. Patients with chronic pain found cannabis to be a valuable alternative to traditional pain medications, often with fewer side effects. Several commenters found cannabis helpful in managing post-traumatic stress disorder, noting improvements in overall mental health and reduction in the use of pharmaceutical drugs.

“A physician recommended Cannabis for my insomnia. I am a high performing, type A personality and have trouble slowing down at the end of the day. Cannabis was very effective in helping me relax in the evening and sleep.”

“After lower back surgery, I was able to reduce my opiate pain pills after I received my medical marijuana card. Cannabis does work for pain. I’ve also had migraines, up to 3 per week in which cannabis has helped to control the pain. As an herbalist, I prefer to use plants as my medicine as there are fewer side effects.”

“As someone who suffers from PTSD and does not like pharmaceutical options to treat my issues it would be really nice to see cannabis rescheduled considering the amount of help and relief it has given me.”

Commenters also elaborated on the regulatory implications of marijuana. Many individuals expressed hope that rescheduling cannabis would allow legal access for medicinal purposes, enabling them to benefit from its therapeutic effects.

“As a pain patient, regulations have made my Pain Management Doctor change & cut my pain meds, which has left me unable to do things I could do on my original pain meds that she will no longer prescribe… Rescheduling the classification would allow my doctor to prescribe cannabis.”

Several commenters shared experiences of severe mental health issues, such as psychosis and addiction, often resulting in significant personal and family distress. Concerns were raised about the effects of cannabis on young users, with anecdotes of academic decline, mental health crises, and long-term cognitive and behavioral changes.

“My 22 yr old son smoked marijuana regularly sometimes 6xs/day from age 15–21. Now he sits in prison, refusing recommended medication, diagnosed with serious mental illness by psychiatrists in 6 hospitals. He is a danger to society unmedicated, because of a violent act on his father during extreme psychosis 7 months after stopping his marijuana smoking habit. His ER doctor the year prior warned us if Nick smoked marijuana again, he could have treatment resistant bipolar; & anyone under 30 having a cannabis induced psychotic manic episode should not smoke marijuana. We never heard marijuana caused psychotic disorders until that moment (too late).”

“I’m a mother to three daughters. When my twins were 18, unbeknownst to me or my husband, the state of IL allowed them to be issued a medical marijuana card after a 12 min zoom call with a doctor in California. The doctor claimed they had PTSD (not sure from what), and green-lighted their medical marijuana cards. That changed everything for my girls and my family. Since that point, they have dropped out of college, have been hospitalized for THC induced psychosis, and battled depression & suicidal thoughts. Their brains have changed, and we have no recourse… Marijuana is a cancer to our children and society and should be treated as such.”

“My husband is a Marijuana addict & suffers from terrible psychosis due to the use of high content THC products. His Marijuana use has destroyed our family of 11. We are facing financial ruin & the loss of our home because my husband can no longer hold down a job. He is literally on his 7th job in the last 1.5 years. My youngest children & I are being faced with having my husband committed because of his THC induced psychosis/mental illness.”

Employers face difficulties in hiring due to mandatory drug testing policies, which may disqualify otherwise suitable candidates who use cannabis.

“As an employer who is required to conduct drug testing, it becomes harder and harder to find employees that are drug free.”

Form Letters. Form letters from organizations represented a significant portion of the comment section, showing organized advocacy and strategic messaging. While it provides important perspectives on economic and regulatory concerns, their influence on the comment volume and content shows the need for a balanced consideration of various viewpoints. This also raises concerns about the authenticity of the feedback, as these comments are often seen as representing the interests of businesses rather than individual stakeholders or the broader public.

“Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the DEAs proposed rule on the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). While I appreciate the Biden Administration’s efforts to reconsider marijuanas inappropriate classification as a Schedule I controlled substance, I have deep concerns about the insufficiency of rescheduling.” (Form letter)

“To Whom it May Concern: I am writing in support of rescheduling botanical marijuana to Schedule III or lower (Docket No. DEA 1362). Cannabis has currently accepted medical use and has a far lower potential for abuse than Schedule II drugs, including fentanyl, oxycodone, and morphine.” (Form letter)

“I am providing comments in support of the reclassification of botanical cannabis (Docket No. DEA 1362). The Department of Health and Human Services appropriately concluded that cannabis ‘has a currently accepted medical use and that its abuse potential does not warrant its placement as either a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance'.” (Form letter)

“I am writing to register my opposition to the recommendation to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act. Rescheduling marijuana would allow the marijuana industry to deduct normal business expenses, including advertising and marketing expenses. This would make the industry profitable and incentivize them to spend even more on advertising and marketing. This would likely cause marijuana sales and the harms associated with marijuana use to rise in tandem.” (Form letter)

Support Descheduling. Many commenters supported descheduling marijuana as it would significantly enhance research opportunities into its medical and therapeutic benefits. Currently, marijuana’s classification as a schedule I substance imposes stringent regulations and barriers on researchers, making it difficult to conduct comprehensive studies. Descheduling would remove these obstacles for researchers.

“Research on schedule I drugs is very limited due to their lack of medical use, however, there are a few studies of note related to medical marijuana in schools. I do anticipate that an increase in medical marijuana drug research could lead to additional accepted medical use and potential new drug development.” (Personal anecdote)

“Some other benefits may include allowing for broader research that will allow us to discover and perfect use for medical benefits. Accurate education materials and informative warnings can be created.” (Economic)

“Much remains unknown about marijuana, NIDA noted, researchers are still studying how long marijuana effects last and whether some changes may be permanent.” (Form letter)

Many other comments discussing the social and economic aspect of marijuana also mention supporting descheduling marijuana.

Drivers of the Argument

Racism. The public comments show a deep concern about the racial injustices linked to marijuana criminalization and a strong advocacy for policy changes that address these inequities. The anecdotes emphasized the historical and ongoing impact of these policies on marginalized communities, showing the need for a reevaluation of marijuana’s legal status based on scientific evidence and social justice considerations.

“Not only is the outcome of Schedule III insufficient, the process of evaluating marijuana status on the CSA is also flawed. The administrative review process conducted by the FDA and DEA is, by design, limited in scope and fails to consider the racist origins and impacts of marijuana prohibition which have produced overwhelming negative social, economic, and public health consequences. These generational outcomes are still felt by predominantly Black and Latino communities experiencing mass incarceration, inaccessible public housing, and denial of food assistance programs, among other detrimental consequences that will continue under marijuana rescheduling.” (Form letter)

“The criminalization of cannabis, a legacy of the War on Drugs, was a policy decision rooted in racism. In the decades since, its enforcement has been disproportionately targeted at Black people and other people of color. It’s time to abandon this draconian approach.” (Form letter)

Decriminalization. Many commenters spoke to the negative consequences of cannabis criminalization on individuals and communities. It was emphasized that criminal records resulting from cannabis-related offenses deny people access to housing and employment. This underscores the long-lasting repercussions of criminalization on basic human needs.

“Housing is a human right, but too many people are denied access to this fundamental need because of their criminal record.” (Form letter)

Multiple comments point out that the enforcement of cannabis laws has disproportionately targeted Black and Latinx communities. Commenters state that these groups face higher arrest rates and harsher sentencing, perpetuating systemic racism.

“We know the devastation this War on Drugs has wreaked on Black and Brown communities. In all 50 states, Black people are more likely to be arrested for marijuana offenses than white people, despite similar usage rates. On average across the nation, a Black person is nearly four times as likely to be arrested for a marijuana offense than a white person.” (Form letter)

Personal anecdotes detailed the severe legal and social penalties individuals face due to cannabis-related charges. One individual’s experience of being wrongfully targeted and harshly penalized despite legal attempts to start a CBD business exemplifies the destructive impact of current laws.

“Two years ago, my life was irrevocably altered due to the current stringent classification of marijuana. Law enforcement officers entered my home in Arkansas without a warrant over a civil matter. The officers broke into my garage, where I had a few CBD plants growing, aiming to start a CBD seed bank under the Hemp Farmers Act. Despite not being charged with sales and having no criminal history ‘not even a traffic ticket at 46 years old'” (Personal anecdote)

Commenters express that rescheduling will not end federal marijuana arrests. This perspective indicates that rescheduling does not go far enough to rectify the harms caused by criminalization. Many of the comments called for the DEA and the Biden Administration to fulfill their promises of decriminalization, emphasizing that merely rescheduling does not align with these commitments. Full descheduling is viewed as essential to meet public expectations and campaign pledges.

“Rescheduling will not end federal marijuana criminalization. Rescheduling will not end federal marijuana arrests, even for possession and use. Rescheduling will not release anyone in prison for marijuana. Rescheduling will not expunge previous marijuana arrests. Rescheduling will not end deportations, immigration consequences, or tourist visa restrictions stemming from marijuana activity…. It is imperative for the Biden Administration to follow through on this unfulfilled commitment by taking action now to end and repair the harms of federal marijuana criminalization. Because rescheduling marijuana fails to accomplish this, I urge the DEA to reconsider this proposed rule and replace it with a new rule to deschedule marijuana from the CSA.” (Form letter)

Safety. Commenters expressed a range of concerns about how cannabis’s safety profile compares to other substances, its potential risks, and the implications of different regulatory approaches. A significant portion of the commentary argues that cannabis poses a lower risk to public health compared to substances currently descheduled or regulated under schedules II, such as alcohol, tobacco, or opioids. Several emphasized that cannabis does not cause respiratory depression, a key factor in many drug-related deaths. It was argued that if more harmful substances are not tightly regulated, cannabis, with its relatively mild health impacts, should also be reconsidered for a less restrictive schedule or descheduling.

“Cannabis has currently accepted medical use and has a far lower potential for abuse than Schedule II drugs, including fentanyl, oxycodone, and morphine. It also has a lower abuse potential and a lower level of physical or psychological dependence than alcohol, which is not scheduled.” (Form letter)

“Botanical cannabis does not cause respiratory depression, which causes thousands of fatal overdoses each year from other drugs, including opioids, alcohol, and some over-the-counter medications. More than 14,000 Americans fatally overdosed on prescription opiates each year from 2017–2022 according to NIDA. The CDC reports that each year 178,000 Americans die from excessive alcohol use, including over 2,600 deaths from alcohol poisoning. In contrast, suspected fatal overdoses on cannabis are vanishingly rare.” (Form letter)

Comments also raise concerns about the increased potency of modern cannabis products and their potential impact on public health. Some respondents worry that high THC levels in contemporary cannabis products, such as concentrates and edibles, could exacerbate health risks. These concerns are compounded by reports of rising emergency room visits and adverse effects associated with high-potency cannabis use.

“…in light of the rising potency of marijuana, daily users of marijuana over 10% THC are nearly five times more likely to develop a psychotic disorder than non-users. A 2023 study in Denmark determined that 30% of cases of schizophrenia among 21–30-year-old males could have been averted if cannabis use disorder had been prevented.” (Form letter)

“A 2022 study found that hospital discharges for marijuana-associated psychosis were higher in states with legal marijuana, another precursor if those who push full-scale commercialization have their way.” (Form letter)

Additionally, there were fears that the current trend of increased cannabis use among adolescents could lead to long-term negative outcomes, including impaired academic performance.

“The National Center for Education Statistics said, adolescent marijuana use has been associated with lower academic performance and a higher risk of dropping out of high school. Colorado, the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, warns youth who use marijuana regularly are more likely to have a hard time learning, problems remembering, and lower math and reading scores.” (Form letter)

Economic. The comments on the economic implications of rescheduling cannabis reflect a diverse range of perspectives on how such a change would affect the industry, government revenue, and broader societal impacts. Many respondents expressed that rescheduling would offer significant financial relief to businesses currently burdened by federal tax penalties. Specifically, it would allow cannabis businesses to begin advertising and marketing, which are currently disallowed under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. This could enhance the profitability of the industry and potentially reduce prices for consumers.

“Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would provide relief for small businesses burdened by excessive taxation under Section 280E.”

“Furthermore, reclassification would provide much-needed regulatory clarity for businesses operating within the burgeoning cannabis industry. The tax benefits that stand to accrue from such a move could stimulate economic growth and job creation in communities across America.” (Form letter)

Rescheduling is seen as a critical step for small cannabis businesses, who face unique challenges due to their inability to access conventional banking services and the financial burdens imposed by current tax regulations. By reducing these financial constraints, rescheduling could stimulate growth, job creation, and economic development in communities.

“As a former medical patient and employee of the industry for eight years, it would add much relief to my life. Under current law, many businesses and employees are required to operate within a ‘cash only’ environment. This creates many burdens and dangers. This increases the occurrences of robberies and fraud putting everyday citizens in danger. Banking is a nightmare! Some banks won’t accept your money, getting change for your business or applying for loans. Many times leading to closed accounts. Applying for home or car loans, banks refuse to count your marijuana related income. Oftentimes putting loans out of reach. For me, that means a 30,000 to 40,000 reduction in my countable income.” (Personal anecdote)

“By stimulating economic growth, creating jobs, and generating revenue through regulated markets, rescheduling cannabis would contribute positively to the economy.” (Form letter)

“It is estimated that the U.S. spends upwards of $7.6 billion annually on the criminalization of marijuana. Putting aside the real harms caused by criminalization, this is an enormous amount of taxpayer money that could be put to far better use. This money could be used to fund schools, mental health and substance abuse services, proper nutrition for families, and youth programming.” (Form letter)

Concerns are raised about the potential for increased consumption and related harms if cannabis businesses are allowed more freedom to market their products. The experience of the tobacco industry is used as a cautionary tale, suggesting that increased advertising and promotion could lead to higher rates of use and associated social harms.

“Rescheduling marijuana would allow the marijuana industry to deduct normal business expenses, including advertising and marketing expenses. This would make the industry profitable and incentivize them to spend even more on advertising and marketing. This would likely cause marijuana sales and the harms associated with marijuana use to rise in tandem. Big Tobacco taught us the deleterious impact of advertising on youth: the more teens are exposed to tobacco advertising, the more likely they are to start smoking. The same will be true with marijuana. The marijuana industry will undoubtedly take a page out of Big Tobacco’s marketing playbook, making marijuana use look glamorous and benign with celebrity endorsements, candy flavoring (already seen in marijuana edibles), product placement in movies, and more.” (Form letter)

Integration of Quantitative Data with Qualitative

The goal of the mixed-methods analysis approach is integration of quantitative and qualitative data. Our joint display of these results is visually represented in Table 4. From these observations, we note that the qualitative data support the quantitative findings.

Table 4.

Integration of quantitative and qualitative data

Theme	Quantitative	Qualitative
General opinion
Positive rescheduling	42%	“I support rescheduling marijuana (cannabis) to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.”
Negative rescheduling	55%	“I am writing to express my opposition to the recommendation to move botanical marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).”
Support descheduling	71%	“Marijuana must be removed from the CSA and should be federally regulated for both medical and adult use.”
Drivers of the argument
Racism	46%	“The criminalization of cannabis, a legacy of the War on Drugs, was a policy decision rooted in racism.”
Decriminalization	49%	“We do not penalize any other medical patient for using a valid prescription, and we should extend that same protection to individuals who use medical cannabis.”
Safety	35%	“I do not dispute the risk of abuse and adverse health outcomes for some users, but I feel the benefits of broader access to Cannabis outweigh those risks.”
		“Cannabis has a much lower abuse liability and far greater therapeutic potential than benzodiazepines which are scheduled more leniently than cannabis.”
		“Marijuana can be addictive; In fact, as many as 1 in 3 past year marijuana users met the clinical criteria for Cannabis Use Disorder.”
		“Safety is a major concern as traffic fatalities, psychosis, suicide, violence, depression, mania, maternal-fetal harms, and addiction have been associated with the use of botanical marijuana.”
Economic	33%	“Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III would provide relief for small businesses burdened by excessive taxation under Section 280E.”
		“By stimulating economic growth, creating jobs, and generating revenue through regulated markets, rescheduling cannabis would contribute positively to the economy.”
Form of comment
Form letters	71%	“Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the DEA’s proposed rule on the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). While I appreciate the Biden Administration’s efforts to reconsider marijuana’s inappropriate classification as a Schedule I controlled substance, I have deep concerns about the insufficiency of rescheduling. Instead of keeping marijuana illegal under the CSA, it’s time to end this country’s failed policy of criminalization by completely removing marijuana from the CSA’s drug schedules. I urge the DEA to reconsider its proposed rule and issue a new rule to deschedule marijuana from the CSA.”
Well thought-out responses	20.6%	“Along with rescheduling, there should be a clear mechanism in place that allows current medical marijuana patients (at the state level) to receive their medication without federal penalties or interference (including employees who are subject to drug testing).”
		“Based on past and recent studies regarding cannabis from various organizations and the recently published HHS study, cannabis clearly does not meet the necessary criteria of either a Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substance. Additionally based on the scientific evidence, cannabis should be removed from the CSA altogether thereby harmonizing federal cannabis policy with those of most US states. I do not oppose the factual basis underlying HHS recommendation to move botanical cannabis to Schedule III or lower.”
Personal anecdote	8.4%	“This is a healing and life-saving plant for millions of people – me included, and I came to it in my 40s.”
		“My 22 yr old son smoked marijuana regularly sometimes 6xs/day from age 15–21. Now he sits in prison, refusing recommended medication, diagnosed with serious mental illness by psychiatrists in 6 hospitals.”
		“My husband is a Marijuana addict & suffers from terrible psychosis due to the use of high content THC products.”

Discussion

The results show that there was no difference between early, mid-, and late responses in terms of the evidence of the argument, suggesting that throughout the entire open comment period the public was active and responded with similar formatting. Opinions regarding rescheduling followed a trend based on the wave of respondents. Comments from early respondents consisted of a greater number in favor of rescheduling opinions compared to opposing rescheduling (60% vs. 38%). The majority of opinions switched to opposing rescheduling for mid-respondents (64% vs. 33%) and continued to dominate for late respondents (69% vs. 27%). One way to explain this would be to think that the majority of first commenters were supportive of rescheduling and did not consider an option of taking the change further. Once more comments were made in support of descheduling and taking the change further or saying that rescheduling is not enough, others may have followed, resulting in more comments against rescheduling and more in favor of descheduling instead. We can also postulate that initial respondents did not want to risk voting against rescheduling, in fear no change or prolonging time for change.

Rescheduling of a controlled substance is not an uncommon occurrence to the DEA as few controlled substances were rescheduled in the past following a formal rulemaking procedure. On October 6, 2014, hydrocodone combination products (HCPs) were rescheduled from schedule III to schedule II in the attempt to reduce misuse of HCPs following the beginning of the third wave of opioid crisis in 2013. Marinol, a dronabinol-containing product, was approved for the treatment of nausea and vomiting associated with chemotherapy in 1985, which moved it from a schedule I to a schedule II [7]. Fourteen years later, on July 2, 1999, Marinol was rescheduled again from a schedule II to a schedule III based on low numbers of reports of abuse [5]. Of note, HCPs proposed ruling received over 500 comments, rescheduling of Marinol received 10 comments, and current rescheduling of marijuana accumulated over 42,000 comments [2, 8].

The public comments submitted to the DEA regarding the rescheduling of marijuana exhibited patterns that align with observations from other rulemaking processes. Approximately 70% of the comments were identified as form letters, likely provided as templates by organizations advocating for or against rescheduling. These form letters contained well-structured arguments addressing issues such as criminalization, economic impacts, social justice concerns, and health-related benefits or risks. This high proportion of form letter submissions is consistent with what Balla et al. [9] described as “mass comment campaigns,” where organizations mobilize individuals to submit pre-written or slightly modified comments. As noted by Cook [10], such campaigns can significantly influence the volume of comments received but may not necessarily provide new substantive information to agency decision-makers. A smaller percentage of comments consisted of personal anecdotes or stories from individuals expressing their position on rescheduling. These submissions align with what Farina et al. [11] termed “situated knowledge,” providing insights based on lived experiences that may be valuable to regulators. The remaining 20% of comments appeared to be more individualized responses, potentially representing what Balla et al. [9] would categorize as unique or partially unique comments. These submissions may offer more detailed or nuanced perspectives on the issue, potentially carrying greater weight in the agency’s consideration process. In fact, the subanalysis showed that this grouping of respondents was nearly opposite to those submitting form letters. While secondary to this study’s objectives, these results are indicative of the issue associated with mass comment campaigns, highlighting the complex landscape of public participation in rulemaking. As such, as the literature suggests, the DEA must balance the processing of high-volume form letter campaigns with the extraction of substantive information from more unique submissions [9, 10]. However, while there is a difference between those who did and did not submit a form letter, and the form letters substantially outnumber the non-form letters, each of those responses should be considered as a member of the public’s opinions and treated as such. The intention of the response (to support or not rescheduling) should be counted equally, even though the substance contained within the letter is not new or unique. Each individual took time to select the letter that best (and admittedly most easily) represented their opinion. We do note, though, that there was no difference between early, mid-, and late responses in terms of the evidence of the argument, suggesting that throughout the entire open comment period the public was active and responded with similar formatting.

There were four main drivers of the argument: decriminalization (49%), racism (46%), safety (35%), and economy (33%). The distribution of these arguments varied significantly across the three waves of respondents. Early-wave comments predominantly emphasized marijuana safety, while mid- and late-wave comments increasingly focused on decriminalization and racism. In the final wave, there was a surge in comments mentioning economic factors, with fewer references to other arguments. Although the overall structure of comments remained consistent throughout the open comment period, later waves contained more argumentative points. Our hypothesis is that commenters incorporated previously posted arguments they had not initially considered, strengthening their reasoning. However, a subgroup analysis that excluded form letters and examined only individual comments revealed a different pattern: only 15% mentioned decriminalization, 4% addressed racism, 28% referenced safety, and 15% discussed economic impacts. This suggests that while individual commenters stated their stance on rescheduling, they rarely provided detailed arguments to support their position. Additionally, there was no statistically significant difference in individual comments based on the timing of publication. Such findings should be considered in subsequent research on public commentaries, especially if the findings of “form letters,” or what we defined as provided templates by an organization, are greater than 70% of all published comments.

Many commenters advocate for descheduling marijuana to enhance research opportunities, highlighting its medical and therapeutic benefits, particularly for conditions like chronic pain, insomnia, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Concerns about racial injustices linked to marijuana criminalization were prominent, with calls for policy changes that address these inequities. The comments reflect a spectrum of personal experiences, noting both the benefits and risks of cannabis use, with worries about high-potency products and their impact on public health and youth. Economic implications were also discussed, with rescheduling seen as a potential relief for small businesses and a driver of economic growth, though concerns about increased marketing and consumption were raised due to the history of big tobacco.

A majority of the respondents were in support of descheduling cannabis (71%), as opposed to rescheduling. Despite this, some comments indicated that respondents had a misunderstanding between rescheduling and descheduling. Commenters stated that they supported the rescheduling but described opinions that fell under the definition of descheduling, meaning that those in favor of descheduling could be even higher.

The study does have a few limitations. Although steps to mitigate bias were taken, such as quality assurance, selecting a sample size with a 5% margin of error, and consensus on definitions prior to data analysis, there still may be a chance of bias from coding the comments as well as from the sample taken. We did not perform a formal inter-rater reliability test. Since Regulations.gov allows for multiple submissions from the same email address, it is possible that some commenters submitted their response more than once. While we did not observe any repeated individual comments in our sample, there is a possibility that a commenter could have used a different language or format for the same response. Additionally, some individuals may have repeatedly submitted the same form letter during the comment period. Due to the anonymous nature of the Regulations.gov website, we were unable to identify repeated comments. However, the likelihood of this occurring is low in our randomly selected sample size. Furthermore, commenters only had the option of submitting their name; no other demographic data are collected in Regulations.gov. Therefore, we did not have the ability to analyze any associations between demographics and the nature of the comment. Although understanding how comments vary by state laws and demographic categories across the USA would offer deeper insights, this limitation does not impact our analysis of how the waves of comments changed throughout the open comment period. Lastly, to our knowledge, no prior research has been published comparing public comments in relation to the timing of their submission. The decision to compare comments in 3-week increments was speculated, and the results could have been different had different timeframes been compared.

Conclusions

The public response to the DEA’s proposal to reschedule marijuana from schedule I to schedule III revealed complex and evolving attitudes toward cannabis regulation. Early respondents were more likely to support rescheduling, while later respondents increasingly favored descheduling marijuana entirely. This shift suggests a growing public desire for more comprehensive reform beyond rescheduling. The analysis also highlighted key themes driving public opinion, including concerns about racial injustice, decriminalization, safety, and economic impacts. Personal anecdotes provided insight into both the potential benefits and risks of cannabis use, reflecting the nuanced nature of this issue.

While the majority of comments were form letters, indicating organized advocacy efforts, there was also a significant portion of well-reasoned responses and personal stories. This mix of feedback underscores the multifaceted nature of the marijuana debate and the importance of considering diverse perspectives in policymaking. The study’s findings suggest that future cannabis policy discussions may need to address not just rescheduling, but potentially more far-reaching reforms to align with evolving public sentiment. As the conversation around marijuana regulation continues, policymakers will need to carefully balance public health and safety concerns with growing calls for increased access and reduced criminalization.

Statement of Ethics

Ethics approval and consent to participate were not required as data analyzed are publicly available.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding Sources

This study was not supported by any sponsor or funder.

Author Contributions

R.H.L. and A.M.P. devised the concept and design of the study. R.H.L. downloaded the public data, divided respondents into waves, and randomly assigned an equal number of comments to be coded by all authors. A.N. prepared the quantitative data, and J.P. prepared the qualitative data of the manuscript. All authors analyzed and interpreted the data, and read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding Statement

This study was not supported by any sponsor or funder.

Data Availability Statement

The data used in this study are available at regulations.gov, Docket #DEA-2024-0059-000, and the specific sample is available under online supplementary material (for all online suppl. material, see https://doi.org/10.1159/000546538) [2].