A sweeping new marijuana legalization bill introduced in Congress would remove cannabis entirely from the federal Controlled Substances Act, eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses, and fundamentally restructure how the United States regulates controlled substances. The legislation represents one of the most ambitious attempts in decades to rewrite federal drug laws, going significantly beyond existing marijuana rescheduling proposals by addressing criminal penalties, scientific research, federal regulatory authority, and the classification of potentially dangerous or medically beneficial substances.
Representative Steve Cohen, a Democrat from Tennessee, introduced the Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act of 2026 on October 29. The 89-page proposal would revise major portions of the Controlled Substances Act, the federal drug law enacted in 1970 that established the modern scheduling system. Rather than simply moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, the bill would remove marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinols from federal controlled-substance schedules altogether. It would also transfer important drug classification responsibilities from the Department of Justice to the Department of Health and Human Services, creating a regulatory structure that places greater emphasis on scientific evidence, medical applications, and public health.
The legislation arrives during a period of significant uncertainty surrounding federal marijuana policy. Although numerous states have legalized recreational or medical cannabis, federal law continues to impose restrictions that complicate banking, taxation, scientific research, interstate commerce, and criminal justice reform. Cohen’s proposal attempts to address several of these conflicts through a comprehensive overhaul rather than a series of isolated amendments. While the legislation faces substantial political obstacles, its introduction establishes a new framework for congressional debate over whether marijuana prohibition should end and how the federal government should regulate other controlled substances.
Steve Cohen Proposes the Most Extensive Drug Law Overhaul in Decades
The Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act contains six major titles addressing drug scheduling, import and export regulations, emerging drug threats, marijuana descheduling, federal sentencing guidelines, and implementation. According to Cohen’s office, the measure would amend nearly every section of the Controlled Substances Act, making it one of the most comprehensive proposed revisions since the legislation became law more than five decades ago. Cohen, a senior member of the House Judiciary Committee and co-chair of the Congressional Biomedical Research Caucus, has argued that federal drug policy should reflect advances in scientific understanding rather than relying on classifications established during an earlier period of American drug enforcement.
The legislation builds upon Cohen’s Controlled Substances Act Clarification in Sciences Act, introduced in June 2026, but expands that earlier proposal considerably. It also marks the congressman’s 500th sponsored piece of legislation since entering Congress. Cohen has characterized the longstanding federal approach to drug enforcement as ineffective and disproportionately harmful to minority communities, particularly because of severe penalties imposed for offenses involving comparatively small amounts of controlled substances. His latest proposal seeks to establish a clearer distinction between protecting public health, supporting legitimate scientific research, and preventing dangerous criminal trafficking operations. Importantly, the bill would not eliminate federal enforcement against major drug traffickers or remove all controlled substances from regulation. Instead, it would redefine the circumstances under which substances are controlled and the penalties imposed for violating federal law.
Marijuana Would Be Removed Entirely From Federal Drug Schedules
The centerpiece of Cohen’s legislation is the complete removal of marijuana and THC from the Controlled Substances Act. Under the federal framework, marijuana has historically been classified as a Schedule I controlled substance, a category associated with a high potential for abuse and no currently accepted medical use. That classification has persisted despite the expansion of medical cannabis programs, the legalization of recreational marijuana in numerous states, and increasing scientific investigation into cannabinoids. Removing cannabis entirely from the scheduling system would represent a much more significant legal change than placing it in a less restrictive category. It would eliminate marijuana’s status as a federally controlled substance under the CSA rather than merely changing the conditions under which cannabis activities remain subject to federal drug regulations.
This distinction is particularly important because federal rescheduling efforts have generally focused on moving marijuana to Schedule III, a classification that still imposes restrictions on manufacturing, distribution, and dispensing. Earlier in 2026, federal officials took action involving certain medical marijuana products, while the broader rescheduling process remained a separate regulatory question. Cohen’s legislation would pursue a different outcome by removing cannabis from controlled-substance schedules altogether. The descheduling provisions would also apply retroactively to past offenses and pending cases, including juvenile adjudications, although the precise effect on individual criminal records would depend on the legislation’s procedures and implementation. Removing marijuana from federal scheduling would not automatically repeal state prohibition laws or establish an unrestricted national recreational cannabis market.
A New Drug Scheduling System Based on Scientific Evidence
Beyond marijuana legalization, the proposal would replace the familiar five-schedule federal drug classification system with a new framework designed to evaluate both potential harms and therapeutic value. The revised structure would introduce four numerical classifications, ranging from Schedule I through Schedule IV, based on factors such as the risk of developing a substance use disorder and the threat a substance presents to public health. A second set of classifications, designated A through E, would independently assess therapeutic value. Under this arrangement, a substance could receive a combined classification such as Schedule 1A or Schedule 3C, allowing federal regulators to distinguish between a drug’s potential dangers and its demonstrated medical benefits.
The legislation would also expand the existing eight-factor scheduling analysis to 15 considerations, supported by an independent advisory committee consisting of approximately 15 to 25 experts. The committee would examine scientific evidence, public health consequences, therapeutic applications, and other relevant factors before recommending appropriate classifications. Approximately 30 substances would receive priority evaluations within two years, including fentanyl, morphine, methamphetamine, psilocybin, and ibogaine. Remaining controlled substances would generally undergo review within eight years. These drugs would not automatically become legal or be removed from federal control; instead, they would be evaluated under the revised system. The objective is to create more consistent classifications that account for both medical usefulness and potential harm, rather than relying on a single framework that critics argue has historically produced contradictory regulatory outcomes.
HHS Would Gain Authority Currently Held by the DEA
One of the most consequential institutional changes involves transferring significant drug scheduling authority from the Attorney General, whose responsibilities are generally carried out through the Drug Enforcement Administration, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Under the proposed framework, HHS would become the primary authority responsible for determining the appropriate scheduling of controlled substances. Federal law enforcement agencies would continue to provide relevant information, particularly concerning illegal distribution and diversion, but scientific and medical considerations would receive greater institutional priority. The legislation would also transfer responsibilities involving production quotas for certain controlled substances to HHS, while preserving consultation and coordination with federal enforcement officials.
Research regulation would undergo substantial changes as well. Scientists studying controlled substances have historically faced registration requirements, security procedures, and other administrative obstacles that can complicate research, particularly involving highly restricted drugs. Cohen’s proposal would establish broader controlled-substance research registrations administered through HHS, reducing the need for separate approvals tied to individual schedules. It would also expand expedited research pathways and clarify provisions associated with the HALT Fentanyl Act of 2025. The reforms are intended to support investigations into medical benefits, dependence, toxicity, and public health risks without removing necessary safeguards. For cannabis research, federal descheduling could further reduce barriers that have complicated scientific investigation, although studies involving human participants, investigational medications, and commercial medical claims would remain subject to other applicable requirements.
Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences Would Be Eliminated
The legislation’s criminal justice provisions extend beyond marijuana and would fundamentally change federal sentencing for controlled-substance offenses. Existing federal drug laws establish mandatory minimum prison terms for certain offenses based on drug type, quantity, prior convictions, and other circumstances. Critics argue that these provisions can produce disproportionate punishment, limit judicial discretion, and create substantial differences between a defendant’s actual role in a criminal operation and the sentence imposed. Cohen’s proposal would eliminate weight-based mandatory minimum drug penalties while preserving federal authority to prosecute trafficking and impose lengthy sentences when warranted. Judges would retain discretion to consider aggravating circumstances, including serious injuries, deaths, repeat offenses, and other factors associated with particularly dangerous criminal conduct.
The proposal would also direct the United States Sentencing Commission to revise federal sentencing guidelines to reflect the new classification system and penalty structure. Importantly, the measure includes a resentencing process for qualifying individuals whose offenses would carry lower penalties under the revised law. The Federal Bureau of Prisons would be required to identify potentially eligible prisoners, notify them, and seek sentence reductions on their behalf, while individuals would retain the ability to file their own motions. This approach would extend the legislation’s potential consequences beyond future prosecutions to people already serving federal sentences. However, reductions would not necessarily be automatic, and the bill would not directly eliminate every state-level cannabis conviction or change sentencing rules established independently by state legislatures.
Federal Legalization Could Transform the Cannabis Industry
For state-licensed cannabis businesses, federal descheduling could create significant economic consequences. One of the most important involves Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, which prevents businesses trafficking in Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances from deducting many ordinary business expenses. Removing marijuana from federal scheduling would eliminate this particular tax restriction for cannabis operations, potentially improving profitability and allowing companies to deduct qualifying expenses associated with payroll, rent, advertising, and administration. While moving marijuana to Schedule III would also remove the application of Section 280E, full descheduling would extend beyond tax treatment by ending its classification as a controlled substance under the federal drug law.
Nevertheless, legalization would not automatically resolve every problem facing the industry. Cannabis companies could continue encountering challenges involving financial services, interstate transportation, product liability, insurance, and compliance with different state regulatory systems. Banking institutions would still evaluate legal risks and anti-money-laundering obligations, while businesses operating across state borders would need to consider federal commercial regulations and individual state laws. The Food and Drug Administration would retain authority over cannabis products, meaning federal descheduling would not automatically authorize every marijuana product for unrestricted nationwide sale. A transition from prohibition toward a regulated national industry would require additional decisions about consumer protection, manufacturing standards, labeling, advertising, and market oversight.
FDA Oversight and State Marijuana Laws Would Remain Important
Cohen’s bill explicitly preserves the FDA’s existing authority over cannabis-related products and requires the agency to hold at least three public meetings within one year to examine potential regulatory approaches. Topics would include product safety, manufacturing standards, quality control, marketing, labeling, and commercial sales. These discussions could help establish a foundation for more consistent federal consumer protections, particularly as states continue developing different requirements governing THC potency, contaminant testing, packaging, and product disclosures. The proposal also permits continued marijuana testing in federal employee drug-testing programs, demonstrating that removing cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act would not eliminate every federal restriction involving its use.
Individual states would remain important participants in determining how cannabis is sold, possessed, and consumed. States with established recreational marijuana markets would likely continue operating their licensing systems, while states maintaining prohibition could preserve restrictions unless lawmakers adopted separate reforms or federal law expressly displaced particular state requirements. The measure would therefore create a major change in federal policy without automatically establishing identical marijuana laws throughout the country. Questions involving impaired driving, workplace safety, youth access, and commercial regulation would continue requiring attention from federal and state authorities. The distinction is significant because ending federal prohibition and establishing a fully functioning national cannabis marketplace are related but separate policy objectives.
Cannabis Reform Organizations Endorse the Legislation
The proposal has received endorsements from several prominent organizations involved in cannabis policy, drug research, and criminal justice reform. Supporters include the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, the Drug Policy Alliance, Students for Sensible Drug Policy, and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies. NORML Political Director Morgan Fox welcomed the legislation as an opportunity to address longstanding weaknesses in federal drug classification, particularly marijuana’s placement in the most restrictive scheduling category. Other advocates emphasized the potential benefits of eliminating mandatory minimum sentences and expanding scientific research opportunities involving controlled substances.
Congressional support has also emerged from Representative Dina Titus of Nevada, co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, who praised the proposal as an opportunity to modernize federal cannabis law. However, the legislation’s broad scope is likely to create political challenges. Lawmakers who support marijuana rescheduling may not necessarily endorse comprehensive descheduling, elimination of mandatory minimum drug sentences, or transferring significant regulatory responsibilities away from the Department of Justice. Others may raise concerns involving youth access, public health, impaired driving, and the government’s ability to respond to emerging drug threats. These disagreements could make the measure substantially more difficult to advance than narrower proposals focused exclusively on cannabis research, medical marijuana, or federal banking protections.
What Happens Next for Federal Marijuana Legalization?
The Public Health and Research Reforms in Controlled Substances Act must still navigate the congressional legislative process before any of its provisions can become law. The proposal would require consideration by the relevant House committees, approval by the House of Representatives, passage through the Senate, and the president’s signature. As of October 30, 2026, it remains a legislative proposal rather than an enacted change to federal marijuana law. Its prospects are uncertain, particularly because the measure combines several politically sensitive issues into a single package. With the 119th Congress approaching the end of its term, the time remaining for consideration presents an additional obstacle, and any provisions not enacted would generally need to be introduced again in a subsequent Congress.
Even without immediate passage, Cohen’s proposal could influence future discussions about marijuana legalization and the wider federal drug regulatory system. Its significance extends beyond removing cannabis from Schedule I because it challenges how federal authorities evaluate substances, authorize scientific research, and determine criminal punishment. The bill presents Congress with a choice between incremental marijuana reform and a more comprehensive restructuring of drug policy. Whether lawmakers embrace the proposal or pursue narrower alternatives, the introduction of legislation explicitly removing marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act demonstrates that federal cannabis reform remains an active issue in Washington. For consumers, patients, researchers, and licensed businesses, the outcome could help determine whether marijuana’s future is shaped primarily by criminal prohibition or by a regulatory system focused on public health, scientific evidence, and legal commerce.
