Trump’s Push to Reclassify Marijuana Signals a Shift. The Cultural Impact May Matter More Than the Policy Itself

Jan 2
5 min read

In December 2025, President Donald Trump directed the Justice Department to move forward with reclassifying marijuana under federal law, pressing agencies to complete an effort already underway to shift cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.

The directive did not instantly change marijuana’s legal status. Rescheduling must still proceed through formal rulemaking, guided by scientific review, administrative hearings, and final approval by the Drug Enforcement Administration. But the signal was unmistakable: the federal government is moving toward treating marijuana as less dangerous than it has for more than half a century.

On paper, the change is technical. In practice, it may prove cultural.

How Marijuana Scheduling Works—and Where Things Stand

Federal drug scheduling follows a structured process. Health agencies first assess medical use and abuse potential. The DEA then conducts rulemaking, including public comment and administrative review.

That process began in 2023. In 2024, the Department of Health and Human Services formally recommended moving marijuana to Schedule III—a category reserved for drugs with accepted medical use and lower abuse potential than Schedule I substances. The DEA followed by publishing a proposed rule and opening the matter to public comment, drawing tens of thousands of submissions.

Progress slowed in 2025 amid unresolved administrative proceedings. Trump’s December directive did not bypass those requirements. What it did do was remove ambiguity about political support and instruct agencies to finish the process as quickly as the law allows.

If remaining hurdles are resolved without further delay, a final rule could be issued sometime in 2026, with implementation typically following within weeks.

From a regulatory standpoint, this is incremental. From a cultural standpoint, it is anything but.

Why This Moment Feels Different

Marijuana reform has advanced steadily for years, driven by state legalization, medical use, and changing public attitudes. What distinguishes this moment is the alignment of federal agencies, political leadership, and commercial interests around a softer view of the drug.

Rescheduling does not legalize marijuana federally. It does not eliminate risk. But it does reposition cannabis as closer to regulated medicine than prohibited narcotic—and that framing matters.

Public-health research has long shown that perceived risk shapes behavior. As substances come to be viewed as safer, use tends to rise, particularly among younger users. Marijuana is unlikely to be an exception.

What Advocates Get Right

Cannabis is not without real benefits.

Medical marijuana has demonstrated effectiveness in treating chronic pain, chemotherapy-related nausea, certain seizure disorders, and muscle spasticity associated with multiple sclerosis, according to research reviewed by the National Institutes of Health and summarized in major medical journals. Compared with opioids, cannabis carries a lower overdose risk. Some studies suggest access to medical cannabis may reduce opioid use in specific populations.

Advocates also argue—credibly—that decades of criminalization imposed disproportionate social costs and that reform addresses long-standing inequities in enforcement.

These arguments are serious. They help explain why reform momentum has endured.

But they are not the full picture.

The Risk of a Softer Signal

Marijuana’s risks tend to be quiet rather than acute. Dependency often develops gradually, without a clear breaking point.

Research published in JAMA Psychiatry and the journal Addiction suggests that roughly three in ten users develop cannabis use disorder, with higher rates among those who begin young or use frequently. Modern marijuana is also far more potent than in past decades, with THC concentrations several times higher than historical norms.

Adolescents and young adults appear particularly vulnerable. Heavy use has been associated with habit formation, motivational decline, mood-regulation challenges, sleep disruption, and lingering cognitive effects, according to longitudinal studies cited in JAMA Pediatrics.

As access increases and perceived risk declines, these vulnerabilities matter more—not less.

Normalization, Access, and the Drift Toward Habit

As marijuana access becomes more ubiquitous—dispensaries now common fixtures in many cities—it is worth asking how this expansion is reshaping society’s view of the drug. Behaviors once considered marginal are now routine. Smoking before social gatherings, nights out, or solo downtime is rarely notable.

The contrast with the past is sharp. Marijuana was once framed as dangerous or antisocial. Today, it is often described as “at least better than alcohol or nicotine.” Rescheduling reinforces that shift, sending a message—intended or not—that concern has been overstated and the drug is largely benign.

That perception brings real benefits. It reduces stigma, expands research access, and allows adults to make informed choices without fear of criminalization. But it also carries trade-offs. For some users, intentional use quietly gives way to habit. Availability and routine begin to drive behavior more than choice.

This creates an unusual contradiction. Marijuana use has expanded across every age group, but none more sharply than among seniors. Federal survey data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, cited by The Economist, show that past-year cannabis use among Americans over 65 has risen from roughly one in 300 in 2007 to about one in ten today, making older adults the fastest-growing group of users.

For many, cannabis clearly adds value. Older users increasingly turn to it for pain, sleep, and anxiety, and some research suggests mental-health benefits for certain populations. At the same time, those who struggle to control their use often find little recognition or support. Cannabis addiction is frequently minimized, leaving some users to internalize the problem rather than seek help.

As access expands, the challenge is not simply legalization versus restriction. It is whether increased availability is paired with realistic expectations, informed use, and support for those who drift further than they intended.

What This Means from a Kurb Perspective

At Kurb, the question has never been whether marijuana should exist. It is whether people are equipped to use it deliberately rather than reflexively.

Rescheduling marijuana may reduce stigma and improve access for patients who benefit from it. It may also accelerate normalization in ways that make moderation harder—not easier—for some users.

History suggests that when access expands and risk perception drops, the burden of discipline shifts almost entirely to the individual. For people who already struggle with cravings, impulse control, or frequent use, that shift can be consequential.

This does not mean reform is a mistake. It means reform carries trade-offs.

A Policy Shift with Cultural Consequences

Trump’s support for rescheduling marijuana reflects political reality as much as medical reassessment. Public opinion has moved. The cannabis industry is organized. Resistance has weakened.

But regardless of motive, the outcome matters.

Expanded access places more responsibility on the individual. Whether people are given the tools to manage that responsibility remains an open question.

Sources & Further Reading

Wall Street Journal reporting on marijuana rescheduling, political support, and investor response
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and FDA review of cannabis scheduling
Drug Enforcement Administration proposed rulemaking on marijuana
JAMA Psychiatry; Addiction — cannabis use disorder prevalence
JAMA Pediatrics — adolescent cannabis use and mental-health outcomes
National Institutes of Health — medical cannabis research
The Economist — cannabis normalization and rising use among older adults