![\"budinhane16\"](\"https:\/\/www.dalgarnoinstitute.org.au\/wp_site\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/budinhane16.jpg\")
Landmark JAMA Psychiatry study demolished scientific case for downgrading marijuana\u2019s legal status<\/p>\nLandmark JAMA Psychiatry study demolished scientific case for downgrading marijuana\u2019s legal status<\/p>\n
A devastating analysis published in JAMA Psychiatry<\/em> tore apart the Biden administration\u2019s case for cannabis rescheduling, revealing how political pressure trumped scientific rigour in one of America\u2019s most consequential drug policy decisions.<\/p>\n The comprehensive report, authored by Harvard Medical School\u2019s Dr Bertha Madras and Heritage Foundation legal scholar Paul Larkin, exposed how the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) abandoned decades of established medical standards to recommend moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act.<\/p>\n Ignoring the Evidence<\/strong><\/p>\n The authors revealed that HHS systematically ignored mounting evidence of cannabis harms whilst creating entirely new, legally unprecedented criteria to justify rescheduling. Most strikingly, the agency downplayed the alarming reality that cannabis use disorder (CUD) affected up to 30% of users, with rates amongst young people reaching epidemic proportions.<\/p>\n \u201cThe prevalence of CUD amongst adolescents and young adults (16.5%) is converging with alcohol use disorder (16.4%),\u201d the study noted, highlighting data showing that daily cannabis use had increased fifteen-fold since 1992. Even more concerning, by 2022, America recorded more daily cannabis users (17.7 million) than daily alcohol users (14.7 million) for the first time in history.<\/p>\n Medical Consensus? What Medical Consensus?<\/strong><\/p>\n Perhaps most damning was the revelation that only approximately 2% of America\u2019s patient-care physicians actually recommended cannabis to their patients. Of the 29,500 clinicians authorised to recommend medical marijuana, just over half held proper medical degrees\u2014the rest included dentists, physician assistants, and other healthcare workers operating far outside their expertise.<\/p>\n The study exposed how cannabis recommendations often lacked basic medical protocols: \u201cCannabis recommendations often lack details on dose, frequency, composition, route of administration, THC content, tapering, or product quality, unlike FDA-approved prescriptions.\u201d<\/p>\n Cherry-Picked Comparisons<\/strong><\/p>\n HHS\u2019s argument that cannabis had \u201clow abuse potential\u201d relied on comparing it to alcohol\u2014a substance explicitly excluded from the Controlled Substances Act. This bizarre comparison ignored cannabis-specific harms including psychosis, schizophrenia, cognitive impairment, and the debilitating cannabis hyperemesis syndrome that sent thousands to hospital emergency departments.<\/p>\n The authors noted that assuming causality, \u201cone-fifth of cases of schizophrenia amongst young males might be prevented or delayed by averting CUD.\u201d<\/p>\n State Programmes: Politics, Not Medicine<\/strong><\/p>\n The report dismantled claims about widespread medical acceptance by revealing the chaotic reality of state cannabis programmes. Geographic variation in authorising clinicians ranged wildly\u2014from 0.8 per 1,000 patients in Oklahoma to 109 per 1,000 in Mississippi\u2014suggesting the creation of \u201cweed mills\u201d analogous to the prescription opioid \u201cpill mills\u201d that fuelled America\u2019s overdose crisis.<\/p>\n Many states allowed cannabis recommendations for virtually any condition without physical examinations or diagnostic tests. By 2021, states had approved cannabis for 105 different conditions, most lacking quality research support.<\/p>\n The Science Didn\u2019t Stack Up<\/strong><\/p>\n On the crucial question of medical efficacy, the study revealed that 24 meta-analyses examining cannabis for chronic pain\u2014the most common reason for medical recommendations\u2014had failed to endorse its use. The International Association for the Study of Pain explicitly stated there wasn\u2019t \u201cenough high-quality human clinical safety and efficacy evidence\u201d to endorse cannabis for pain management.<\/p>\n For anxiety and PTSD\u2014the second and third most common qualifying conditions\u2014\u201dno high-quality studies exist showing cannabis is effective,\u201d the authors reported.<\/p>\n Youth at Risk<\/strong><\/p>\n The analysis emphasised how rescheduling would have sent dangerous signals to young people at a critical developmental stage. With 53% of new cannabis users starting before age 21, and minors developing CUD at twice the rate of adults, the timing couldn\u2019t have been worse for policy changes that might normalise cannabis use.<\/p>\n A Policy Crossroads<\/strong><\/p>\n The study\u2019s conclusions were clear: \u201cThe criteria and evidence HHS used to recommend reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III are flawed. If the DEA agrees, it will contradict past federal health concerns and ignore emerging data on rising use, disordered use, and negative health effects.\u201d<\/p>\n Dr Kevin Sabet, a former White House drug policy advisor, emphasised the stakes: \u201cWe cannot allow policy to be driven by commercial interests and political momentum while ignoring public health. The evidence in this paper makes it clear that rescheduling marijuana would undermine decades of prevention efforts.\u201d<\/p>\n As the Drug Enforcement Administration considered HHS\u2019s recommendation for cannabis rescheduling, this landmark analysis offered a critical framework for evidence-based decision-making. The question was whether scientific integrity would guide the future of America\u2019s drug policy or if political pressures would take precedence.<\/p>\n The authors issued a stark warning: rescheduling \u201ccould undermine FDA authority and compromise the integrity of our drug approval process and pharmaceutical supply.\u201d<\/p>\n