In a potential breakthrough for Washington, D.C., congressional researchers indicate that federal rescheduling of marijuana could finally enable the legalization of adult-use cannabis sales in the nation’s capital. However, lingering uncertainties over the definition of “tetrahydrocannabinols derivatives” could pose significant regulatory challenges.
Impact of Rescheduling on D.C.’s Cannabis Market
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) recently published a report highlighting the implications of moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This move would effectively remove longstanding barriers that have prevented D.C. from using local tax revenues to establish a commercial recreational cannabis market for over a decade.
According to CRS, the current appropriations policy rider has historically barred D.C. from “legalizing or otherwise reducing penalties associated with the possession, use, or distribution of any schedule I substance.” Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III would potentially allow D.C. to authorize and regulate the sale of recreational cannabis, levy taxes, and implement market regulations locally.
The Tetrahydrocannabinols Derivative Dilemma
Despite the potential benefits of rescheduling, CRS points out a critical complication. The rider, championed by Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), specifically prohibits D.C. from using funds to legalize or reduce penalties for “any tetrahydrocannabinols derivative.” This provision could complicate efforts to define and regulate derivatives of tetrahydrocannabinols (THC) under local law.
The lack of a clear definition for THC derivatives raises interpretive challenges. CRS suggests that synthetic THC substances, although illegal under current D.C. law for recreational use, may not definitively qualify as derivatives. Furthermore, federal law distinguishes between marijuana and hemp but does not explicitly clarify the status of substances that could potentially be both derivatives and either marijuana or hemp.
Legislative Path Forward
CRS underscores that while the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) holds authority over rescheduling marijuana, Congress retains legislative control over cannabis policy, including D.C.’s local laws. Should the DEA proceed with rescheduling, Congress would need to amend or clarify the existing appropriations rider to align with the new regulatory landscape.
Congressional options include passing permanent legislation to amend D.C.’s marijuana provisions or modifying annual appropriations riders. Failure to act beyond maintaining the status quo could empower D.C. to repeal additional prohibitions and expand marijuana regulations, pending clarification on THC derivatives.
Recent Legislative Developments
Recent legislative maneuvers have showcased the ongoing debate over D.C.’s cannabis policy. Although initial versions of the 2025 spending bill omitted the D.C. marijuana sales ban, an amendment reintroduced the prohibition, disappointing advocates seeking progressive reforms. The amendment coincided with the removal of proposed marijuana banking protections from the bill, marking setbacks for cannabis policy reform efforts.
Political and Advocacy Landscape
President Joe Biden has consistently supported maintaining the D.C. marijuana sales ban in his budget proposals, aligning with broader congressional negotiations on cannabis policy. Despite local efforts to implement workarounds, such as self-certification for medical marijuana, the congressional blockade remains a persistent challenge for D.C. lawmakers and cannabis advocates alike.
In conclusion, while federal rescheduling offers a potential pathway for D.C. to legalize adult-use cannabis sales, unresolved issues surrounding THC derivatives underscore the complexities of translating federal reforms into effective local policy. As stakeholders await further clarity, the intersection of federal law, congressional oversight, and local autonomy continues to shape the future of cannabis regulation in Washington, D.C.
