There is a political and cultural tension running through the U.S. While dispensaries flourish on the streets and the word “rescheduling” appears in every headline, Congress has decided to step in. On Friday, a group of Democratic lawmakers reintroduced what many describe as the most sweeping bill yet to remove cannabis from the list of controlled substances and legalize it at the federal level.
In a political hornet’s nest where ideology, business, and civil rights collide, the cannabis debate has become an uncomfortable mirror of what the United States is today: should we keep punishing thousands through prison and deportations or fuel an industry that already moves billions of dollars a year?
40 lawmakers introduce new cannabis bill: What the MORE Act means
Last Friday, as speculation swirled over what Donald Trump will do about marijuana rescheduling, a group of 40 Democratic lawmakers took the lead in Congress. Led by Jerry Nadler (New York) and joined by Dina Titus (Nevada), Ilhan Omar (Minnesota), and Nydia Velázquez (New York), the Marijuana Opportunity, Reinvestment and Expungement Act—better known as the MORE Act—made its return to the House.
To get this straight, it helps to break down the difference between rescheduling and descheduling:
- Rescheduling means moving cannabis from Schedule I—reserved for substances deemed to have high abuse potential like heroin, LSD, MDMA, and currently cannabis—to the less restrictive Schedule III, which includes substances with lower abuse potential and accepted medical uses such as ketamine, codeine, or steroids.
- Descheduling, on the other hand, would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act entirely, treating it more like alcohol or tobacco and leaving it up to each state to decide whether (and how) to regulate or prohibit it. This would effectively legalize the plant.
The MORE Act puts forward this latter option: a broad, definitive change. It’s one of the most comprehensive and ambitious proposals ever introduced in Washington to end cannabis prohibition once and for all.
As Nadler noted when presenting it: “It is long past time to decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, expunge marijuana convictions, and facilitate resentencing, while reinvesting in the communities most adversely impacted by the War on Drugs.”
This is not the first time this bill has appeared in Congress. The House of Representatives has already approved previous versions twice: in 2020 (228-164) and in 2022 (220-204). But on both occasions, the bill stalled in the Senate, which never brought it to a vote. The 2025 version is the fourth consecutive reintroduction.
What does it propose this time?
The bill looks not only forward but also back:
- Expunge federal marijuana-related convictions.
- Allow resentencing for those still under supervision.
- Guarantee rights. No one would lose public benefits or immigration status because of a marijuana record.
For Dina Titus, co-chair of the Cannabis Caucus, the initiative is welcome, even if overdue: “It’s time to modernize our laws to reflect the reality of cannabis use in the United States, recognize the legitimate industry that has emerged, and fully embrace the medical benefits of the plant. The federal government must catch up to the states, and this bill provides a framework to end the failed War on Drugs while supporting communities and businesses nationwide,” she said.
Ilhan Omar, also co-chair, was blunt: “The MORE Act will decriminalize marijuana at the federal level, clear records, and reinvest in the communities most harmed by these failed policies. In Minnesota, we have already shown that legalization can deliver both fairness and economic opportunity. It is past time for the federal government to follow our lead and finally end the era of criminalization.”
And from New York, Nydia Velázquez emphasized the social dimension: “For too long, communities of color have carried the weight of unfair marijuana laws that fueled incarceration and denied people opportunity… The MORE Act is about justice, about giving people a second chance, and about making sure small businesses and workers in these communities can share in the benefits of legalization.”
On the economic front, the proposal includes:
- A 5% federal tax on cannabis sales, rising to 8% within five years.
- The money would go into an Opportunity Fund, aimed at repairing the harms of the War on Drugs and opening the market to those who’ve been excluded.
The three grant programs
In addition, the MORE Act creates three core programs:
- Community Reinvestment Grant Program: Provides services to those most impacted by prohibition, including job training, re-entry support, legal aid, literacy programs, youth activities, mentoring, and substance use treatment.
- Cannabis Opportunity Grant Program: Funds loans for small cannabis businesses owned and operated by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.
- Equitable Licensing Grant Program: Supports state-level programs that reduce barriers to licensing and employment in the cannabis sector for communities historically targeted by criminalization.
So where does the money go?
Details vary slightly depending on the source, but the idea is clear. The funds would be reinvested in the communities that have borne the brunt of prohibition.
Forbes outlines the breakdown as follows:
- 50% → Community reinvestment (Department of Justice)
- 10% → Substance use treatment programs
- 40% → Small Business Administration, for an equitable licensing program
Cannabis Business Times, meanwhile, adds that part of the fund would also be directed to the Office of the Attorney General. This would implement sections of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, strengthening coordination across state and local justice systems.
Advocacy voices and opinions
The support is rolling in. Alongside the 40 initial Representatives, the bill is backed by a diverse coalition of organizations, including the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA), the ACLU, NORML, the SEIU union, and the Last Prisoner Project, among many others.
Maritza Perez Medina, from the Drug Policy Alliance, put it plainly: “As long as marijuana remains in the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), it will remain federally criminalized, regardless of which schedule it is placed in. The MORE Act is the only bill introduced this Congress that would remove (“deschedule”) marijuana from CSA, which would decriminalize marijuana at the federal level nationwide.”
Dasheeda Dawson, of the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, also shared: “The MORE Act delivers the reform America needs: ending prohibition while mandating equity, expungement, and investment that communities most impacted by prohibition have long deserved.”
From the Last Prisoner Project, Jason Ortiz celebrated: “In addition to descheduling cannabis, the MORE Act offers long-overdue relief by automatically expunging convictions and freeing people still suffering behind bars.”
Kat Murti, of SSDP, added: “From the very first introduction of the MORE Act, SSDP has championed this bill as the most comprehensive path toward sensible cannabis policy reform—one which would end federal prohibition, clear past convictions, and begin the process of healing the communities most harmed by federal cannabis prohibition.”
And Morgan Fox, of NORML, concluded: “This legislation embodies the wishes of more than two thirds of the American public, and will create a federal cannabis framework that respects states’ rights and is focused on science, pragmatism, and justice.”
The fight may be tight, but the numbers are clear
There are many—countless—opinions: some in favor, others against. But if there’s one thing that doesn’t lie or leave much room for doubt, it’s the numbers. According to a Pew Research Center survey published this year, 88% of U.S. adults support cannabis legalization in some form: 54% for both medical and adult use, 33% for medical use only, and just 12% oppose any legalization initiative.
However, in the political arena, consensus is far from being reached. Nine Republican lawmakers recently sent a letter to Donald Trump urging him to reject marijuana rescheduling.
In the document, they called the Biden administration’s proposal “corrupt and flawed” and warned that sending such a signal to society would mean telling young people that marijuana “is not harmful.” They also cautioned that such a change would allow large cannabis corporations and foreign cartels to secure billions of dollars in federal tax deductions.
The other side of the coin comes from 32 state attorneys general. In a joint statement, they urged Congress to move forward not only with legalization but also with financial support measures such as the SAFER Banking Act, which is key for the industry to operate normally within the banking system.
Their argument is simple and pragmatic: if marijuana is already legal in most of the country, blocking access to the banking system only increases security risks and limits business growth. They also argue that facilitating financial access would allow for better oversight and more effective tax collection in an industry that has created 425,000 jobs and expects annual sales of $34 billion by the end of the year.
Beyond the partisan dispute, there are also nuances within the progressive camp and among those who defend marijuana. Some citizens welcome any progress and see rescheduling to Schedule III as a step in the right direction. Others, however, view it as little more than insufficient window dressing, since as long as cannabis remains in the Controlled Substances Act, it will continue to be criminalized at the federal level. Hence the insistence on descheduling—removing the plant entirely from the list—as proposed by the MORE Act.
And there is a third group that supports moving forward, but with distrust. Critics warn that a shift to Schedule III could end up mainly benefiting large pharmaceutical companies, who would find the path cleared to patent cannabis-derived medicines, pushing aside small growers and the independent market. For these voices, rescheduling could act as a Trojan horse, shutting out those who sustained the industry from the shadows for decades.
The reality is that the debate unfolds against a backdrop that cannot be ignored. We’re talking about nearly a century of the War on Drugs, a failed policy that did not reduce consumption but did forge a deadly link to mass incarceration, among many other harms.
In the U.S., the number of people incarcerated for drug law violations rose from fewer than 25,000 in 1980 to nearly 300,000 in state and federal prisons. And no, this did not reduce either substance use or the supply on the illegal market.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the counter, the legal industry is flourishing, generating more than $30 billion in annual sales in the U.S., creating thousands of jobs and delivering tax revenue to the states. A contrast that lays bare the central paradox: prison and deportations for some, multibillion-dollar businesses for others.
This article was first published on El Planteo.
