Tenn Canna Publishing
Reefer Madness 2.0: Inside the AG’s Office — The War on Words Gets Real
![]() |
| Reefer Madness 2.0 |
Who really controls cannabis policy at the federal level? The Attorney General sits at the top of the pyramid — and every “pending” review funnels through that office.
Read the series from the beginning: Reefer Madness 2.0: The War of Words Begins
Lead: The Choke Point
The Controlled Substances Act gives the Attorney General the final authority to place, remove, or change the Schedule of a drug. In practice, that means the AG’s office is the choke point for federal cannabis policy. HHS can submit medical and scientific recommendations, the DEA can propose or consider changes, but the legal hammer lands only when the Attorney General signs or declines to act. In 2025, with HHS saying one thing and the DEA saying another, the AG’s office is where the War of Words either ends or continues.
Recent, Relevant Quotes
“The marijuana rescheduling appeal process is still on hold and ‘remains pending’ before Administrator Terrance Cole, who previously pledged that advancing the issue would be ‘one of my first priorities.’”
— Marijuana Moment, October 8, 2025
“We write to urge you to reject … the recommendation to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III drug. … Marijuana … still has the potential for abuse and has no scientifically proven medical value.”
— Letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi from nine U.S. House members, August 28, 2025
“The hearing scheduled … regarding the proposed rescheduling of marijuana has been postponed pending resolution of an appeal filed by a party in the proceedings.”
— DEA Media Advisory, January 15, 2025
Historical Echoes
Fifty years ago the Shafer Commission told the White House that criminal penalties for simple possession were “out of proportion to the harm.” That expert recommendation was sidelined, and political framing — a “war” narrative — took hold. Today the language has changed and the agencies evolved, but the playbook is familiar: produce cautionary statements, delay action, repeat the phrase “we must carefully review” until the issue cools off. The AG — who could close the loop — often becomes the office that preserves the status quo by inaction.
War of Words: Where Rhetoric Beats Science
- Claim: “Marijuana has no scientifically proven medical value.”
Counter: HHS scientific reviews and decades of state-level programs document medical uses and practical regulatory schemes. - Claim: “We must await appeals, reviews, and further study.”
Counter: Reviews and appeals are legitimate — but they are also the mechanism by which policy is indefinitely stalled. - Claim: “Rescheduling is a complex legal question.”
Counter: The legal authority is clear; the question is whether political will matches legal power.
Actionable Angle for Readers
- Save and share direct quotes from the AG’s office, DEA advisories, and congressional letters — their words are the most powerful evidence.
- Watch filing and hearing calendars for “pending appeals” language; these are the precise pauses that keep reform on ice.
- Contact the AG’s office and relevant Congressional committees with concise, sourced questions: demand timelines, cite HHS findings, and ask for clarity on legal basis for delay.
Next in the Series
🧭 Explore Tennessee Cannabiz Related Posts
🕵️♂️ The Great Hemp Conspiracy Series: Cannabis in the Industrial Age
🌎 Cannabis 2025: Legalization, Innovation, and the Global Future
🏠 Home
© Tenn Canna Publishing — Reefer Madness 2.0 Series | Author: Tenn Canna Publishing

Comments
Post a Comment