The comment period for the rule ended last week, with an analysis finding more than 40,000 comments had been submitted, a majority in favor of the change.

Among the comments was a 42-page letter from 11 GOP state attorneys general, speaking out against the move to reschedule.  

In their letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, the attorneys general acknowledged that rescheduling doesn’t remove the roadblocks keeping the marijuana industry from being fully integrated into the U.S. economy but argued it is a step toward “normalizing” marijuana businesses. 

Karen O’Keefe, director of state polices at the Marijuana Policy Project, called the objection from state attorneys general “shocking and disappointing.”  

Dozens of Republicans in Congress are also resisting the rule through letters to Biden or last-minute amendments in the House and Senate. A bicameral letter from earlier in June was signed by 25 Republicans, led by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas).  

They argued that the proposed rule by the Justice Department (DOJ) was poorly researched and pushed back on the administration’s conclusion that marijuana had a low potential for abuse. 

“Despite marijuana’s prevalence and high rate of use, we still lack adequate and robust research on the drug,” they wrote. 

The White House in May began the formal rulemaking process to move marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) — drugs considered to have the highest potential for abuse, with no accepted medical use — to Schedule III, drugs considered to have a “moderate to low potential” for physical and psychological dependence. 

But despite all the pushback, rescheduling to Schedule III still makes the manufacturing, distribution, dispensing and possession of marijuana prohibited under the CSA.