92% of Americans Support Cannabis Rescheduling: Inside the Johns Hopkins Study That Proves It

When the DEA opened its public comment period on cannabis rescheduling, it expected feedback. What it got was a mandate.

A new study published in the journal Addiction by researchers at Johns Hopkins University and the University of California San Diego analyzed over 42,000 public comments submitted to the federal government through the Regulations.gov portal. Their findings are striking: 92.4% of commenters supported removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act — the most restrictive category, which cannabis has occupied since 1970 alongside heroin and LSD.

The study arrives at a pivotal moment. Just days before its publication, the Trump administration's Department of Justice formally reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, and a broader hearing on rescheduling all cannabis is set for June 29, 2026. The question is no longer whether Americans want change — it's how far they want to go.

What the Study Actually Found

The researchers didn't just count votes. They conducted a systematic content analysis of the 42,000-plus comments, categorizing them by position, justification type, and demographic indicators where available. The depth of their approach sets this study apart from simple opinion polls.

Of the comments analyzed, 92.4% expressed support for removing cannabis from Schedule I. But here's the detail that makes the finding even more remarkable: 63.5% of all commenters favored reforms that went further than the proposed rescheduling to Schedule III. Many called for complete descheduling, legalization, or removal from the Controlled Substances Act entirely.

Only a small minority — roughly 7.6% — opposed any change to cannabis's scheduling status.

The researchers identified 14 distinct categories of justification that commenters used to support their positions. Understanding what motivated these comments reveals a public conversation about cannabis that is far more nuanced than politicians often give it credit for.

Why Americans Want Change

The most frequently cited reason for supporting rescheduling was therapeutic benefits, mentioned by 56.7% of supportive comments. These weren't abstract policy arguments — they were personal stories. Cancer patients described how cannabis controlled their nausea when prescription anti-emetics failed. Veterans wrote about using cannabis for PTSD symptoms that the VA's pharmaceutical options couldn't touch. Parents of children with epilepsy recounted how CBD-rich products reduced their kids' seizures after dozens of conventional medications had been tried and abandoned.

The second most common justification, cited by 27.8% of supportive comments, focused on economic impacts. Commenters highlighted the cannabis industry's contribution to state revenues, job creation, and economic development. Several pointed to California's nearly $7 billion in cumulative cannabis tax revenue since Proposition 64 passed as evidence that regulated cannabis markets generate substantial public benefit.

Criminal justice reform appeared prominently, with 42.4% of comments mentioning the need for federal reform to advance racial justice or social equity. Commenters cited well-documented disparities in cannabis arrest rates — Black Americans are approximately 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana offenses than white Americans despite roughly equal usage rates — as evidence that current scheduling causes direct harm to communities of color.

Research access was another significant theme. Scientists, physicians, and academic institutions argued that Schedule I classification creates bureaucratic barriers that have stifled legitimate medical research for decades. With cannabis now in Schedule III for medical purposes, these barriers should begin to ease — but many commenters argued that even Schedule III isn't sufficient to fully unlock research potential.

Comparisons with alcohol and opioids appeared frequently as well. Commenters noted the irony that cannabis — which has no documented lethal overdose threshold — occupies a more restrictive scheduling category than fentanyl (Schedule II) while alcohol, which kills approximately 95,000 Americans annually, faces no federal scheduling at all.

The Opposition's Arguments

The 7.6% of comments opposing rescheduling were smaller in volume but not without substance. The researchers found that opposition comments concentrated around several core concerns.

Public health risks were cited by virtually all opposing comments (100%), with particular emphasis on the potential for cannabis to serve as a gateway to harder substances — a theory that most contemporary research has complicated or contradicted, but which retains cultural resonance.

Addiction concerns appeared in 71.4% of opposition comments. While cannabis use disorder is a clinically recognized condition, critics of the opposition's framing note that its prevalence and severity are significantly lower than those associated with alcohol, opioids, or tobacco.

Perhaps the most emotionally resonant opposition argument centered on children and adolescents, mentioned in 57.1% of opposing comments. Parents worried that rescheduling would normalize cannabis use among young people, making it harder for families to discourage teenage consumption. This concern aligns with legitimate public health priorities — adolescent brain development can be affected by regular cannabis use — even as proponents argue that regulation actually improves age-gating compared to prohibition.

The organized opposition also has an institutional voice. Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the most prominent anti-legalization advocacy group, announced immediately after the DOJ's rescheduling order that it would be "taking legal action immediately." Their legal challenge will likely center on procedural and statutory arguments rather than the merits of rescheduling itself.

Why This Study Matters Now

The timing of this research couldn't be more significant. The Johns Hopkins study was published on April 29, 2026 — the same day the DEA opened its Medical Marijuana Dispensary Registration Portal for businesses seeking federal protections under the new Schedule III framework.

More importantly, the study provides a rigorous empirical foundation for the broader rescheduling hearing scheduled to begin June 29. When DEA Administrative Law Judge Teresa Wallbaum convenes that hearing — which must conclude by July 15 — the public comment data will serve as one data point among many. But its message is clear: the American public is not just open to cannabis reform. They're demanding it, and many want more than what's currently being offered.

The study also carries implications for state-level policy. Indiana Governor Mike Braun, a Republican, recently directed state agencies to meet with medical cannabis advocates following the federal rescheduling announcement. North Carolina's advisory council has recommended the legislature take a "serious look" at medical cannabis. These state-level movements are emboldened by data showing overwhelming public support for reform.

Beyond the Numbers

What makes the Johns Hopkins study particularly valuable is its qualitative dimension. Raw polling data can tell you that 70% or 80% or 90% of Americans support some form of cannabis reform — and multiple polls have shown exactly that. But analyzing the actual words people used to express their positions reveals something polling misses: the depth of conviction.

Many of the 42,000-plus comments were not form letters or one-line submissions. They were detailed personal narratives, policy analyses, and evidence-based arguments. The researchers noted that supporters most often grounded their positions in lived experience — their own health conditions, their family members' struggles, their observations of cannabis policy in their communities.

This depth of engagement suggests that cannabis reform isn't just a policy preference for most Americans. It's personal. And personal convictions, as any political strategist will tell you, are much harder to reverse than casual opinions.

What Comes Next

The federal government is now operating on a two-track timeline. Track one — the reclassification of state-licensed medical cannabis to Schedule III — is already in effect as of April 22, 2026. Track two — the broader rescheduling of all cannabis to Schedule III — will be decided through the expedited hearing process this summer.

If the June hearing results in full Schedule III reclassification, the practical impacts will be substantial: elimination of the 280E tax penalty for all cannabis businesses (not just medical operators), reduced barriers to research, and a symbolic federal acknowledgment that cannabis has accepted medical use.

But as the Johns Hopkins study makes clear, 63.5% of Americans who commented want to go further. For them, Schedule III is a step — not the destination. The ultimate goal remains either full descheduling or comprehensive legalization that treats cannabis more like alcohol than like codeine.

The 92.4% figure will be cited in congressional hearings, judicial proceedings, and advocacy campaigns for years to come. It represents the clearest quantitative evidence yet that American cannabis policy has fallen decades behind American cannabis opinion.

The public has spoken. Now the question is whether policymakers will listen — and how fast they're willing to move.