For more than 50 years, marijuana has been classified as a Schedule I drug, alongside drugs considered to have no accepted medical use, thanks to then-President Richard Nixon’s so-called War on Drugs.
That classification has made it extremely difficult for scientists to study cannabis’ risks and benefits. Now, President Donald Trump has moved to reclassify it as a Schedule III drug, which researchers say could open new doors to more comprehensive research.
Dr. Staci Gruber is the Director of the Marijuana Investigations for Neuroscientific Discovery at McLean Hospital, and she has been researching cannabis for years despite those federal restrictions. She joined GBH’s All Things Considered host Arun Rath to share more about what the major shift in federal drug policy could mean. What follows is a lightly edited transcript of their conversation.
Arun Rath: At the most basic level, what does moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III actually change for researchers like you?
Dr. Staci Gruber: I think the shift from Schedule I to Schedule III does a number of things. Some have a direct impact, and some more indirect.
First and foremost, I think it’s important to acknowledge that this basically signals to the nation that cannabis has medical value. Clearly, for at least some individuals in some conditions, there is accepted medical value. By definition, Schedule I substances have no accepted medical value, so that’s important because it also goes to the ways in which people consider or perceive cannabis or marijuana.
For researchers, one of the more direct changes is [regarding] the significant burden of meeting regulatory requirements and mandates [for Schedule I drugs]. For example, I have to carry a state and federal schedule and license to do clinical trials with cannabis-derived products that I formulate. I have to have a DEA-approved safe. It has to be bolted to the floor and weigh 750 pounds or more; ours is 1,750 pounds. There are very significant storage, surveillance and access requirements. All of these things change when you consider the shift from Schedule I to Schedule III. Researchers who might consider or be very interested in exploring the potential therapeutic or medical benefit of cannabis are often put off by the seeming hurdles that they would have to overcome. That’s a big change.
Again, I remind people that if you want to change hearts and minds, you have to do it in such a way that makes sense, and I think when people consider what Schedule I substances really are, this is something that likely makes sense.
Rath: Wow, so, with all the money being spent on marijuana, the research you’re talking about has really been just a very narrow boutique area of research.
Gruber: Long ago and far away, cannabis was legal in this country, and it was actually prescribed. It was part of our U.S. Pharmacopeia until it fell out of favor, and it was placed in the most restrictive class of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.
Regardless, there has been research regarding the effects of, primarily, recreational cannabis. That’s in and of itself a little bit of an issue because, despite the fact that California re-legalized cannabis for medical purposes in 1996, we have almost nothing in terms of the long-term effects of medical cannabis use and looking at individuals using products in their own ways. Not [studies] that are necessarily created by researchers like me, but long-term observational data, which helps people like me create clinical trials because we understand where the areas of concern or clinical need might be.
We’ve spent a long time looking at the impact of recreational cannabis. But not nearly as long and not nearly as much effort has been expended focusing on the potential therapeutic benefit — again, the benefits and the risks — associated with medical cannabis use.
Rath: As this proceeds, now that these restrictions on research are no longer there, do you expect to see more funding? How fast do you expect to see proper marijuana research being ramped up to where it should be?
Gruber: That’s a great question, and I always think that funding allocations are generally related to areas of priority, in terms of interest. I think that it’s incredibly important to keep that part in mind. It may very well be that — I think we’ve all acknowledged that, at this point — policy has outpaced science. Most of us, in terms of cannabis research and clinical researchers, are basically playing catch-up.
Cannabis was placed in Schedule I for political reasons, and now, perhaps science can help lead the way using empirically sound data. The question will be, “What kind of a priority will cannabis research, in terms of the medical benefits and potential risks, be? Where will that fall in terms of everyone’s priority going forward? How will the NIH, for example, allocate funding to these kinds of efforts?” That part remains unknown.
Rath: We’ve talked about some fascinating discoveries and findings over the years, even with these restrictions on research. But with this now potentially being lifted, what are the biggest unanswered questions for you that you would like to see this research take on?
Gruber: I think, in general, we have so many unanswered questions. Older adults remain the largest and fastest-growing group of cannabis consumers across the nation. There are so many things that we have to explore and better understand in order to provide real-world evidence for their safe use of these products.
It’s no surprise to people that the three most common indications for which people generally explore the use of medical cannabis are chronic pain, mood disruption — or anxiety or PTSD — and sleep disruption: the same kinds of things that generally affect our aging population. I have tons of questions related to those kinds of things.
I’d like to see a whole lot more energy expended in areas focused on things like women’s health. We have a program dedicated to that specifically, for example, because, disproportionately, women are affected by chronic pain conditions. There are lots of reasons to be excited and invested in exploring the potential therapeutic benefit of some of these cannabinoids, primarily non-intoxicating cannabinoids for chronic pain, neurodegenerative conditions and potentially even different types of cancer.
We had started those clinical trials not too long ago, so there’s every reason to be excited and lots of questions to be answered.
