Every Application Counts: Why Participation in the DEA Hearing Process Matters – Schedule III Testimony Application Guidance
Hearing Information At-A-Glance
Electronic Submission Deadline: Email by 11:59 p.m. ET on May 24, 2026 — send as a PDF attachment to nprm@dea.gov
We are strongly encouraging stakeholders to participate in this process, even if you are uncertain whether you will ultimately be selected to testify or whether your perspective fits neatly within the anticipated scope of the hearing. This hearing represents a rare opportunity for patients, operators, researchers, regulators, medical professionals, advocates, and community members to demonstrate the complexity of existing state-regulated cannabis systems. The volume and diversity of participation matters. Even where an applicant is not selected for live testimony, broad engagement helps communicate to federal officials that these systems are established and deserving of serious consideration within the federal regulatory framework.
Applicants do not need to be attorneys or nationally recognized experts to provide meaningful value through this process. Firsthand experience, operational knowledge, patient perspectives, compliance realities, scientific expertise, and implementation concerns all have the potential to contribute to the broader federal conversation surrounding cannabis regulation. Please do not self-select out of the process simply because you are uncertain whether your application is “perfect” or whether your testimony will ultimately be chosen.
For applicants seeking more detailed guidance on how to strengthen or strategically position a submission, there are themes and considerations that may help you within the context of this proceeding:
Application Themes Relevant to the Hearing - Which One Applies to You?
Accepted Medical Use
Applications should address how state medical cannabis programs demonstrate real-world accepted medical use through regulated patient access, physician authorization, product standards, testing requirements, and controlled distribution systems. Applicants with direct experience in patient care, medical access programs, compliance, or regulated operations may be particularly well positioned to contribute meaningful testimony in this area.
Implementation in Integrated States
Washington’s merged medical and adult-use system presents unique implementation challenges under the proposed framework. The order assumes that a “state medical marijuana license” can be readily identified, but Washington’s regulatory structure is not cleanly separated in practice. Testimony from Washington stakeholders may help clarify how integrated licensing, inventory, traceability, and patient access systems actually function within mature regulated markets.
Federal-State Regulatory Reliance
The proposed order highlights the extent to which the federal government appears to rely upon existing state medical cannabis systems as functional regulatory infrastructure. This makes testimony from experienced operators, regulators, compliance professionals, medical participants, and other stakeholders within established state systems particularly valuable, especially where they can speak to how these systems operate in practice, how compliance and oversight are already being managed at the state level, and where conflicts or implementation challenges may emerge under the proposed federal structure.
Tax and Market Impacts
Potential relief from Internal Revenue Code §280E could significantly reshape portions of the regulated cannabis market. Applicants may wish to address how differing federal treatment between medical and adult-use activity could affect small operators, market concentration, competition, investment, pricing, or long-term market stability.
Limits of the Proposed Schedule III Framework
Strong applications should demonstrate a clear understanding that the proposed framework does not fully legalize cannabis federally. Adult-use cannabis remains in Schedule I under the proposal, and broader scheduling questions remain unresolved. Applications that reflect a precise understanding of the scope and limitations of the order are likely to be more effective and credible.
The strongest applications are going to do three things at once:
establish clear standing and credibility
identify specific issues the applicant can materially speak to
show that the testimony will help build the administrative record, not just express an opinion
Establish clear standing and credibility
The most effective testimony may not come from applicants attempting to address cannabis policy in the abstract, but from individuals able to explain how the proposed rule would operate, or fail to operate, in real-world settings.
Applicants should consider:
What firsthand experience do you possess?
What stakeholders or populations do you represent, if any?
What information can you provide that may not otherwise appear in the record?
What practical consequences of the proposed framework are you uniquely positioned to explain?
Applications should clearly establish your role, expertise, and relationship to the issues you intend to address. Relevant experience may include professional or academic background, regulatory or compliance experience, medical or scientific expertise, patient or caregiver experience, operational experience within licensed cannabis markets, or direct involvement with state regulatory systems.
The objective is not simply to express support for or opposition to the proposed rule, but to demonstrate how your experience or expertise could materially assist the hearing process.
Identify specific issues the applicant can materially speak to
Applicants should avoid broad or generalized advocacy statements in favor of clearly defined issues they are qualified to discuss in detail. For Washington State applicants in particular, some of the most valuable testimony may address:
integrated market complications following SB 5052,
the operational difficulty of cleanly separating medical and adult-use activity,
traceability and inventory management realities,
barriers for social equity applicants
continuity of patient access,
impacts on small and independent operators,
how existing state compliance systems function in practice,
practical barriers to federal registration, and
risks associated with inconsistent implementation across states with substantially different regulatory structures.
Applications that focus on concrete implementation, compliance, scientific, economic, medical, or operational concerns are likely to be more persuasive than generalized political arguments alone.
Show that the testimony will help build the administrative record, not just express an opinion
This final point is particularly important. The hearing is not simply a general public-comment forum or political advocacy event. It is a formal administrative proceeding conducted under the Controlled Substances Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. DEA has made clear that it is seeking “factual evidence and expert opinion.”
The purpose of the hearing is not primarily to determine whether agency officials personally agree with a participant’s broader position on cannabis policy. Rather, the proceeding is intended to help develop the evidentiary and legal foundation for any final rule.
The “administrative record” refers to the official body of evidence considered by the agency in its decision-making process, including testimony, expert analysis, scientific studies, public comments, factual findings, and other relevant materials.
If the final rule is challenged in court, which is highly likely in this instance, reviewing courts will evaluate that administrative record to determine whether the agency’s action was lawful, adequately supported, and consistent with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act and the Controlled Substances Act.
Sharing reference materials, including lived experiences, helps build the record.
We are here to help
If you would like additional assistance preparing an application or refining your proposed testimony, please do not hesitate to reach out. We would be glad to help you think through how to present your experience, expertise, and perspective within the context of this hearing process. Please note that The Cannabis Alliance is offering educational resources, and advocacy support throughout this process, but is not acting as legal counsel or providing legal advice or representation.