Senators Advance Trump Pick For White House Drug Czar Who’s Voiced Support For Medical Marijuana But Declined To Endorse Rescheduling
Marijuana rescheduling meets a new protagonist: a controversial pick for America’s drug czar
Marijuana rescheduling just found itself a new protagonist in Washington’s smoky backroom drama: Sara Carter Bailey, a former cartel reporter with a nose for trouble and a taste for complicated truths, advanced by the Senate Judiciary Committee in a 12–10 vote to lead the Office of National Drug Control Policy. It’s the kind of beltway casting that makes you order another drink and lean in. Bailey’s record on cannabis isn’t puritanical—she’s praised medical marijuana, said she doesn’t have a “problem” with legalization, and called cannabis policy a bipartisan issue. She’s also signaled the administration is keeping “all options” on the table as it weighs a long-anticipated scheduling decision. That phrase—“all options”—is bureaucratese for a door left ajar, a hallway of flickering lights, and a lot of people waiting to see what comes out of the dark.
Between law, politics, and the messy middle
Of course, nothing in this town is simple. Bailey would inherit a job wrapped in statutory barbed wire: the ONDCP director is legally barred from endorsing legalization of Schedule I substances. That gag rule clashes with a country that’s sprinting past its old taboos, and it makes every public comment a high-wire act over a lawyer-lined canyon. Democrats in Congress have floated peeling that restriction back, but the effort hasn’t moved. Meanwhile, the nomination hearing turned adversarial. Sen. Dick Durbin called Bailey a loyalist and “wholly unqualified,” noting she’s neither physician nor addiction specialist nor prosecutor. On the other side of the ledger, Sen. Cory Booker pressed her on moving cannabis to Schedule III—a modest but meaningful pivot that would be, as he put it, a step in the right direction. Bailey stayed within the chalk lines: she’ll follow the law, lean on research and data, and keep exploring “all options.” That’s the Oval Office’s version of “watch this space.”
The stakes: research, revenue, and reality
Here’s what the jargon means on the ground. A shift to Schedule III wouldn’t create a free-for-all, but it would punch open doors that have been welded shut for decades. Researchers could breathe; institutions could take cannabis seriously without threading a dozen needles; and the industry could finally shed the IRS’s 280E tax stranglehold that has punished legal operators while illicit markets thrive. Banking reform sits on an adjacent track, but it’s part of the same train. The broader current is unmistakable: Americans are already living like legalization is the weather. Polls consistently show a public that sees cannabis as less harmful than the vices we’ve long tolerated. If you need a reminder, check the temperature: Most Americans Say Marijuana Is A ‘Healthier Option’ Than Alcohol, And A Majority Expect Nationwide Legalization Within Five Years, Poll Finds. And because history loves a chorus, there’s this too: Most Americans Say Marijuana Is A ‘Healthier Option’ Than Alcohol, And A Majority Expect Nationwide Legalization Within Five Years, Poll Finds. That’s not fringe—it’s the mainstream staring federal policy in the face and asking why the rules still smell like the 1980s.
Illicit grows, toxic shortcuts, and the case for a regulated market
Bailey’s résumé reads like a dispatch from the frontier—helicopter flyovers of “miles and miles” of illicit grows, a spotlight on Chinese-linked operations cutting corners with hazardous pesticides, and a drumbeat of warnings about what happens when we outsource supply to people who treat environmental law like a quaint suggestion. It’s a gritty point, but an essential one: if you want safety, you regulate; if you want chaos, you leave it to the shadows. States keep learning this the hard way. Consider the quick-trigger crackdowns on intoxicating hemp—in some places, a whiplash dance between loopholes and bans that’s left consumers confused and regulators chasing ghosts. For a snapshot of how fast the ground can shift, look to Ohio’s sudden move: Ohio Governor Issues Order Banning Intoxicating Hemp Product Sales For 90 Days. And because policy is nothing if not iterative, there’s the parallel notice here: Ohio Governor Issues Order Banning Intoxicating Hemp Product Sales For 90 Days. Whether you’re thrilled or furious, the patchwork tells a single story: the market is running laps around the rulebook, and federal clarity—on marijuana rescheduling and beyond—would cut through the fog.
Where does that leave us? Waiting at the bar for the Senate floor vote, listening to the ice clink while the jukebox argues with itself. The former president has flirted with rescheduling, banking access, even nods toward state-level legalization pushes—then gone coy about timelines. Bailey, for her part, draws a line between the regulated and the rogue, talks like a realist about data and harm reduction, and understands the difference between medicine and mayhem. If she gets the job, the ONDCP won’t suddenly greenlight legalization—the statute won’t allow it—but the office could bring coherence to a policy area that badly needs it: overdoses and harm reduction on one plate, cannabis science and sensible regulation on the other. No saints, no miracles—just better decisions, fewer toxins, clearer rules. And if you’re exploring compliant, federally legal THCA options while the policy dust settles, step into the light at our shop.
