Group With Ties To Trump-Linked PAC Applauds Marijuana Rescheduling Move In New Ad, Saying It’ll Help Veterans And ‘Destroy’ Illicit Market
Marijuana rescheduling order: the phrase tastes like metal and promise, a late-night headline slid across the bar that says the rules of the American drug war are finally changing—even if the kitchen’s still open and the check hasn’t arrived. A conservative, agriculture-branded nonprofit with ties to a Trump-linked PAC just rolled out an ad blasting the trumpets for the president’s executive move to push cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III. In their telling, this single stroke is a wrecking ball for the illicit market and a warm blanket for seniors and veterans—a victory lap before the race is even official. The swagger is contagious. The reality is messier.
What the order actually does—and doesn’t
The executive order isn’t a magic wand; it’s a nudge to the Justice Department and the attorney general to expedite a rulemaking process that moves cannabis from Schedule I—where Washington pretended it was more dangerous than fentanyl—to Schedule III. That journey runs on bureaucratic rails: proposals, public comments, reviews, and, potentially, litigation. There’s no announced timeline. Congressional analysts have even noted the government could stall, restart, or narrow the action. And even if the landing gear comes down clean, rescheduling is not legalization. There’s no overnight erasure of federal criminal statutes, no green light for interstate commerce, no full banking fix. The Controlled Substances Act would still loom, just with a different label on the jar. Yet the shift is not nothing: Schedule III would acknowledge medical value and loosen some research restrictions, opening doors long welded shut, while signaling—however timidly—that federal marijuana policy is drifting toward daylight.
Follow the money, then the medicine
In the cannabis industry, the loudest cheer for Schedule III is about tax parity. Moving marijuana out of Schedule I could effectively sidestep Section 280E’s punitive tax straitjacket, letting state-legal operators deduct ordinary business expenses like normal companies. That’s oxygen. It won’t “destroy” the illicit market on its own—illicit thrives on price, access, and convenience—but it may shrink the gap. Look at mature markets. Regulated shops in Colorado helped prove that consumer patience is finite and good storefronts beat parking-lot deals, and state leaders there have been vocal about the financial results; see Colorado Governor Touts State’s $1 Billion In Legal Marijuana Sales This Year. Other states stare at the ledger with envy. Pennsylvania’s fiscal hawks have already floated legalization as a revenue play, if politics can pry open the door; worth reading: Marijuana Legalization Could Boost Pennsylvania’s Revenue, House Speaker Says, If Only Senate Could Find ‘The Will To Do It’. For seniors and veterans, the promise is simpler and more human: easier research pathways, a clearer medical acknowledgment, and the possibility—if regulators don’t get in the way—of safer, standardized products that beat the roulette wheel of prohibition.
The politics under the hood
Nothing in American drug policy moves without politics scraping the undercarriage. The nonprofit cheering this rescheduling push is linked to a PAC orbiting the MAGA mothership, itself reportedly flush with cannabis-industry support. That’s not hypocrisy; that’s America. Culture warriors and corporate accountants can share a table when the menu reads “tax relief and polling advantage.” On the other side, Republican attorneys general and a chorus of lawmakers have called the move reckless, swearing cannabis is right where it belongs in Schedule I. The president waved that off, citing broad public support and real-world relief for people he knows—friends who’ve suffered, friends who needed help. Meanwhile, state-level trench warfare grinds on: initiatives rise and collide with gatekeepers, as seen when a ballot committee challenged thrown-out petition signatures in the Sunshine State—context here: Florida Marijuana Campaign Sues State Over Invalidation Of 71,000 Signatures With Turn-In Deadline Weeks Away. Federal headlines are theater; the states remain the stagehands.
What changes on Day 1 of Schedule III—and what doesn’t
If the rule lands, accountants move first. Deductions come back. Margins breathe. Research protocols simplify—not easy, but less impossible. Insurance and institutional partners may inch closer. But the streets won’t transform overnight. Prices will still matter. Local bans will still fence out legal access. Banking will remain a half-smile unless Congress weighs in. And enforcement? That’s a rickety bridge. States are still testing and arresting under a patchwork of DUI laws that don’t map neatly onto impairment, a recipe for injustice that deserves attention; for a sobering look, see Marijuana Users Are Being Unjustly Jailed For Allegedly Driving Under The Influence, Government-Funded Study Shows. Will rescheduling dent the illicit market? Maybe at the margins, first in places where regulated shops are abundant and efficient, and only if regulators let legal businesses compete. The rest will take time, trust, and policy that treats consumers like adults—because that’s who they are.
So pour another and watch the docket. There will be drafts, hearings, comments, and probably a lawsuit or three. The headline is simple: marijuana rescheduling is a meaningful, partial fix with real industry impact and real limits. It nudges the United States toward a more honest relationship with a plant it never fully understood. It’s not the finish line—it’s the on-ramp. If you’ve read this far and you care about where the market is headed next, keep your eyes on the rulemaking, your skepticism intact, and your options open—and when you’re ready to explore compliant, high-quality THCA products, step into our shop: https://thcaorder.com/shop/.
