Only Six Percent Of Marijuana Consumers Approve Of Trump’s Reform Actions, But Most Would Shift Opinion If He Reschedules, Poll Finds
Trump marijuana rescheduling just crashed into the blunt truth of a new poll: only six percent of cannabis consumers approve of the administration’s cannabis policy so far. That’s not a rounding error—that’s a stiff, room-temperature shot no one asked for. And yet, beneath the barroom gloom, there’s a spark: a clear majority say they’d warm up if the White House actually moved on cannabis rescheduling or legalization. In a political season where every decimal point feels like a drum solo, this is the kind of cannabis policy reform data that can change the tempo—especially in a sprawling, legal cannabis market that’s begging for coherence, consistency, and relief.
The survey, pulled from 448 frequent cannabis consumers in state-legal markets (margin of error ±4.63%), reads like a harsh Yelp review of a kitchen that forgot the salt. Approval slid from roughly 11 percent last quarter to about six this quarter. “Disapprove” and “strongly disapprove” tower over the positives, while a large, weary middle shrugs in neutral. But when the question shifts to rescheduling—especially a move to Schedule III—the crowd suddenly leans forward, wallets in hand. In other words: do something real, and the vibe changes. Highlights from the numbers:
- Overall approval of the administration’s cannabis actions: 6.1% (1.6% strongly approve, 4.5% approve)
- Neutral/no opinion: 38.4%
- Disapprove: 26.1%
- Strongly disapprove: 29.5%
- Would support the administration more if it rescheduled or legalized: 51% (38.4% much more; 12.5% a bit more)
- Would support less if it did: 1.5%
- No change in support: 47.5%
So where does that leave the big talk? Rumors of an imminent shift to Schedule III keep floating like balloons over a crowded street, and the president himself has said he’s “very strongly” considering it. That’s not just optics—Schedule III would finally admit cannabis has medical value and unlock streams of research long dammed by federal scheduling. If you want a refresher on that pledge, see Trump Says He’s ‘Very Strongly’ Considering Rescheduling Marijuana As Rumors Swell About Imminent Reform. Still, politics is never just about policy. Critics frame the move as a bid to buff bruised approval numbers—a storyline that’s been shouted from rooftops and committee rooms alike. For a sharp take on the accusation that rescheduling is a ratings tourniquet rather than reform, see Trump Is Trying To Boost ‘Pathetic’ Approval Ratings With Marijuana Rescheduling Move, Senator Says As Democrats Push Full Legalization. Here’s the irony: the polling suggests this isn’t a zero-sum gambit. It’s a rare policy change that might actually earn crosswinds of support from people who use the plant and vote.
But the path is littered with contradictions. On one hand, rescheduling promises a saner research landscape and relief from some of the punitive tax shackles strangling the legal market. On the other, parts of the federal apparatus still argue cannabis consumers pose unique risks—like the filing that painted marijuana users as “a greater danger” than alcohol drinkers in a gun-rights case before the Supreme Court. If you missed that clash of narratives, start here: Marijuana Users ‘Pose A Greater Danger’ Than Alcohol Drinkers, Trump DOJ Tells SCOTUS In Gun Rights Case Filing. Add in industry pushback from drug-testing groups warning of workplace safety fallout, and you’ve got a stew that smells like the old drug war reheated with new talking points. Meanwhile, whispers of an executive order keep shivering through the alleyways, even as official voices insist nothing is final. Voters can smell the difference between a press hit and a policy change. The poll shows they’re waiting for the latter.
Here’s what a real pivot looks like: Schedule III would crack open clinical research, help unwind the 280E tax chokehold, and—though it wouldn’t create interstate commerce or full federal legalization—would move cannabis out of the “no medical value” penalty box. That’s not theoretical. Research momentum is already building, and early signals are promising. If you want a taste of what better access to research can deliver, take in this finding: Marijuana Components ‘Effectively Inhibited Ovarian Cancer Cell Growth,’ Study Shows. That’s the kind of study Schedule III could multiply and refine—turning anecdote into evidence, and evidence into guidelines, rather than leaving patients and clinicians to navigate a fog of stigma and patchwork rules. Consumers aren’t blind to this; they live the consequences of ambiguity every time they shop, medicate, or apply for a job that still treats Saturday night like a federal case by Monday morning.
So call it what it is: a moment where the politics of cannabis finally has to meet the reality of the cannabis market. The poll’s message is simple and unsentimental—do the work, and the needle moves. Keep teasing, and the crowd goes back to its drink. If rescheduling happens, it won’t solve everything, but it will mean something: cleaner trials, saner policy, fewer contradictions between Main Street and federal law. And if you’re exploring the plant’s legal side while the policy gods sort themselves out, step into our corner of the map and browse the goods here: https://thcaorder.com/shop/.
