Step into a licensed cannabis dispensary and the contrast is immediate: rows of high-potency vape cartridges, artisan gummies, and premium flower strains — a curated consumer marketplace that would look at home beside any specialty retail experience.
My research team and I visit dispensaries regularly across the Greater Lansing area, recruiting cannabis users for our studies. But every time I scan those shelves, I feel a sharp professional frustration. As a Michigan State University researcher with nearly two decades studying cannabis and human health, I am legally barred from studying the very products my neighbors are purchasing.
Michigan is one of the country's most active cannabis markets, with per capita sales ranking among the nation's highest. Yet under federal law, cannabis remains a Schedule I controlled substance — classified alongside heroin and LSD as having "a high potential for abuse" and "no currently accepted medical use," even as millions of Americans consume it daily.
A proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III represents meaningful, if partial, progress. The reclassification effort was initiated under the Biden administration and backed by an executive order from President Donald Trump in late 2025, but it remains mired in regulatory limbo. For researchers like me, it would open certain doors — while leaving the most critical barriers firmly in place.
1 in 6 pregnant Michiganders use cannabis
Michigan's legal cannabis market has recently experienced a wave of dispensary closures driven by oversaturation and declining prices, but access remains widespread — from Detroit to the Upper Peninsula. Data collected by my team confirm that consumption is not only high overall, but disproportionately elevated among specific groups, including older adults and pregnant women.
As cannabis use among women of reproductive age continues to rise, understanding how prenatal exposure affects maternal and infant health becomes increasingly urgent. Families across Michigan are making real-time decisions in a landscape where cannabis is both legal and socially normalized — and they deserve science that can actually inform those choices.
The problem is that federal law restricts researchers to cannabis sourced exclusively from the National Institute on Drug Abuse — low-potency, standardized material that bears little resemblance to what consumers are actually buying. The commercial market, meanwhile, is dominated by high-potency concentrates, edibles, and vape products. That disconnect severely limits the real-world relevance of our findings.
Heart disease, diabetes, cancer, nausea
A central focus of my work is cannabis use among people living with chronic illness. Since Michigan voters legalized recreational cannabis in 2018, use has become notably prevalent among middle-aged and older adults — precisely the demographic most affected by serious chronic conditions.
Michigan carries a heavy burden of chronic disease — including heart disease, diabetes, and cancer — and these risks compound with age. In southeast Michigan, the situation is especially acute. A Forbes analysis ranked Detroit as the least healthy city in the United States, with the highest rates of diabetes, hypertension, and obesity — conditions that fall disproportionately on Black residents, who account for nearly 80% of the city's population.
A significant portion of my research examines how cannabis affects cardiovascular health — a particularly pressing question in a state where heart disease rates remain persistently elevated. Rescheduling to Schedule III would enable larger, more rigorous longitudinal studies, such as my team's Cannabis Legalization in Michigan (CALM) cohort. The questions we want to answer are straightforward: if someone with high blood pressure uses a high-THC vape product, how does that affect their heart compared to using a different form of cannabis? Today, we cannot design a study to answer that, because we cannot use the actual products people buy at their local dispensary.
My team is also investigating cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome, a debilitating condition marked by recurring cycles of severe nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain associated with chronic, heavy cannabis use. As consumption grows across Michigan, identifying who is most at risk and how best to treat this syndrome has become a pressing clinical priority.
Hurdles will remain
Even if rescheduling moves forward, it will not resolve the underlying structural problems facing cannabis research.
Schedule III was designed for regulated pharmaceutical products — steroids, testosterone — not for a substance sold openly at a storefront down the street. Moving cannabis to Schedule III does nothing to bridge the fundamental gap between federal drug policy and the reality of everyday cannabis use across Michigan and the rest of the country.
The persistent conflict between federal law and a patchwork of state cannabis policies will continue to constrain federally funded, multisite research to states where cannabis is fully legal — shrinking the geographic and demographic scope of studies that need to be broad. Rescheduling also does not eliminate the unique administrative requirements that apply only to cannabis research, requirements that add years to timelines and inflate costs. Lengthy federal pre-approval reviews before a study can even begin remain a routine obstacle.
The most impactful change would be allowing researchers to study the products consumers actually purchase — something that would require eliminating redundant federal review requirements through an act of Congress. The Medical Marijuana and Cannabidiol Research Expansion Act of 2022 was a step in that direction, aiming to streamline researcher applications and broaden the supply of research-grade cannabis. But it left the Schedule I classification intact and did not remove the duplicative federal reviews that continue to stall research.
In Michigan — where cannabis is readily available and chronic disease is endemic — these policy barriers leave families without the science they need to make genuinely informed decisions.
Omayma Alshaarawy receives funding from the US National Institute of Health and the Michigan Health Endowment Fund.
