Trump’s reclassification of cannabis to Schedule III should come with national health warnings. Cannabis use disorder is rising, research shows limited medical benefits for many conditions, and young adults face developmental risks. State labeling rules vary greatly; a National Institutes of Health study lists 12 label elements (including front-of-package warnings and child-safety messages) that federal policymakers should standardize. Congress could follow the 1969 tobacco law model to impose uniform warnings and advertising limits.
Trump’s Cannabis Reclassification Should Require Strong, Uniform Health Warnings
President Trump’s decision to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III — grouping it with drugs considered to have a "moderate to low potential for physical dependence," such as codeine-containing Tylenol, rather than with Schedule I substances like heroin and LSD — is striking given mounting evidence of cannabis-related harms. Cannabis use disorder, effectively an addiction, is increasing; recent studies show limited benefits from medical marijuana for many conditions; and regular use poses special risks to the still-developing brains of young adults.
The reclassification may permit more federally sponsored research into harms that some states overlooked during a rapid push to legalize: 23 states and the District of Columbia legalized recreational cannabis before long-term consequences were fully documented. But if the administration downgrades cannabis at the federal level, it should simultaneously require clear, detailed, and uniform national health warnings for all cannabis products — modeled on the standardized warnings used for tobacco.
Why National Warnings Matter
At present, warning-label rules are set by individual jurisdictions and vary widely in scope and clarity. For example, Oregon requires warnings about the dangers of driving while impaired by cannabis; Arizona does not. Montana requires labels to note potential mental-health harms and psychosis risk; Rhode Island does not. Many states also fail to require explicit on-package instructions that people who are pregnant or breastfeeding should avoid cannabis.
Even the basic International Intoxicating Cannabis Product Symbol — a cannabis leaf inside a yellow caution sign, promoted by Doctors for Drug Policy Reform — has been adopted by only eight states (Montana, Virginia, New Jersey, Minnesota, Vermont, Delaware, Georgia and South Dakota). That inconsistent patchwork leaves consumers, parents and healthcare providers uncertain about the true risks.
Recommended Elements For Federal Labeling
A National Institutes of Health study identified 12 elements federal policymakers should consider standardizing. Adopting them would create consistent, easy-to-understand messaging across states and product types:
- Keep Away From Children
- Do Not Use While Pregnant Or Breastfeeding
- Do Not Drive Or Operate Machinery While Impaired
- Potentially Delayed Effects (especially for edibles)
- Physical Health Risks Of Smoking Cannabis
- General Physical Health Risks
- Mental Health Risks
- Risk Of Psychosis From High-Potency Products
- Minimum Font Size For Legibility
- High Contrast Between Warning And Background
- Rotating Warnings To Cover Multiple Risks
- Warning Must Appear On The Front Of The Package
Funding, Advertising, And Public-Health Priorities
States historically invested in anti-tobacco campaigns in part because settlement funds provided a steady revenue stream to support public-health education. Most states lack analogous, dedicated funding for cannabis public-education campaigns addressing impaired driving, youth prevention, or child safety related to edibles and concentrates. Meanwhile, as tobacco use declines, cannabis use is rising — yet many states celebrate sales milestones without matching those fiscal gains with robust safety messaging.
If federal reclassification proceeds, Congress could follow the model of the Public Health Cigarette Smoking Act of 1969: require uniform warning labels, grant an agency authority over advertising and health-related claims, and preempt inconsistent state rules. That approach would give the country clearer, enforceable standards and reduce geographic disparities in consumer protection.
Broader Cultural Context
The United States has legalized or normalized many activities once viewed as dangerous vices — from gambling to easy access to pornography. Normalization makes strict rollbacks difficult. But legalization does not remove the government’s responsibility to regulate risk and to support public-health messaging. Advertising restrictions, mandatory warnings, and public-education campaigns can coexist with legal markets to reduce harm.
As former President Bill Clinton said about abortion, cannabis policies should aim to make use "safe, legal and rare." Stronger, clearer warning labels on all cannabis products — from loose flower to concentrated gummies that could be swallowed by children — would be a sensible first step toward that goal.
Howard Husock is a senior fellow in domestic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the forthcoming report "Cannabis-Use Warning Shortcomings by State."
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved.
