Idaho Lawmakers Push Back Against Federal Marijuana Rescheduling
01/02/2026
In a strong show of opposition, Idaho's two U.S. senators, Mike Crapo and Jim Risch, joined 20 other Republican colleagues in urging President Donald Trump to abandon plans to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance. The move, formalized through a recent executive order, aims to acknowledge potential medical benefits and expand research opportunities.
The senators' concerns center on the potential public health risks and unintended economic incentives that could fuel the marijuana industry. Critics argue that easing federal restrictions would undermine efforts to promote healthy lifestyles and could increase accessibility, particularly among young people. They point to experiences in states that have legalized marijuana, highlighting negative societal impacts observed there.
Idaho remains one of the strictest states on marijuana policy, with virtually all forms illegal. Only Wyoming shares a similarly comprehensive ban in the region, while neighboring states permit at least medical use. This year, the Idaho Legislature reinforced its stance by imposing a minimum $300 fine for misdemeanor possession of less than three ounces—the nation's harshest penalty—and advancing a proposed constitutional amendment for the 2026 ballot. If approved by voters, the amendment would ensure that any future legalization of substances like marijuana could only occur through legislative action, not citizen initiatives.
The federal push for rescheduling traces back to initiatives under the previous administration, including proposals to shift marijuana's classification and pardons for certain possession offenses. Proponents of the change emphasize its role in addressing chronic pain relief for patients and correcting historical inequities in enforcement.
However, opponents, including key Idaho figures, maintain that the policy ignores available data on harms associated with increased marijuana use. One prominent lawmaker described the federal approach as failing to align with evidence from legalizing states.
Experts note that the executive order is unlikely to immediately alter enforcement in prohibition states like Idaho, where state laws dominate. Federal prosecutors have long deprioritized low-level cases, and rescheduling would primarily facilitate research rather than broadly legalize the drug.
Reference
The senators' concerns center on the potential public health risks and unintended economic incentives that could fuel the marijuana industry. Critics argue that easing federal restrictions would undermine efforts to promote healthy lifestyles and could increase accessibility, particularly among young people. They point to experiences in states that have legalized marijuana, highlighting negative societal impacts observed there.
Idaho remains one of the strictest states on marijuana policy, with virtually all forms illegal. Only Wyoming shares a similarly comprehensive ban in the region, while neighboring states permit at least medical use. This year, the Idaho Legislature reinforced its stance by imposing a minimum $300 fine for misdemeanor possession of less than three ounces—the nation's harshest penalty—and advancing a proposed constitutional amendment for the 2026 ballot. If approved by voters, the amendment would ensure that any future legalization of substances like marijuana could only occur through legislative action, not citizen initiatives.
The federal push for rescheduling traces back to initiatives under the previous administration, including proposals to shift marijuana's classification and pardons for certain possession offenses. Proponents of the change emphasize its role in addressing chronic pain relief for patients and correcting historical inequities in enforcement.
However, opponents, including key Idaho figures, maintain that the policy ignores available data on harms associated with increased marijuana use. One prominent lawmaker described the federal approach as failing to align with evidence from legalizing states.
Experts note that the executive order is unlikely to immediately alter enforcement in prohibition states like Idaho, where state laws dominate. Federal prosecutors have long deprioritized low-level cases, and rescheduling would primarily facilitate research rather than broadly legalize the drug.
Reference
