Why The Drug Testing Industry Is Fighting Cannabis Rescheduling

As the Drug Enforcement Administration continues its hearing on federal cannabis rescheduling, the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA) is preparing to outline its opposition in testimony on Wednesday. The organization, which represents thousands of workplace drug‑testing businesses, argues that shifting marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would weaken employer screening programs and create new compliance challenges.

While the hearing is focused on the harm rescheduling poses to the participants, NDASA’s position is expected to mirror the claims it is advancing in a separate lawsuit seeking to block the rescheduling order.

NDASA filed a petition for judicial review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, seeking a stay of the rescheduling order pending litigation. The group’s appearance in the DEA hearing gives it a second venue to press concerns about workplace impacts and federal authority.

NDSA’s Core Arguments

In its lawsuit, NDASA contends that the Justice Department exceeded its authority when the Acting Attorney General bypassed the Controlled Substances Act’s formal rulemaking requirements and directly transferred certain categories of marijuana to Schedule III.

The filing relies heavily on the D.C. Circuit’s 1977 NORML decision, which held that the Attorney General must obtain a binding scientific review from the Department of Health and Human Services and conduct an on‑the‑record hearing before rescheduling marijuana. NDASA argues that the agency’s reliance on Section 811(d), a treaty‑compliance provision, conflicts with that precedent.

The group also warns of economic harm to its members.

NDASA represents more than 3,500 businesses involved in workplace drug and alcohol screening, including medical review officers who interpret test results. According to the legal action, many employers may stop testing for marijuana once it is placed in Schedule III, reducing demand for screening services. 

NDASA further argues that employers who continue testing will face higher costs and greater complexity when evaluating positive results, particularly in states with medical cannabis programs.

These concerns highlight that NDASA’s opposition is tied not only to regulatory arguments but also to protecting the financial interests of its member businesses.

The filing also raises concerns about regulatory stability.

NDASA maintains that federal drug‑testing rules rely on marijuana’s Schedule I status and that shifting the substance to Schedule III without a full evidentiary record leaves employers uncertain about how to apply longstanding policies.

Context In Today’s Hearing

Wednesday’s arguments from NDASA are expected to outline the harms it says its members would face if marijuana is moved to Schedule III. The group argues that rescheduling would disrupt federal drug‑testing rules, create compliance challenges for employers, and impose economic consequences on businesses that rely on workplace screening.

The hearing is scheduled to wrap up no later than July 15.