Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is turning up the heat on state legislators to pass marijuana legalization, framing the policy shift as a fiscal necessity and a matter of political will.

“Stop with the excuses. Let’s get this done,” Shapiro said, arguing that legalization would generate revenue to “make bigger investments in our kids, public safety, and our economy.” The Democratic governor has been pushing legalization for months, but his language this week signaled a harder edge, as Pennsylvania remains one of the larger northeastern states without an adult-use cannabis market.

Pennsylvania borders New Jersey and New York, both of which have operational legal markets, and advocates have long argued the commonwealth is bleeding tax revenue to neighboring states. Shapiro appears to be making that case directly to reluctant lawmakers.

The push comes against a federal backdrop that continues to frustrate state-level reform advocates. The Drug Enforcement Administration confirmed in a new court filing this week that the marijuana rescheduling appeal process is still on hold and “remains pending,” more than three months after President Donald Trump directed the attorney general to complete the reform “in the most expeditious manner.” The DEA filing noted bluntly: “No briefing schedule has been set.”

The status of federal rescheduling has real consequences for state-licensed cannabis businesses, particularly around taxation. Section 280E of the federal tax code, which bars cannabis companies from deducting standard business expenses, would only be affected once rescheduling clears the DEA process and takes legal effect. Until that happens, licensed operators in California and elsewhere continue to carry a disproportionate federal tax burden compared to businesses in other industries.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) offered an unusual but notable endorsement of state cannabis rights this week. Massie said states should be free to legalize marijuana without federal interference, even as he acknowledged a personal preference for what he called “medical margaritas” over recreational use. The Kentucky Republican’s position aligns with a strain of libertarian-leaning conservatism that prioritizes federalism, and his voice adds weight to the argument that cannabis policy does not break cleanly along party lines.

A former DEA senior advisor contributed to a new analysis this week arguing that federal marijuana laws are “neither coherent nor evidence based” and do “immense damage.” The paper calls for a fundamentally different approach, proposing a “managed market access schedule” for substances including cannabis and psilocybin that would apply what the authors describe as “capitalism controls” rather than criminalization. The analysis, coming from someone with institutional DEA experience, is unlikely to shift policy overnight, but it adds to a growing body of criticism from inside the enforcement community itself.

In Missouri, Gov. Mike Kehoe said restricting the sale of intoxicating hemp-derived THC products is “definitely something we need to get done,” aligning himself with legislation that the state legislature recently passed and sent to his desk. The hemp THC question has become one of the more contentious regulatory issues in cannabis policy nationally, as products sold under the 2018 Farm Bill’s hemp provisions often carry potency levels that rival or exceed licensed cannabis products. Missouri’s move mirrors action taken or under consideration in several other states, including efforts in California to tighten the regulatory gap between hemp-derived cannabinoids and the licensed cannabis supply chain.

In Ohio, a state judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking enforcement of new hemp product restrictions, finding that the policy effectively shielded the “in-state marijuana industry from out-of-state competition with respect to federally legal hemp products otherwise sold in interstate commerce.” The ruling signals that states attempting to control the hemp-derived THC market may face legal challenges rooted in commerce clause arguments, a wrinkle that complicates enforcement strategies regardless of the state.

Idaho’s legislature moved in the opposite direction from most of the country. The state House joined the Senate in passing a resolution urging voters not to sign petitions to place a medical cannabis initiative on the November ballot. The resolution claimed legalization causes crime and poses health and safety risks. The move is non-binding but reflects the ongoing resistance in a handful of states where any cannabis legalization, even medical, faces political resistance at the institutional level.

The White House Office of National Drug Control Policy held an awards ceremony this week recognizing law enforcement’s role in “fighting against drug trafficking,” a signal of where the current administration’s enforcement priorities are focused at the street level, even as rescheduling sits unresolved at the agency level.

Taken together, the week’s developments reflect a cannabis policy environment that continues to move at uneven speeds across jurisdictions. Governors like Shapiro are pushing harder on legalization while federal process grinds slowly. States like Missouri are trying to rein in the hemp market while courts in Ohio are questioning whether they can. And in Idaho, the political resistance to even the most conservative cannabis reform remains institutional.

The cannabis policy outlet Marijuana Moment covered this story.

For California’s licensed cannabis industry, the federal rescheduling stall matters most in the near term. Every quarter without 280E relief is another quarter of compressed margins for operators already handling high state taxes and licensing costs. The DEA’s “no briefing schedule” language does not suggest resolution is near.