Following A Recent Appellate Division Decision, New Jersey Must Consider Marijuana Reclassification
The State of New Jersey must at least consider removing marijuana from the Schedule I list of controlled dangerous substances, according to a recent Appellate Division decision. In so ruling, the appeals court rejected the argument that the state needed to wait for the federal government to act first.
Like its federal counterpart, the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Law classifies drugs into certain “schedules,” and restricts access to them accordingly. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 24:21-5(a), the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs (Division) “shall place a substance in Schedule I if he finds that the substance: (1) has high potential for abuse; and (2) has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.”
Petition to Reschedule Marijuana under New Jersey Law
In 2014, Steven Kadonsky, an inmate serving a sentence for marijuana trafficking, filed a petition with the Division seeking to have marijuana rescheduled from a Schedule I controlled dangerous substance to Schedule IV. Kadonsky argued that because the Legislature determined that marijuana had “a beneficial use . . . in treating or alleviating the pain or other symptoms associated with certain debilitating medical conditions” when it passed the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) in 2010, marijuana no longer satisfied the requirements for inclusion in Schedule I.
On January 9, 2015, the acting director (Director) of the Division denied Kadonsky’s petition, citing that marijuana has been listed as a Schedule I substance since the passing of the federal CSA. The Director further noted that N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(c) requires that he “similarly control the substance” unless he “objects and follows the appropriate process to make the reasons for his objections public.”
In further support of the denial, the Director concluded that there was no indication that, in passing CUMMA, the Legislature intended “to treat marijuana similar to or consistent with substances listed in Schedules II – V.” Additionally, the Director suggested that federal law prohibited the state from rescheduling marijuana.
On appeal, the Appellate Division allowed a New Jersey teenager, identified as G.B., to participate as amicus. According to court documents, G.B. uses marijuana to alleviate the seizures caused by her epilepsy. However, because it is a Schedule I drug, she can’t receive it while at school. Accordingly, G.B.’s amicus brief argued that scheduling of marijuana is preventing her from obtaining a full education. Citing marijuana’s proven therapeutic benefits, G.B. also noted the great public and personal importance to patients who depend on it.
NJ Appeals Court Rules Cannabis Reclassification Is Possible
In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division rejected the Division’s reliance on the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s 1986 decision in State v. Tate. According to the court, a lot has changed since the state’s highest court ruled that marijuana had no accepted medical value. As the majority explained:
While there may have been “no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” for marijuana when the CDSA became effective, any argument suggesting that premise is still valid in the post-CUMMA era strains credulity beyond acceptable boundaries. Medical benefits from the use of marijuana not known in 1971, when the CDSA became effective, or in 1986, when Tate was decided, and impediments to its lawful use as a result of its Schedule I classification, are abundant and glaringly apparent now.
According to the Appellate Division, “marijuana’s continued classification as a Schedule I substance in New Jersey, would depend, in part, on a determination that it has a high potential for abuse and, if so, whether that factor justifies continued inclusion in the face of compelling evidence of accepted medical use and impediments to its legal use which may be attributable to its classification.” While the court acknowledged that the issue was not squarely before it, the panel concluded that it was “ripe for determination by the Director.”
The Appellate Division stopped short of ruling that the Division must reschedule marijuana. However, it did clarify that federal law should not be viewed as an impediment. This is particularly important given that the administration that will succeed Gov. Christie is predicted to be much more cannabis-friendly.
This article is a part of a series pertaining to cannabis legalization in New Jersey and the United States at large. Prior articles in this series are below:
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
NJ Must Consider Marijuana Reclassification
Author: Daniel T. McKillop
Following A Recent Appellate Division Decision, New Jersey Must Consider Marijuana Reclassification
The State of New Jersey must at least consider removing marijuana from the Schedule I list of controlled dangerous substances, according to a recent Appellate Division decision. In so ruling, the appeals court rejected the argument that the state needed to wait for the federal government to act first.
Like its federal counterpart, the New Jersey Controlled Dangerous Substances Law classifies drugs into certain “schedules,” and restricts access to them accordingly. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 24:21-5(a), the Director of the Division of Consumer Affairs (Division) “shall place a substance in Schedule I if he finds that the substance: (1) has high potential for abuse; and (2) has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States; or lacks accepted safety for use in treatment under medical supervision.”
Petition to Reschedule Marijuana under New Jersey Law
In 2014, Steven Kadonsky, an inmate serving a sentence for marijuana trafficking, filed a petition with the Division seeking to have marijuana rescheduled from a Schedule I controlled dangerous substance to Schedule IV. Kadonsky argued that because the Legislature determined that marijuana had “a beneficial use . . . in treating or alleviating the pain or other symptoms associated with certain debilitating medical conditions” when it passed the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act (CUMMA) in 2010, marijuana no longer satisfied the requirements for inclusion in Schedule I.
On January 9, 2015, the acting director (Director) of the Division denied Kadonsky’s petition, citing that marijuana has been listed as a Schedule I substance since the passing of the federal CSA. The Director further noted that N.J.S.A. 24:21-3(c) requires that he “similarly control the substance” unless he “objects and follows the appropriate process to make the reasons for his objections public.”
In further support of the denial, the Director concluded that there was no indication that, in passing CUMMA, the Legislature intended “to treat marijuana similar to or consistent with substances listed in Schedules II – V.” Additionally, the Director suggested that federal law prohibited the state from rescheduling marijuana.
On appeal, the Appellate Division allowed a New Jersey teenager, identified as G.B., to participate as amicus. According to court documents, G.B. uses marijuana to alleviate the seizures caused by her epilepsy. However, because it is a Schedule I drug, she can’t receive it while at school. Accordingly, G.B.’s amicus brief argued that scheduling of marijuana is preventing her from obtaining a full education. Citing marijuana’s proven therapeutic benefits, G.B. also noted the great public and personal importance to patients who depend on it.
NJ Appeals Court Rules Cannabis Reclassification Is Possible
In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division rejected the Division’s reliance on the Supreme Court of New Jersey’s 1986 decision in State v. Tate. According to the court, a lot has changed since the state’s highest court ruled that marijuana had no accepted medical value. As the majority explained:
While there may have been “no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” for marijuana when the CDSA became effective, any argument suggesting that premise is still valid in the post-CUMMA era strains credulity beyond acceptable boundaries. Medical benefits from the use of marijuana not known in 1971, when the CDSA became effective, or in 1986, when Tate was decided, and impediments to its lawful use as a result of its Schedule I classification, are abundant and glaringly apparent now.
According to the Appellate Division, “marijuana’s continued classification as a Schedule I substance in New Jersey, would depend, in part, on a determination that it has a high potential for abuse and, if so, whether that factor justifies continued inclusion in the face of compelling evidence of accepted medical use and impediments to its legal use which may be attributable to its classification.” While the court acknowledged that the issue was not squarely before it, the panel concluded that it was “ripe for determination by the Director.”
The Appellate Division stopped short of ruling that the Division must reschedule marijuana. However, it did clarify that federal law should not be viewed as an impediment. This is particularly important given that the administration that will succeed Gov. Christie is predicted to be much more cannabis-friendly.
This article is a part of a series pertaining to cannabis legalization in New Jersey and the United States at large. Prior articles in this series are below:
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Dan McKillop, at 201-806-3364.
Disclaimer: Possession, use, distribution, and/or sale of cannabis is a Federal crime and is subject to related Federal policy. Legal advice provided by Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC is designed to counsel clients regarding the validity, scope, meaning, and application of existing and/or proposed cannabis law. Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC will not provide assistance in circumventing Federal or state cannabis law or policy, and advice provided by our office should not be construed as such.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
