The scheduling of cannabis under the CSA has established legal precedents that determine how scientific findings affect its regulation. However, misunderstanding exists regarding the policy context for assessing marijuana’s scheduling under the CSA. Three pervasive fallacies make it seem that marijuana prohibition is the only viable policy outcome. One fallacy is that any indication that marijuana has a potential for dependence justifies its placement in Schedule I. Another fallacy is that marijuana must remain in Schedule I if it has no accepted medical use and is restricted to Schedule II if it does. The third fallacy is that marijuana must remain in Schedule I unless it is proven to provide optimum results compared to other drugs. Recent findings that have established that marijuana lacks the high potential for abuse required for Schedule I or Schedule II status underlie a contemporary effort to reschedule cannabis. Scientific standards provide the best guide to drug control regardless of where they lead in terms of policy outcomes. The analysis concludes that contemporary scientific knowledge does not support the current placement of marijuana in Schedule I as a drug with the highest potential for abuse. 56 references (Author abstract modified)