Will cannabis be federally legalized or descheduled before January 1, 2029?
Peer-to-Peer Order Book
Live- A participant offers to buy or sell a contract at a price they choose.
- Another participant takes the opposite side.
- The exchange matches the orders and holds the collateral.
- Correct contracts settle at $1.00 · incorrect at $0.00.
- Fees are shown before any order is submitted.
Video Briefing
2:14:06Senate Banking hearing: cannabis banking provisions of S. 2201 — full witness panel
2:36Fact check: the viral 8-second cannabis clip vs. the full 40-second answer
What this market asks
In plain language: forecasters are estimating the probability that the outcome in the question actually happens by the deadline. The market currently prices 58% YES / 42% NO. Resolution is mechanical — it depends only on the criteria and sources below, not on opinions, headlines, or who "deserves" to win the argument.
- ▸ The rescheduling proceeding has already advanced through HHS review with a Schedule III recommendation.
- ▸ S. 2201 (Cannabis Reform and Regulation Act) has cosponsors from both parties in the Senate.
- ▸ 38 states now operate medical programs, creating sustained pressure from governors of both parties.
- ▸ Administrative rescheduling has been litigated at every step and could extend past the deadline.
- ▸ Senate floor time for a standalone cannabis vote has never materialized despite repeated commitments.
- ▸ Banking-only compromises (safe-harbor bills) could relieve pressure without full descheduling.
Resolution criteria
Resolves YES if, before January 1, 2029, cannabis is removed from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (rescheduling to Schedule III or lower counts) via enacted statute or a final published DEA rule.
- Any participant may flag a resolution within 72 hours with cited evidence.
- Trading pauses; positions freeze at last price while flags are reviewed.
- An independent resolution council (rotating, disclosed members) rules within 14 days using only the stated sources.
- Rulings are published with full written reasoning; credits settle after publication.
Related on Quorly
Discussion · 761 comments
LiveFading the crowd here. "Administrative rescheduling has been litigated at every step and could extend past the deadline." That blocker has killed similar outcomes repeatedly — I have fair value near 48%.
YES at 58% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
Committee calendar update: relevant action is now scheduled. In backtests of this market class, a scheduled action adds ~6 points to YES within a week.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 66%. Holding YES at 53 entry.
This market pairs well with the related Pulse question — the gap between public sentiment and market probability is the interesting signal here.
The NO side is about timelines, not merits. Even if the outcome eventually happens, the deadline in the criteria is doing a lot of work.
The market is underpricing this. Base rates on comparable outcomes put fair value closer to 66%. Holding YES at 53 entry.
YES at 58% is the value side. When the resolution source is this mechanical, momentum in the underlying process matters more than commentary.
Following this one closely. The resolution criteria are unusually clean, which is why participation is this high (18.2K forecasters).