New Hampshire’s newest medical marijuana dispensary opened last week in Merrimack on the same day the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency said marijuana will remain a Schedule I controlled substance, a classification that means it has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse."

There’s something Orwellian about the federal government clinging to the notion that marijuana has no medical applications when millions of people say they have found relief from using the herb and half of the states have approved marijuana for medical use.

That’s especially true when one considers that there are products the Food and Drug Administration has approved over the years that use as active ingredients the same chemicals found in marijuana.

Among those who say marijuana has helped them are patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, cancer, epilepsy, PTSD, chronic pain and nausea, among other ailments.

And yet cling the government does to a mid-20th century "reefer madness" mindset that is its own form of madness, cloaked though it may be in scientific garb.

"The DEA and the FDA continue to believe that scientifically valid and well-controlled clinical trials conducted under investigational new drug (IND) applications are the most appropriate way to conduct research on the medicinal uses of marijuana," the DEA said in a statement this week.

There is no reason whatsoever – none – for marijuana to continue to be lumped in the same category as heroin. Even cocaine is not in the Schedule I category, and yet the government persists in classifying marijuana as a Schedule I drug.

Could it be because the pharmaceutical industry – the single largest political-influence peddler in a nation that has no shortage of those – doesn’t want the competition? Some people think so.

Or maybe it’s because the bureaucracies within the federal government that have grown up and thrived under the status quo fear the toppling of their apple carts.

Either way, the federal government’s position on marijuana is all the more unconscionable for being self-serving.

Closer to home, New Hampshire has taken only baby steps on the issue, adopting the nation’s most restrictive medical marijuana law, then taking forever to implement it.

Opponents of going further – including Gov. Maggie Hassan – point to the state’s opioid crisis and argue that marijuana is a gateway drug that leads people to use harder drugs.

Yes, marijuana can be a gateway drug. So can liquor, yet elected officials in the Granite State not only embrace the liquor industry warmly; they celebrate the revenue it generates.

Legalizing and taxing cannabis could raise money to be used in the fight against opioids. It could also fund other programs that are chronically shortchanged by our piecemeal state revenue system.

New Hampshire has an opportunity to get ahead of the curve – for a change – on a potentially lucrative revenue source, but that window isn’t going to stay open indefinitely. The state should start by educating itself.

Just how much money a system of legalized, taxed marijuana sales might yield for the state is a question that is ripe for legislative study, along with a host of ancillary issue – like how it would impact the liquor industry, law enforcement and social service caseloads.

It’s something the next legislature should study, if only to inform the debate that is sure to take place in the House and Senate.

That would be only a baby step, but at least it would be in the right direction.

Or we could continue to stumble around in the dark, wait for neighboring states to jump in, then bring up the rear as usual.