After years of delay, researchers may soon have access to potent, high-quality cannabis for research and testing. A lawsuit brought by cannabis researcher Dr. Sue Sisley has forced the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to move forward with processing applications to cultivate marijuana for scientific research.

More than 30 organizations have filed applications to grow cannabis for research purposes since August 2016. Sisley filed one of those applications three years ago, but since then it’s been lost in bureaucratic limbo. None of the applications submitted to the DEA have even been processed, much less approved.

Under the Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. Attorney General is required to publish a notice of application within 90 days of receiving an application and the associated fee. In Sisley’s lawsuit, her attorneys argue that the DEA is violating the law by holding up the process.

“We are also suing the Attorney General, not just the DEA because my gut tells me that the DEA is not responsible for impeding this,” said Sisley, who leads the Scottsdale Research Institute in Arizona.

Cannabis research has been difficult, if not impossible, for researchers who want to study marijuana’s effects in controlled experiments and clinical trials.

“On the one hand, you can’t do the research with good, high-quality cannabis because it’s a Schedule 1 drug. On the other, it’s a Schedule 1 because nobody can really do the research,” said Matt Zorn, who represents the Scottsdale Research Institute in the lawsuit.

Since 1968, the only way researchers have been able to gain access to cannabis was through the University of Mississippi, which is notoriously bad. It’s moldy, full of seeds and stems, and less potent than cannabis available through the medical or recreational markets.

“Scientists need access to options and we are handcuffed by a government-enforced monopoly that has only allowed me to study this really suboptimal study drug from Mississippi,” said Sisley. “The scientific community is concerned this is harming our data — our outcomes.”

The news that the DEA will begin processing applications for clinical-grade cannabis is welcome news, but many in the cannabis community are skeptical that the DEA will follow through.

“We’re cautiously optimistic, and this is a positive first step,” said Zorn. “But it took Dr. Sisley three years and a lawsuit just to get to this point, so I wouldn’t say the case is closed.”

Even if the DEA picks up the pace on approving research-grade cannabis grows, it will likely be several years before researchers have access to it.

“We haven’t really won anything until scientists are finally utilizing real-world cannabis flower in their clinical trials,” Sisley said.

Remember that scene in Half Baked when Thurgood, played by Dave Chappelle, discovers that the government lab he works at has a serious stash of marijuana?

Well, it turns out that cannabis used in government research isn’t all that great. Unlike commercial marijuana, the government product is stringy, light in color, and full of stems. If you’re used to the cannabis sold at dispensaries, chances are you wouldn’t even recognize the government product as weed.

Jake Browne, a marijuana critic for the Cannabist, called government cannabis unusable. “In two decades of smoking weed, I’ve never seen anything that looks like that,” Browne said. “People typically smoke the flower of the plant, but here you can clearly see stems and leaves in there as well, parts that should be discarded. Inhaling that would be like eating an apple, including the seeds inside it and the branch it grew on.”

Dr. Sue Sisley, a researcher studying medical marijuana for treating PTSD, told PBS NewsHour, “It doesn’t resemble cannabis. It doesn’t smell like cannabis.”

That’s a problem for researchers studying the effects and medical efficacy of cannabis. Since the marijuana researchers are using is so unlike commercially-available cannabis, it’s difficult to reach conclusions that are applicable to real-world use.

Since the late 1960s, all marijuana used in clinical research is required to come from a single government-run marijuana farm at the University of Mississippi.

Researchers have complained that government-grown marijuana isn’t subject to any federal testing standards and discrepancies in potency have created problems in some cannabis studies. Some samples even contained mold and lead.

The Colorado Supreme Court gave approval for a petition that would limit the amount of THC in Colorado marijuana. Anti-pot supporters of the initiative must gather 98,000 signatures by August 8 for the proposal to appear on the November ballot.

Supporters believe that marijuana–both medical and recreational–is too potent and that current packaging and warning labels are insufficient. The proposed changes to the marijuana industry would ban marijuana products with a THC potency of more than 16%. In addition, the amendment would mandate warnings printed on cannabis packaging that say marijuana’s health risks include “permanent loss of brain abilities” and “birth defects and reduced brain development.”

The average potency of Colorado pot products are 17.1 percent for cannabis flower and 62.1 percent for marijuana extracts.

Should voters approve the amendment, the new rules would effectively put concentrate and edible manufacturers out of business, as well as making many strains of flower illegal. According to a report by BDS Analytics, the proposed changes would make 80% of cannabis products in the current Colorado market obsolete.

Medical and recreational sales generated almost $57 million in taxes and fees during the first four months of 2016. Marijuana has been a boon to Colorado, funneling thousands of dollars into state tax revenue, with much of the money earmarked for schools.

Legalization opponent Frank McNulty, Colorado’s former Speaker of the House and the official counsel to the citizens who first brought on the measure, said the amendment’s potential impact on the state’s marijuana industry “doesn’t matter.”

The Colorado Health Research Council (CHRC), opposes the proposed amendment limiting THC potency, and describes itself as “a coalition of cannabis patients, caregivers, scientists, cannabis industry leaders, the business community and ordinary citizens.” The CHRC is concerned that the amendment could have a huge impact on medical marijuana patients, who often need higher THC content.

The proposed amendment is written to impact only recreational cannabis, but the CHRC claims it could also apply to the state’s medical sales — including non-resident refugees and those with conditions such as PTSD that aren’t on the state’s list of MMJ-qualifying conditions who still buy at retail pot shops.