President Trump’s Department of Justice issued an order April 23 changing the status of state-legalized medical marijuana from a Schedule I drug — a category of drugs with a high potential for abuse, like heroin — to a Schedule III drug, which means it has a moderate to low potential for dependence, like ketamine or testosterone. The order could potentially open the door for legal interstate commerce of marijuana, although a federal permit would be required and details of the new policy remain unclear.

In an ideal world, the US Food and Drug Administration would craft rules to govern marijuana products, just as it sets rules to ensure other food and drug products are safe. But barring that, the possibility of interstate commerce makes it more pressing for governments to work together regionally and establish common regulations around marijuana products, to the greatest extent possible. This would save money for multistate companies, which must now comply with different rules in each state. It could also help consumers, who would have an easier time identifying what they are buying — including a product’s contents and potency — based on the label, regardless of where they buy it.

There will likely still be areas where states want to keep their own regulations. But even standardizing definitions — like how to measure a serving size on a label — could help.

Since every state that legalized the drug now has its own regulations, there is an enormous opportunity to study what rules worked well, what might need to be changed, and where the regulatory gaps are. For example, the death of a worker at a Massachusetts cannabis facility called attention to the fact there are few regulations governing workplace safety, particularly with regards to air quality, because the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration lacks cannabis-specific standards.

“There is tremendous opportunity to not only make state regulations more in line with each other but also make them more in line with federal regulations,” said Shaleen Title, a former Massachusetts cannabis regulator who is now of counsel at Rudick Law Group. “It’s clear these things are all about to crash into each other. We can prevent a lot of confusion and harms to small businesses if we can get ahead of that and try to align these rules.”

The national Cannabis Regulators Association, of which the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission is a founding member, is the obvious forum for coordination. The association includes representatives from 45 states and territories, including every New England state. It’s already used by regulators seeking to share best practices.

Massachusetts’ Cannabis Control Commission has previously coordinated with other states — for example, consulting regulators in Nevada, Colorado, and Michigan while crafting social-consumption rules.

Commission spokesperson Neal McNamara said in a statement, “The Commission stands ready to collaborate with peers regionally and throughout the nation to respond to the federal rescheduling order in a way that will improve, modernize, and protect access to the medical marijuana industry.”

One challenge, of course, is that there are currently no commissioners. Governor Maura Healey signed a law April 19 dismantling the prior commission and giving Healey 30 days to appoint three new commissioners. If Healey chooses not to keep any of the prior commissioners on, the new commissioners will have a steep learning curve as they seek to right a troubled agency.

But part of the benefit of regional coordination is that in the long term, it should be easier for state regulators if every state doesn’t have to invent the wheel from scratch.

---

Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.