DEA maybe remove from December's cannabis Scheduled hearingAnne Millgram head of the DEA has been anti cannabis since day 1, and needs to be removed from the hearing. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently embroiled in controversy surrounding a hearing on the potential rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act. Here are the key points:
-
Legal Filing: A legal filing has been made suggesting that the DEA should be removed from its role in the marijuana rescheduling hearing due to alleged statutory violations during the rulemaking process. This includes claims of "unlawful" communications between the DEA and the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), as well as concerns about the transparency and fairness in the selection of hearing participants.
-
Hearing Delay: Initially set for December 2, 2024, the hearing has been delayed until January or February 2025. This delay was ordered by DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney, who requested more clarity on the standing of the 25 designated participants chosen by the DEA to testify, questioning whether they qualify as "interested persons" under the law.
-
Participant Selection: There has been contention over who is allowed to participate in the hearing. A significant number of pro-cannabis organizations and advocates have been excluded or had their participation challenged, while participants expected to oppose rescheduling, like SAM, have been included. This selection process has raised concerns about bias and the fairness of the administrative process.
-
Public and Expert Opinion: The hearing aims to gather factual evidence and expert opinion on whether marijuana should be rescheduled. The process has attracted over 43,000 public comments, with a majority supporting either rescheduling or the complete descheduling of marijuana.
-
Political Implications: The rescheduling process, although initiated under the Biden administration, is designed to continue past the 2024 election, suggesting that any final decision might be influenced by the political climate post-election.
-
DEA's Role Questioned: Critics argue that the DEA's involvement could lead to a biased outcome, especially given its historical stance against marijuana legalization. The legal challenge seeks to ensure that the process remains unbiased and that all voices, particularly those supporting reform, are fairly represented.
This situation reflects ongoing tensions between federal cannabis policy and the evolving state and public opinions on marijuana's medical and recreational use. The outcome of these legal challenges and the eventual rescheduling decision could significantly impact the legal status of cannabis in the U.S., influencing everything from research opportunities to business taxation under IRS code 280E. However, even if rescheduled, marijuana would still be a controlled substance with federal restrictions on its use and distribution.