DEA And Anti-Marijuana Group Deny Allegations They Conspired During Rescheduling Process

The allegations of improper collaboration between the DEA and Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) during the Biden administration's marijuana rescheduling process have been categorically denied by both parties. Here are the key developments:

OG Article: here 

View our Fair Use Policy: here

Watch the Live Show HERE

Watch the Commentary Here

DEA and SAM's Defense Against Allegations

• Denial of Ex Parte Communications:The DEA and SAM argue that no unlawful or improper communications occurred. The DEA, in its response, stated that evidence provided by the complainants—Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International—was speculative at best.

• Key Arguments:

  • DEA dismissed claims as "gossip," asserting that the motion lacks substantive proof.

  • SAM emphasized that any alleged communication predates the Department of Justice's (DOJ) publication of the rescheduling rule, which would not constitute ex parte communication under legal definitions.

• Request for Dismissal:Both DEA and SAM urged the administrative law judge (ALJ) to reject the motion as baseless and to avoid a "fishing expedition" into their conduct.

Nature of the Allegations

• Social Media Evidence:The original complaint referenced posts from SAM's president, Kevin Sabet, who claimed to have insider knowledge about the rescheduling effort. However, the DEA refuted these claims as unsubstantiated and unrelated to the agency’s official process.

• Focus of Accusations:

  • Complainants suggested improper influence by SAM, a vocal opponent of marijuana reform.

  • Allegations included the potential for SAM to sway DEA’s decision-making, undermining the fairness of the rescheduling process.

Broader Context of Marijuana Rescheduling

1. Administrative Challenges:

   • Rescheduling Proposal:The Biden administration has proposed moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This shift would ease some research barriers and allow state-licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions but would stop short of federal legalization.

   • DEA’s Role:Historically, the DEA administers the CSA, but in a first, Attorney General Merrick Garland—not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram—signed the rescheduling notice.

2. Opposition and Support:

   • Political Pushback:

     
     

     Critics, including several GOP lawmakers, have accused the administration of a politically motivated process. Concerns were raised about insufficient scientific justification and limited transparency.

   • Calls for Expedited Action:

     
     

     Proponents, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Vice President Kamala Harris, urged DEA to finalize the rescheduling rule promptly, citing delays caused by bureaucratic hurdles.

Implications of Rescheduling

• Positive Impacts:

  • Removal of federal tax restrictions (280E) for cannabis businesses.

  • Increased opportunities for cannabis-related medical and scientific research.

• Limitations:

  • Rescheduling does not equate to legalization. Marijuana use and possession would remain illegal under federal law outside specific medical or scientific contexts.

Looking Ahead

The December 2 hearing before ALJ John Mulrooney will address the merits of the proposed rescheduling. While the motion to remove DEA from the proceedings faces significant legal challenges, it underscores the contentious nature of marijuana reform in the U.S.

The administrative process, shaped by both political and legal pressures, will likely continue to face scrutiny as federal agencies navigate this historic policy change.