The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has declined to provide witnesses for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing regarding the Biden administration's proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
OG Article: here
View our Fair Use Policy: here
This development adds another layer of complexity to the historic and controversial rescheduling process.
Key Points:
HHS Declines Participation
HHS conducted the initial scientific review that formed the basis of the rescheduling proposal.
DEA requested HHS and its Food and Drug Administration (FDA) staff to testify about the scientific and medical evaluations underlying the Eight-Factor Analysis used to recommend rescheduling. HHS declined this request without explanation.
DEA’s Witness Strategy
Two DEA witnesses, Heather Achbach and Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye, will testify:
Achbach will outline the rulemaking process.
Akinfiresoye, a pharmacologist, will discuss scientific data on marijuana’s potential for abuse, public health risks, and other factors relevant to its classification.
Akinfiresoye will also cover the DEA's ongoing review of marijuana-related research and its call for additional data.
Hearing and Legal Process
The prehearing statement, submitted ahead of the December 2 preliminary hearing, reflects DEA’s ambiguous stance on the rescheduling proposal.
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney delayed merit-based proceedings until at least 2025 after DEA was criticized for insufficient witness documentation.
DEA indicated it might subpoena HHS witnesses if deemed necessary later in the proceedings.
Stakeholder Concerns
Critics allege DEA's hesitancy and procedural ambiguities suggest resistance to rescheduling, despite the Attorney General’s direct involvement in proposing the rule.
Lawmakers and advocacy groups express frustration over perceived bureaucratic delays, lack of transparency, and alleged political motivations behind the rescheduling process.
Potential Implications of Rescheduling
Pros:
Easier access to research by removing Schedule I barriers.
State-licensed cannabis businesses could claim tax deductions under IRS code 280E.
Cons:
Marijuana remains federally illegal, leaving significant criminal and regulatory concerns unresolved.
Critics argue rescheduling may not adequately address marijuana’s public health risks.
Political Reactions
Bipartisan debates continue:
Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, urge swift action to finalize rescheduling.
Republican lawmakers, such as Sen. Bill Cassidy and Rep. Doug LaMalfa, question the scientific rigor and motivations behind the proposal, suggesting it is politically driven.
A faction of GOP representatives opposes rescheduling entirely, citing concerns over drug abuse and societal impacts.
Next Steps
The DEA hearing will proceed in phases, with the preliminary session on December 2 and merit-based proceedings in 2025.
Broader policy implications will likely depend on the Biden administration's ability to address scientific and legal criticisms while navigating political opposition.
This process remains a pivotal moment for U.S. cannabis policy, with outcomes that could significantly influence federal and state marijuana regulations.
4o
Comments