Cannabis rescheduling will now likely be delayed until next year as the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) confirmed its plans to hold a hearing on the proposal after the election.
Fears that the rescheduling project could be pushed into the legislative mud have now been realized, as the DEA has officially scheduled an administrative herding for December 02.
After publishing the proposals to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance in May, the DEA has received around 42,000 comments as part of a 60-day public comment period, with analysis suggesting over 90% supported the reform.
Despite this ‘unprecedented’ support, since May there have been numerous calls for an administrative hearing to discuss the proposals and their implications in more detail.
These calls have largely stemmed from the GOP. In June, 18 state attorney generals and nine former DEA administrators penned a letter to the agency urging it to hold a hearing, arguing that it was ‘in the public interest’ as the nation voted on the ‘most significant relaxation of narcotics restrictions’ in the history of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
“As DEA made clear in the Proposed Rule, additional data and rigorous scientific analysis is needed to determine whether marijuana is appropriately placed into Schedule III,” the former DEA officials said.
“Sifting through the competing claims about marijuana’s pharmacological effects, potential for abuse, and implications for public safety, are best done at a hearing.”
A month later, two Republican lawmakers, House Energy & Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie, sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra, questioning the Biden administration’s proposals and citing concerns over the process.
The lawmakers argued that the review process leading to the recommendation to reschedule cannabis is unusual and lacks transparency, suggesting that the process may have been politically motivated.
On the other side of the fence, the bill’s proponents have argued that calls for a hearing are a political tactic to delay what has become a flagship policy for the Biden administration until after the election, meaning its future will depend more significantly on the next administration.
In an opinion piece published last month, Head of Legal and Policy Research at NuggMD, Deb Tharp, argued that the most likely scenario is that rescheduling will be consistently delayed by legal challenges, but she has suggested that Congress may now be the most effective route to pushing the change through.
What happens now?
The DEA has said the hearing, set to take place in Arlington, VA, would seek to ‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’ whether marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III of the list of controlled substances.”
According to its official statement, the DEA will gather factual evidence and expert opinions on whether cannabis should be reclassified under the CSA, which would indicate a recognized medical use and lower potential for abuse compared to Schedule I substances.
Interested parties who wish to be involved in the hearing must submit a written notice of their intent by a specified date (30 days after the official notice publication). These submissions must include details about their interest in the proceedings and the specific issues they wish to address.
The hearing will be conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and DEA regulations, with a presiding officer appointed to manage the proceedings. The officer has broad authority to ensure a fair and orderly process, including examining witnesses and ruling on evidence.
The hearing’s outcome could significantly influence the legal and regulatory landscape for cannabis in the United States.
The post Cannabis Rescheduling Faces Delays as DEA Schedules Post-Election Hearing appeared first on Business of Cannabis.
Continue reading...