The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has officially announced a public hearing on 2 December 2024 to discuss the proposed rescheduling of cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III substance. This hearing, while significant, delays any final decision until after the November 2024 presidential election, raising questions about the future of federal cannabis policy and the stances of key political figures, notably Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump.
The DEA’s decision to schedule the hearing at the tail end of the year signals that any potential rescheduling of cannabis is unlikely to occur before the election. This delay is not just procedural—it is deeply political. With the upcoming presidential election, the stakes are high. The rescheduling of cannabis could hinge on who controls the White House come January 2025. While a continuation of the Biden administration might keep the momentum going, a shift in leadership could slow or even reverse the process.
This hearing is a direct response to the over 43,500 public comments the DEA received following its May 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The volume of these comments underscores the intense public interest and the contentious nature of cannabis policy in the United States.
Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on cannabis has evolved significantly over the years. During her time as California’s Attorney General, Harris was not known as a strong advocate for cannabis reform, often opposing legalisation efforts. However, as she transitioned to the national stage, particularly during her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris adopted a more progressive stance. She co-sponsored the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which aimed to decriminalise cannabis at the federal level and address the damage caused by the War on Drugs, particularly in communities of colour.
Harris has since been an advocate for cannabis reform within the Biden administration, aligning with the broader Democratic platform that supports decriminalisation and rescheduling. However, some critics argue that her record remains inconsistent, pointing to her previous tough-on-crime policies. Despite this, if the Biden-Harris administration continues into a second term, there is cautious optimism among cannabis advocates that rescheduling or even decriminalisation could become a reality.
In contrast, former President Donald Trump’s stance on cannabis has been more unpredictable. During his time in office, Trump largely maintained a hands-off approach, allowing states to continue with their cannabis legalisation experiments without significant federal interference. However, his administration did not actively support federal reform, and key figures like then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions were openly hostile to cannabis legalisation.
Recently, at a rally in New Hampshire, Trump signalled a possible shift in his position by expressing openness to “study the issue” of cannabis legalisation, a statement that surprised many. This comment was seen as an attempt to align with the increasing public support for cannabis legalisation, which polls show is popular across the political spectrum. However, Trump’s rhetoric remains vague and noncommittal, leaving his true intentions unclear.
Should cannabis be rescheduled to Schedule III, the implications could be far-reaching:
For now, the cannabis industry and advocates for cannabis reform are in a holding pattern. The December hearing will be a critical moment, but the process is far from over. Even after the hearing, it will take time for the DEA to finalise any changes to cannabis’s classification. Meanwhile, the outcome of the November election could dramatically influence how, or even if, these changes are implemented.
As the date approaches, stakeholders across the industry are preparing for what could be a landmark shift in federal cannabis policy—or another chapter in the long, slow march toward reform. The delay has sparked frustration among some advocates, who see it as a missed opportunity for the Biden administration to make good on its campaign promises. However, others are cautiously optimistic, viewing the hearing as a necessary step in a complex legal and regulatory process.
In the coming months, all eyes will be on Washington as the debate over cannabis rescheduling continues to unfold. Whether this hearing will lead to substantive change or further delays remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes have never been higher.
The post Critical DEA cannabis hearing delayed due to 43,500 public comments appeared first on Volteface.
Continue reading...
A Critical But Delayed Debate
The DEA’s decision to schedule the hearing at the tail end of the year signals that any potential rescheduling of cannabis is unlikely to occur before the election. This delay is not just procedural—it is deeply political. With the upcoming presidential election, the stakes are high. The rescheduling of cannabis could hinge on who controls the White House come January 2025. While a continuation of the Biden administration might keep the momentum going, a shift in leadership could slow or even reverse the process.
This hearing is a direct response to the over 43,500 public comments the DEA received following its May 2024 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The volume of these comments underscores the intense public interest and the contentious nature of cannabis policy in the United States.
The Candidates and Cannabis: Harris vs. Trump
Kamala Harris: A Mixed Record on Cannabis
Vice President Kamala Harris’s stance on cannabis has evolved significantly over the years. During her time as California’s Attorney General, Harris was not known as a strong advocate for cannabis reform, often opposing legalisation efforts. However, as she transitioned to the national stage, particularly during her 2020 presidential campaign, Harris adopted a more progressive stance. She co-sponsored the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, which aimed to decriminalise cannabis at the federal level and address the damage caused by the War on Drugs, particularly in communities of colour.
Harris has since been an advocate for cannabis reform within the Biden administration, aligning with the broader Democratic platform that supports decriminalisation and rescheduling. However, some critics argue that her record remains inconsistent, pointing to her previous tough-on-crime policies. Despite this, if the Biden-Harris administration continues into a second term, there is cautious optimism among cannabis advocates that rescheduling or even decriminalisation could become a reality.
Donald Trump: A Reversal in the Making?
In contrast, former President Donald Trump’s stance on cannabis has been more unpredictable. During his time in office, Trump largely maintained a hands-off approach, allowing states to continue with their cannabis legalisation experiments without significant federal interference. However, his administration did not actively support federal reform, and key figures like then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions were openly hostile to cannabis legalisation.
Recently, at a rally in New Hampshire, Trump signalled a possible shift in his position by expressing openness to “study the issue” of cannabis legalisation, a statement that surprised many. This comment was seen as an attempt to align with the increasing public support for cannabis legalisation, which polls show is popular across the political spectrum. However, Trump’s rhetoric remains vague and noncommittal, leaving his true intentions unclear.
Potential Impacts of Rescheduling to Schedule III
Should cannabis be rescheduled to Schedule III, the implications could be far-reaching:
- Economic Relief for the Cannabis Industry: One of the most immediate benefits of rescheduling would be tax relief for cannabis businesses. Currently, under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, businesses involved in the production and distribution of cannabis are prohibited from deducting many of their expenses, a restriction that does not apply to Schedule III substances. This change could lead to substantial financial relief for these companies, which have long been burdened by exorbitant federal tax bills.
- A New Era for Medical Research: Rescheduling could also open the floodgates for scientific research. As a Schedule I substance, cannabis is currently classified as having no accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse, which severely limits research opportunities. Moving it to Schedule III would acknowledge its medical benefits and allow researchers greater access, potentially leading to breakthroughs in treatment options for various conditions.
- Regulatory Complexity and New Challenges: However, rescheduling is not without its complications. The DEA might impose new “cannabis-specific controls,” adding layers of regulation that could affect everything from cultivation practices to distribution channels. These controls could create a more complex regulatory environment, potentially stifling the very benefits rescheduling aims to achieve.
- Political and Social Ramifications: The timing of the hearing suggests a deliberate strategy by the Biden administration to avoid making a controversial decision in the lead-up to the election. This cautious approach could reflect the administration’s desire to maintain broad political support while keeping its options open depending on the election outcome. Should a Republican administration take power, particularly one aligned with the more conservative wing of the party, the future of cannabis rescheduling could be in jeopardy.
What’s Next?
For now, the cannabis industry and advocates for cannabis reform are in a holding pattern. The December hearing will be a critical moment, but the process is far from over. Even after the hearing, it will take time for the DEA to finalise any changes to cannabis’s classification. Meanwhile, the outcome of the November election could dramatically influence how, or even if, these changes are implemented.
As the date approaches, stakeholders across the industry are preparing for what could be a landmark shift in federal cannabis policy—or another chapter in the long, slow march toward reform. The delay has sparked frustration among some advocates, who see it as a missed opportunity for the Biden administration to make good on its campaign promises. However, others are cautiously optimistic, viewing the hearing as a necessary step in a complex legal and regulatory process.
In the coming months, all eyes will be on Washington as the debate over cannabis rescheduling continues to unfold. Whether this hearing will lead to substantive change or further delays remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the stakes have never been higher.
The post Critical DEA cannabis hearing delayed due to 43,500 public comments appeared first on Volteface.
Continue reading...
