Connect with us

Politics

DEA Announces It Will Finally Take Action On Marijuana Grower Applications

Published

on

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced on Monday that it is taking steps to expand the number of federally authorized marijuana manufacturers for research purposes.

In the three years since DEA first said it would be accepting applications for cannabis manufacturers, the agency has received 33 submissions. In a notice of applications set to be published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, DEA said the “unprecedented” volume of inquiries makes it necessary to develop new regulations before approving pending applications.

“DEA intends to propose regulations in the near future that would supersede the 2016 policy statement and govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law,” the notice states, adding that the agency recognizes “the need to move past the single grower system and register additional growers.”

DEA will also open a public comment period for individuals interested in weighing in on the rulemaking process.

“I am pleased that DEA is moving forward with its review of applications for those who seek to grow marijuana legally to support research,” Attorney General William Barr, who previously voiced support for increasing the number of marijuana manufacturers, said in a press release. “The Department of Justice will continue to work with our colleagues at the Department of Health and Human Services and across the Administration to improve research opportunities wherever we can.”

DEA said that approving applications for cannabis growers will produce “additional strains of marihuana” that will be “available to researchers.”

“This should facilitate research, advance scientific understanding about the effects of marihuana, and potentially aid in the development of safe and effective drug products that may be approved for marketing by the Food and Drug Administration,” the agency wrote.

That’s precisely what researchers have been asking for. Lawmakers and scientists alike have complained that the current source of federally authorized research grade cannabis—which is produced at a single facility at the University of Mississippi—is inadequate, with a chemical composition that’s closer to hemp than the marijuana that’s available to consumer in legalized state-level markets.

“DEA is making progress in the program to register additional marijuana growers for federally authorized research, and will work with other relevant federal agencies to expedite the necessary next steps,” DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon said. “We support additional research into marijuana and its components, and we believe registering more growers will result in researchers having access to a wider variety for study.”

Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), who has repeatedly criticized DEA for delaying the application approval process, told Marijuana Moment that he’s “thrilled to see that after three years, the DEA is finally moving forward with applications to manufacture cannabis for research purposes.”

The congressman also introduced legislation that would force the agency to approve additional cannabis growers. A previous version of that bill was approved by the House Judiciary Committee in a voice vote last year.

“During his Senate confirmation, AG Barr said that these applications would be processed, and he has kept his word,” he said. “Having additional cannabis manufacturers will greatly aid American scientists and researchers. Today’s announcement is a victory for science, and brings us one big step closer to unlocking cures for America’s most vulnerable populations.”

Other marijuana reform advocates expressed skepticism about the announcement, however.

“Doing more research on the medicinal qualities of cannabis has near universal support, but the Trump administration has been dragging its heels on approving new licenses to produce cannabis for research,” Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) told Marijuana Moment. “After years of bipartisan pressure, the administration has finally heeded to our demands. I will continue to monitor the DEA to make sure that these licenses actually get approved. This has already taken too long.”

“There is nothing in this new release that provides any sort of time-table as to when the agency intends to license these pending applications, some of which have been pending for well over two years,” Erik Altieri, executive director of NORML, said. “At this point, the DEA has had over three years to move forward with their initial promise to expand the number of licensed cultivators for marijuana research and the news today only reveals that in that time they have essentially achieved zero progress.”

“This is the very definition of kicking the can further down the road since they have indicated none of this will move forward without the finalization of new regulations, which is essentially the same thing they told the public in 2016,” he said.

Queen Adesuyi, policy coordinator for the Drug Policy Alliance, said that for decades “the greatest harm associated with marijuana use has been from its criminalization and overenforcement—not the substance itself.”

“The DEA’s proposed steps toward expanding marijuana research opportunities are modest steps in the right direction at best. The most critical way to open the flood gates of much needed and wanted marijuana research is to deschedule marijuana,” she said. “For as long as marijuana remains a scheduled drug, there will continue to be significant federal restrictions and barriers to research, in addition to the continued individual and community-level harms of maintaining federal criminalization.”

The agency said that the number of individuals who are registered to conduct cannabis research “has increased by more than 40 percent from 384 in January 2017 to 542 in January 2019” and similarly “DEA has more than doubled the production quota for marijuana each year based on increased usage projections for federally approved research projects.”

“DEA anticipates evaluating the applications and, of those applications that it finds are compliant with relevant laws, regulations, and treaties, granting the number that the agency determines is necessary to ensure an adequate and uninterrupted supply of the controlled substances at issue under adequately competitive conditions,” DEA said.

The note about compliance with treaties references an issue the agency has previously raised when addressing the grower applications. During his stint as acting attorney general, Matthew Whitaker blamed the delay on international treaties that he said “may not allow the way that marijuana has been handled from the grow facilities to the researchers.”

But those international agreements don’t actually prohibit the government from expanding marijuana manufacturers for research purposes, the State Department said in 2016.

The new notice says DEA has been consulting with other federal agencies “engaged in a policy review process to ensure that the marihuana growers program is consistent with applicable laws and treaties.”

“That review process remains ongoing; however, it has progressed to the point where DEA is able to issue Notices of Application,” it says. “Over the course of this policy review process, the Department of Justice has also determined that adjustments to DEA’s policies and practices related to the marihuana growers program may be necessary. Accordingly, before DEA completes this evaluation and registration process, DEA intends to propose regulations in the near future that would supersede the 2016 policy statement and govern persons seeking to become registered with DEA to grow marihuana as bulk manufacturers, consistent with applicable law.”

The announcement comes days before DEA was required under a federal court order to respond to a lawsuit concerning its inaction on cannabis manufacturer applications.

Dr. Sue Sisley, who belongs to the research facility that filed the lawsuit, told Marijuana Moment in a text message that the National Institute on Drug Abuse “monopoly is broken.”

DEA “didn’t want to explain themselves to D.C. Circuit Court, and there is little chance they can deny ALL 33” applications.

“So somebody NEW is FINALLY going to get to grow for research in U.S. after 51+ year government-enforced monopoly,” she said.

Sisley’s Scottsdale Research Institute was among those grower applicants listed in the Federal Register notice. Other notable applicants include Columbia Care NY, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, PharmaCan, the University of California at Davis and the University of Massachusetts.

In addition to moving forward on marijuana grower applications, DEA also clarified that hemp manufacturers “no longer require DEA registration for that purpose” since the crop was federally legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill and so “these applicants may respond in writing with a request to withdraw their applications.”

“Upon receipt of a request to withdraw an application that is received no later than November 1, 2019, DEA will refund all related application fees paid by the applicant,” DEA wrote. “In addition, any listed applicants who no longer wish to obtain registration for any other reason may also request to withdraw their application in writing, and DEA will refund all related application fees paid by the applicant, provided the withdrawal is received no later than November 1, 2019.”

This story was updated to include reaction from advocates.

White House Drug Officials Say Legal Marijuana Is Up To States

Photo courtesy of Evan Johnson.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.

Kyle Jaeger is Marijuana Moment's Los Angeles-based associate editor. His work has also appeared in High Times, VICE and attn.

Politics

Biden Says Marijuana Might Be A Gateway Drug

Published

on

Former Vice President Joe Biden (D) said on Saturday that he’s not sure if marijuana is a gateway drug that leads to the use of other, more dangerous substances.

“The truth of the matter is, there’s not nearly been enough evidence that has been acquired as to whether or not it is a gateway drug,” the 2020 presidential candidate claimed at a town hall meeting in Las Vegas. “It’s a debate, and I want a lot more before I legalize it nationally. I want to make sure we know a lot more about the science behind it.”

Please visit Forbes to read the rest of this piece.

(Marijuana Moment’s editor provides some content to Forbes via a temporary exclusive publishing license arrangement.)

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading

Politics

Vote To Federally Legalize Marijuana Planned In Congress

Published

on

A key congressional committee plans to hold a historic vote on a bill to end the federal prohibition of marijuana next week, two sources with knowledge of the soon-to-be-announced action said.

The legislation, sponsored by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), would remove cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and set aside funding to begin repairing the damage of the war on drugs, which has been disproportionately waged against communities of color.

Please visit Forbes to read the rest of this piece.

(Marijuana Moment’s editor provides some content to Forbes via a temporary exclusive publishing license arrangement.)

Image element courtesy of Tim Evanson.

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading

Politics

Where Presidential Candidate Deval Patrick Stands On Marijuana

Published

on

Former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) announced on November 14, 2019, that he is seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

The latecomer to the race does not have an especially reform-friendly record on drug policy issues compared to many of his rival contenders, and questions remain about where he stands on legalization for adult-use—or even medical use for that matter.

During his time as governor, he voiced opposition to a marijuana decriminalization proposal and raised concerns about a medical cannabis legalization measure. After voters approved that latter initiative, he said he wished the state didn’t have the program, and his administration faced criticism over its implementation.

That said, Patrick, who also served as the U.S. assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, does not appear to have expressed hostility to marijuana reform in recent years and during his time in office did take action in support of modest proposals such as resentencing for people with non-violent drug convictions. Here’s where the former governor stands on cannabis:

Legislation And Policy Actions

Patrick’s administration said that despite a marijuana decriminalization policy going into effect following the passage of a 2008 ballot initiative, law enforcement should be able to continue to search people suspected of possession. However, his office declined to approve a request from prosecutors to delay the implementation of the voter-approved policy change.

After the decriminalization proposal passed, Patrick directed the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) to develop an implementation plan.

“Our office will continue to work collaboratively with EOPSS and the district attorneys and law enforcement agencies on implementation,” a spokesperson said. “It’s an ongoing process.”

The then-governor said he would work to toughen up enforcement of fines levied against people possessing marijuana.

“The bottom line is the governor believes that if people are fined they should pay the fines,” a spokesperson for his administration said.

Following the passage of a 2012 medical cannabis initiative in Massachusetts, Patrick said simply that the “voters have voted,” and pledged that he wouldn’t seek to repeal the law.

But there were some complications that arose during his administration’s medical marijuana licensing approval process.

In February 2014, Patrick contradicted the state health department, which had recently announced that 20 business licenses had been accepted.

“No licenses have been given. No provisional licenses have been given. What we have is a multi-step process of screening out applicants,” he said. “Don’t get ahead of where we are. There was a balance struck here about trying to let the public in through transparency to the process even though the process was unfinished.”

When reports emerged that certain medical cannabis applicants had apparently provided false or misleading information in their application forms, Patrick said “[n]o good dead goes unpunished.”

“Rather than wait till the end when all that vetting and screening had been done, we’re going to do that first cut from 100 [applicants] down to 20, and we’re going to tell everybody,”

The next month, he dismissed requests for a review of the licensing process by applicants who the health department had rejected.

“I don’t think we gain anything by starting over,” he said. “We are in the middle of a process. Nobody has a license, no one is going to get a license until we meet the standards of the application process.”

Patrick was also criticized for failing to follow up with patient advocates who urged him to effectively implement the program.

“It appears the governor wants to skip out of office without addressing medical marijuana because he doesn’t want to talk about it and he doesn’t want to deal with it,” Massachusetts Patient Advocacy Alliance Executive Director Matthew Allen said in 2014.

Patrick’s successor, Gov. Charlie Baker (R), overhauled the his predecessor’s medical cannabis licensing process to create “a more streamlined, efficient, and transparent process that allows the Commonwealth to maintain the highest standards of both public safety and accessibility.”

Despite opposing marijuana decriminalization and expressing concerns about medical cannabis legalization, the governor did sign several drug policy reform bills during his time in office.

Patrick signed legislation in 2012 that reduced mandatory minimum sentences for people with non-violent drug convictions. He’d introduced a package of bills that included a call for the repeal of such mandatory minimums the previous year, earning praise from reform advocates.

“We need an effective and accountable re-entry program for those leaving the criminal justice system,” Patrick said in a statement. “Combining probation and parole, and requiring supervision after release, takes the best practices from other states to assure both public safety and cost savings.”

Another piece of legislation the then-governor proposed was to reduce the scope of “drug-free school zones,” where people charged with drug crimes would face mandatory minimum sentences. He recommended reducing the size of these zones from within 1,000 feet of a school to 100 feet.

Patrick signed off on a bill in 2014 to expand access to drug treatment.

“This bill creates some new rules and new tools for us to use together to turn to our brothers and sisters who are dealing with these illnesses and addiction and help them help themselves,” he said.

But in 2012, Patrick signed a bill prohibiting certain synthetic drugs called “bath salts.”

On The Campaign Trail

So far, Patrick has not made drug policy a center-stage issue in his campaign. However, his website says his agenda involves “making meaningful fixes to the big systems that consistently fail to meet modern needs.”

“This means a justice system that focuses less on warehousing people than on preparing them to re-enter responsible life,” the site says.

Previous Quotes And Social Media Posts

In 2007, a spokesperson for Patrick’s office said the governor would veto a proposed marijuana possession decriminalization bill. Patrick told the Associated Press that he had other priorities when asked whether he would sign the legislation.

He was listed as a supporter for a campaign that opposed the 2008 decriminalization ballot measure that voters later approved.

Several news reports from the time also noted that Patrick stood opposed to the modest proposal to remove criminal penalties for low-level cannabis possession.

Oddly, two years earlier, Patrick was asked about a decriminalization proposal during a debate and said that while he’s “very comfortable with the idea of legalizing marijuana,” he doesn’t “think it ought to be our priority.” He went on to say that he would veto a proposed decriminalization measure in the legislature.

Massachusetts voters also approved a 2012 medical cannabis initiative while Patrick was in office—in spite of the fact that he declined to endorse the measure.

Asked about the proposal during a radio interview with WBZ, the then-governor first cited an argument in support of legalization made by conservative author William F. Buckley Jr., who said regulating drug sales would remove a profit motive for illicit dealers. Yet he went on to say that “I’m not endorsing” the initiative.

“I’m not expressing a point of view and I’m not dodging, it’s just I’ve got so much else I’m working on,” he said.

The host asked if Patrick would implement the law if voters approved it and he said “that’s, I think, what we’re supposed to do.”

In September 2012, he said that he doesn’t “have a lot of enthusiasm for the medical marijuana” measure, which was set to go before voters two months later.

“I mean I have heard the views on both sides and I’m respectful of the views of both sides, and I don’t have a lot of energy around that,” he said. “I think California’s experience has been mixed, and I’m sympathetic to the folks who are in chronic pain and looking for some form of relief.”

“I really have to defer to the medical views about this and individuals will get a chance to vote on this,” Patrick said in April 2012. “I haven’t been paying much attention to it.”

While his administration struggled to implement the program after voters had approved it, Patrick said in August 2014 that “I wish frankly we didn’t have medical marijuana.”

Patrick doesn’t appear to have publicly weighed in during the Massachusetts campaign about legalizing marijuana for adult-use, which voters approved in 2016 after he had left office.

In 2012, Patrick said during a State of the State Address that Massachusetts should reevaluate how it treats people convicted of non-violent drug offenses.

“In these cases, we have to deal with the fact that simply warehousing non-violent offenders is a costly policy failure,” he said. “Our spending on prisons has grown 30 percent in the past decade, much of that because of longer sentences for first-time and nonviolent drug offenders. We have moved, at massive public expense, from treatment for drug offenders to indiscriminate prison sentences, and gained nothing in public safety.”

“We need more education and job training, and certainly more drug treatment, in prisons and we need mandatory supervision after release,” he said. “And we must make non-violent drug offenders eligible for parole sooner.”

He also said that the “biggest problem is that our approach to public safety has been to warehouse people,” and that the “answer is new policies, not bigger warehouses.”

“We’ve been warehousing people for whom what they really need is treatment and not just time,” he said during a town hall event in 2009.

Patrick voiced support in 2006 for a bill that would legalize the over-the-counter sale of needles in order to prevent the spread of disease.

“Deval Patrick supports this legislation because he believes it will reduce dangerous diseases in our state,” a campaign spokesperson said. “Studies in other states have shown that programs such as these decrease the rates of disease infection without increasing drug use.”

Patrick later criticized then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R) for vetoing the legislation, stating that the official “put misguided ideology before leadership in public health.”

Personal Experience With Marijuana

Patrick said in 2012 that he has never “experienced marijuana myself” but that during his school years there “was probably enough around me that there was a second-hand, a contact-high.”

Marijuana Under A Patrick Presidency

It is difficult to assess how Patrick would approach federal marijuana policy if elected president, but his vocal opposition to decriminalization in Massachusetts and his administration’s troubled implementation of medical cannabis legalization is likely to give advocates pause. While his current position on legalizing marijuana for adult-use is unclear, given that drug policy reform has become a mainstream issue that candidates are routinely pressed on, it is likely the former governor will be asked to weigh in on the campaign trail.

But for the time being, it appears that Patrick would not make marijuana reform a priority and, in fact, might prove more resistant to policy changes such as descheduling that the majority of candidates now embrace.

Where Presidential Candidate Mark Sanford Stands On Marijuana

Marijuana Moment is made possible with support from readers. If you rely on our cannabis advocacy journalism to stay informed, please consider a monthly Patreon pledge.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Stay Up To The Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox


Support Marijuana Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!