Connect with us

Politics

DEA Gets Few Comments On Far-Reaching Marijuana Research Proposal With Deadline Looming

Published

on

There are less than two weeks left for people to submit comments on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) proposed rule change that the agency says will enable it to increase the number of authorized growers of marijuana to be used in scientific studies.

Yet despite this major development, which includes a large-scale overhaul of the federal marijuana research program that grants DEA broadly expanded powers and controls, there appears to be relatively little public interest in providing feedback on the proposal so far—at least compared to previous cannabis-related rule changes that other federal agencies have posted.

When the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) opened a comment period for proposed regulations on hemp last year, for example, more than 4,600 people replied.

But as of Wednesday, just 31 people or organizations have weighed in on the new DEA notice that stands to have a lasting impact on marijuana research in the country and represents the culmination of a years-long conflict between scientists and the agency.

Four years ago, DEA pledged to expand cannabis cultivators for studies. Dozens of research institutions submitted applications, only to hear silence. A lawsuit alleged that DEA was deliberately delaying the process, leading the agency to issue an update last year stipulating that the application procedure had to be revised.

It turns out that there was more to that story. The scientist behind that lawsuit filed another case citing the Freedom of Information Act, requesting the disclosure of a “secret” Justice Department document she claimed was used to justify inaction on the applications. As part of a settlement, the department published a 2018 Office of Legal Counsel memo this month that concluded DEA was in violation of international treaties that dictate how member nations must approach the production of controlled substances.

The office further determined that in order to be in compliance, a single agency needed to control the possession and purchasing of marijuana for research. Currently, DEA registers scientists to obtain cannabis, which is grown by a third-party farm at the University of Mississippi that is overseen by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). DEA’s proposed rules would make it the sole agency in charge of research-grade cannabis, a change it says will put it in compliance with treaty obligations.

Generally speaking, researchers applauded the moves to authorize new growers, as it signals that the University of Mississippi monopoly on marijuana for research could soon be ending. That’s especially important given concerns about the quality of cannabis grown at the facility. One study found that its plants are chemically more similar to hemp than marijuana that is available to consumers in state-legal markets.

But not everyone is pleased with the details of the proposed rule change.

With the deadline for public comments fast approaching, here’s a look at what people and organizations are telling DEA about its proposal:

One of the major voices opposing the specifics of the new rules is NORML, which argued in its formal comment that DEA does not have the track record to inspire confidence that the agency is making a good faith effort to expand cannabis research.

“While NORML has long supported facilitating and expanding domestic clinical research efforts, we do not believe that these proposed rules, if enacted, will achieve this outcome,” the group said. “Rather, we believe that the adoption of these rules may further stonewall efforts to advance our scientific understanding of cannabis by unduly expanding the DEA’s authority and control over decisions that ought to be left up to health experts and scientists.”

“NORML opposes the DEA’s proposed rules and, instead, proposes a more practical alternative to facilitate clinical cannabis research in the United States,” the comment continues. “Rather than compelling scientists to access marijuana products of questionable quality manufactured by a limited number of federally licensed producers, NORML believes that federal regulators should allow investigators to access the cannabis that is currently being produced by the multitude of state-sanctioned growers and retailers throughout the country.”

The National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA) said it broadly opposes DEA’s proposed regulations, contending that as a law enforcement agency, it would be inappropriate for it to govern production and research into cannabis. NCIA raised a series of concerns and said the rules should either be dramatically amended or withdrawn entirely.

Chief among its recommendations would be for a public health agency like the National Institutes of Health to be responsible for domestic cannabis production for research purposes and to make it so marijuana cultivators that have been operating in compliance with state laws be eligible for grow the plant for studies.

As it stands, DEA’s proposal stipulates that applicants can be denied if they’ve violated the federal Controlled Substances Act—something all existing state-legal marijuana cultivation businesses have technically done.

“The federal government should be incentivizing research, not discouraging it,” NCIA said, adding that it should work to “create a pathway for less restrictive means by which the country can access important information about the medicinal properties of cannabis.”

The advocacy group Americans for Safe Access (ASA) said that while it is “in favor of expanding the production of research grade cannabis and supports research that can potentially lead to the approval by the FDA of cannabis based medicine,” the group is “skeptical of the DEA’s administration of the program and new framework design.”

ASA made several recommendations in the draft comment that has not yet been filed but was shared with Marijuana Moment, including ensuring that there is a “not-for-profit wholesaling scheme to distribute research grade cannabis” and allowing state-legal cannabis producers to participate in the program.

It also wants to remove NIDA from conducting medical cannabis research altogether due to an “unscientific agenda” it has demonstrated over its decades of controlling the process. ASA also suggested that if DEA “should fail to provide adequate licensure or unfairly distributes research grade cannabis (as they have in the past)” the agency should be stripped of its authorities and replaced with a new Office of Medical Cannabis Control.

“Increased access, exposure, and broader normalization of cannabis have deeply affected the American consciousness,” the group said. “Cannabis has become a more popularized form of medicine.”

An individual going by the name of Eric D. offered an interesting perspective in a separate comment, urging DEA to “include provisions to ensure equal opportunity to small- and mid-sized growers.”

“For example, reasonable application and processing fees, especially early in the application process, so the barriers to entry are not insurmountable for some applicants, while being insignificant for others,” the comment states. “Cannabis, unlike other medicines, can be produced by novice growers. It is of great concern that in the event that federal regulations for production become more permissive, a small group of producers will gain control of the entire market.”

Maridose, a company that said was formed because of DEA’s 2016 announcement about research expansion, said it is supportive of the proposed rule changes, though it outlined a series of questions it hoped the agency would clarify.

The company argued it would be helpful if DEA could clarify how the price of cannabis products it purchases will be determined, how it will ensure that there’s competition and availability of different marijuana varieties for researchers and what the packaging and shipping requirements will be for manufacturers.

“While remaining federal compliant and not currently involved in any Federal or State cultivation activities Maridose has developed strategic partnerships with world-renowned researchers and institutions with strong records of legal cannabis cultivation and biopharma research,” the comment states. “If granted a license by the DEA Maridose will be able to provide the highest quality standardized cannabis and cannabis extracts to meet the needs of groundbreaking lines of scientific inquiry.”

Another applicant, Biopharmaceutical Research Company, said it has also been compliant with the Controlled Substances Act by not growing cannabis to date, and argued that it has “undertaken this enterprise as a business, at great risk, because we believe in the importance of compliant and top-quality federal research.” While the company generally supports the agency’s regulations, it recommended making a change so that the current pool of applicants who have had their proposals pending for years are prioritized.

Those comments are some of the very few that have been submitted so far that are specifically responsive to the proposed rule change.

Others put their views more bluntly, calling for the end of prohibition altogether—including one from R. Michelle Anderson that quotes Nixon administration official John Ehrlichman about the racist intent behind marijuana criminalization enforcement.

“Making the rules even more complicated by adding another step just inflates the DEA coffers at the expense of the taxpayer, contributing to our bloated bureaucracy, while adding no needed benefit,” an anonymous commenter said, adding that they feel the rulemaking is the product of DEA’s “unwillingness to accept marijuana reform and impending federal legality, and therefore, are making it more difficult to study in an effort to maintain their position and status.”

North Dakota resident Blaine Hulbert said DEA has “had YEARS to get this done.”

“We would appreciate true action this time as well as DEREGULATING and FREEING of product to be housed at the facilities that are doing the research,” the comment says. “We know once it disappears into your coffers, we never hear any more about it.”

The deadline to submit comments on DEA’s proposed marijuana rule change is May 22.

Marijuana Groups Ask Congress To Include Banking Access In Next Coronavirus Bill

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.

Politics

Texas Lawmakers Approve Marijuana Decriminalization Bill In Committee

Published

on

A bill to decriminalize marijuana possession in Texas—as well as a separate proposal to reduce penalties for possessing cannabis concentrates—advanced out of a key House committee on Friday.

These are the latest developments that have come after a week where Texas lawmakers have considered a medley of marijuana reform measures. But arguably the most significant piece of cannabis legislation to move out of committee would make possession of up to an ounce of marijuana a class C misdemeanor that carries a fine but no threat of jail time.

The full House of Representatives approved a cannabis decriminalization bill in 2019, but it did not advance in the Senate that session.

This time around, the House Criminal Jurisprudence Committee approved the decriminalization bill, which would also prevent law enforcement from making arrests over low-level possession. Other decriminalization proposals that were under consideration by the panel this week would not prohibit that enforcement action, which is key because police are currently able to incarcerate people who are arrested for class C misdemeanors even though the charge itself does not carry the risk of jail time in sentencing.

The advancing legislation, HB 441, sponsored by Rep. Erin Zwiener (D), would also prevent the loss of a driver’s license or the creation of a criminal record for possession of up to one ounce.

Separately, the committee advanced legislation to make possession of up to two ounces of cannabis concentrates a class B misdemeanor.

Both bills were among the subjects a lengthy hearing the panel held on Tuesday.

“Marijuana bills are moving through the committee process at record speed this session,” Heather Fazio, director of Texans for Responsible Marijuana Policy, told Marijuana Moment. “There’s good reason to be optimistic about the upcoming votes and the House and advocates will be doubling down their efforts to influence senators.”

This action comes one day after the House Public Health Committee unanimously approved a bill to significantly expand the state’s medical marijuana program.

Sponsored by Chairwoman Stephanie Klick (R), the bill would add cancer, chronic pain and post-traumatic stress disorder (for veterans only) as conditions that could qualify people for the state’s limited medical cannabis program.

It would further allow the Department of State Health Services to add more qualifying conditions via administrative rulemaking. And it would also raise the THC cap for medical marijuana products from 0.5 percent to five percent.


Marijuana Moment is already tracking more than 900 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.

On Thursday, the House Agriculture and Livestock Committee also discussed legislation that would make certain changes to the state’s hemp program, including imposing rules related to the transportation and testing of consumable hemp products.

While the Texas legislature has historically resisted most cannabis reforms, there are signs that this session may be different.

House Speaker Dade Phelan (R) said during a Texas Young Republicans event last month that while he wouldn’t be able to distinguish marijuana from oregano, he said, “I understand the issue.”

The speaker said that he voted for a limited medical cannabis legalization bill during his freshman year in the legislature, and his support for the reform is partly based on the fact that he has a “sister with severe epilepsy, and small amounts of CBD oil makes a big difference in people’s lives.”

Phelan also noted that he was a “joint author—no pun intended” of cannabis decriminalization legislation last session.

“I was able to go back home and explain it, and it wasn’t a big deal,” he said. “To me, it’s a reasonable criminal justice reform issue.”

Texans’ support for legalizing marijuana has grown significantly over the past decade, according to a poll released last month.

Sixty percent of state voters now back making cannabis legal “for any use,” the University of Texas and Texas Tribune survey found. That compares to just 42 percent who said the same back in 2010.

Leaders in both chambers of the legislature have recently indicated that they anticipate more modest proposals to be taken up and potentially approved this session, particularly as it concerns expanding the state’s limited medical cannabis program.

Phelan said he thinks “the House will look at” reform measures this year, including bills to legalize for adult use. He said the lawmakers will likely “review those again, and some will get traction, some will not.” However, the Senate remains an obstacle for comprehensive reform.

Legislators in the state prefiled more than a dozen pieces of cannabis legislation ahead of the new session. That includes bills that would legalize recreational marijuana, allow high-THC cannabis for medical use and decriminalize low-level possession of marijuana.

That said, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick (R), who presides over the Senate, has killed prior efforts to enact reform in the state, raising questions about the prospects of far-reaching changes advancing in the chamber.

Nevada Lawmakers Approve Marijuana Bill To Allow On-Site Consumption Lounges

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

Nevada Lawmakers Approve Marijuana Bill To Allow On-Site Consumption Lounges

Published

on

A bill to allow on-site marijuana consumption lounges advanced through a Nevada Assembly committee on Friday. The panel separately passed a measure making it so the concentration of THC in a person’s blood cannot be singularly used to determine impairment while driving.

The social use legislation, sponsored by Speaker Pro Tempore Steve Yeager (D), would create two new licensing categories for cannabis businesses in the state. One would be for “retail cannabis consumption lounges” and the other would be an “independent cannabis consumption lounge.”

Existing retailers could apply for the former license and sell products that could be consumed on-site by adults 21 and older. Independent lounges would not be permitted to sell cannabis on their own, but would need to have marijuana products delivered to consumers from another source.

That said, independent licensees could submit a request to regulators to sell cannabis that they produce or to enter into a contract with an adult-use retailer to sell their products.

The state’s Cannabis Compliance Board would also be responsible for creating regulations for on-site facilities and setting fees for license applicants. Businesses that qualify as social equity applicants would have a reduced fee.

Under the legislation, a person “who has been adversely affected by provisions of previous laws which criminalized activity relating to cannabis, including, without limitation, adverse effects on an owner, officer or board member of the applicant or on the geographic area in which the applicant will operate” is considered a social equity applicant.


Marijuana Moment is already tracking more than 900 cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.

Yeager proposed a large-scale amendment to the proposal before it was approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee. It builds on the definition and scoring system for social equity applicants, revises public safety requirements for lounges and ensures that products purchased at lounges cannot be removed from the facility, among other changes.

The Las Vegas City Council in 2019 approved an ordinance allowing for social consumption sites within city limits.

That year, Alaska became the first state to enact regulations that provide for the on-site use option at dispensaries. Colorado followed suit with legislation approved that legalized cannabis “tasting rooms” and “marijuana hospitality establishments” where adults could freely use cannabis. Social consumption sites are also provided for in New York’s recently enacted marijuana legalization law.

In Nevada, adding new license types and giving consumers this option—especially in the tourist-centric state—could further boost marijuana and other tax revenues. And Gov. Steve Sisolak (D) has had a particular interest in ensuring that those tax dollars support public education, which he talked about during a State of the State address in January.

Sisolak has also committed to promoting equity and justice in the state’s marijuana law. Last year, for example, he pardoned more than 15,000 people who were convicted for low-level cannabis possession.

That action was made possible under a resolution the governor introduced that was unanimously approved by the state’s Board of Pardons Commissioners.

Under the impaired driving bill that separately cleared the committee on Friday, the per se blood test for THC would no longer be used in determining impairment.

Advocates have argued that the limit is arbitrary and there’s a lack of scientific evidence demonstrating a link between the amount of THC metabolites present in the blood and active impairment.

New Mexico Governor Sends Marijuana Bill Sponsors A ‘Save The Date’ For Expected Legalization Bill Signing

Photo courtesy of Martin Alonso.

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

Biden Gets Yet Another Congressional Letter Blasting Marijuana-Related White House Firings

Published

on

President Joe Biden has received yet another letter from a lawmaker demanding answers about his administration’s practice of firing or otherwise punishing staffers for prior marijuana use.

Rep. Angie Craig (D-MN) noted the national push to end prohibition and how the White House’s actions reveal a troubling disconnect.

“Cannabis is legal for either medical or adult use in 36 states, with numerous states pursuing efforts to further legalize for adult use,” the congresswoman wrote. “In Minnesota, our state legislature is expected to vote on measures to legalize cannabis in the coming months following years of political and community organizing by activists throughout the state.”

“Minnesotans and the American people are demanding change to our harsh and unequally applied cannabis laws,” she wrote. “I look forward to seeing your Administration reverse course on this harmful and unnecessary hurdle to hiring diverse and talented public servants.”

Craig also mentioned efforts to legalize marijuana at the federal level and commented on Biden’s prior statements on more modest reforms.

“I stand ready to work with you as we revisit our country’s drug laws, including the descheduling of cannabis as a Class 1 drug at the federal level,” she said. “You have previously expressed your commitment to decriminalizing cannabis in acknowledgement that a cannabis conviction or even the stigma of cannabis use can ruin lives and prevent people from voting, gaining employment and contributing to society.”

This is the third letter from lawmakers that Biden has been sent regarding the federal marijuana employment controversy.

A coalition of 30 members of Congress sent a letter last month that sharply criticizes the administration for terminating or punishing multiple White House staffers who disclosed their prior cannabis use. They pointed out that Vice President Kamala Harris and at least one one other Cabinet member are on record about their own marijuana use experiences.

Prior to that, Rep. David Joyce (R-OH) sent a similar message to the president condemning news of the marijuana-related firings for people who were honest about their history with cannabis on a federal form that’s required as part of the background check process.

“Simply put, in a nation where the truth is considered malleable, we need to demonstrate to our young public servants that telling the truth is an honorable trait, not one to be punished,” the congressman wrote. “I respectfully request that your administration discontinue punishment of staff for being honest about their prior cannabis use and reinstate otherwise qualified individuals to their posts.”

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki addressed the controversy last month, saying during a press briefing that while Biden could theoretically end the policy of firing staff over prior marijuana use himself, that’s not happening as long as cannabis is federally illegal.

She later said that the president’s stance on marijuana legalization “has not changed,” meaning he’s still opposed to the comprehensive reform.

Psaki has previously attempted to minimize the fallout over the cannabis firings, with not much success, and so her office released a statement last month stipulating that nobody was fired for “marijuana usage from years ago,” nor has anyone been terminated “due to casual or infrequent use during the prior 12 months.”

Read the new letter to Biden on White House marijuana employment policy below: 

Letter to Biden Regarding C… by Marijuana Moment

New Mexico Governor Sends Marijuana Bill Sponsors A ‘Save The Date’ For Expected Legalization Bill Signing

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

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Support Marijuana Moment

Marijuana News In Your Inbox

Marijuana Moment