Politics
DEA Pushing Marijuana Rescheduling Past Election Is ‘Incredibly Disappointing,’ Congressman Says As Stakeholders React To Hearing
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) decision to schedule a public hearing on the Biden administration’s proposal to reschedule marijuana in December, after the election, has been met with mixed reactions. Congressional lawmakers, industry stakeholders and advocates are sharing a range of perspectives on the procedural development—from disappointment to cautious optimism. Prohibitionists, meanwhile, are ecstatic.
While supporters of the rescheduling action hoped to see a final rule issued before the November election, DEA announced on Monday that it would hold an administrative hearing on the proposal to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) on December 2. The timeline leaves room for the possibility that final rulemaking may not happen until after the next administration takes office, creating added uncertainty about the ultimate outcome.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), co-chair of the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, said on Tuesday that it’s “incredibly disappointing to see the DEA drag their feet on an issue which has been a clear White House priority.”
However, he said that while he “would have preferred to see rescheduling finalized before the election, we still have every reason to believe that it will happen before President Biden leaves office.”
Blumenauer, who is retiring at the end of this Congress, added that he still has “every hope that because of our work together,” Vice President Kamala Harris, the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, “will take further steps to rationalize cannabis policy and end the failed war on drugs.”
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), for his part, shared a Marijuana Moment news article about DEA scheduling the hearing, adding a simple message: “Delist Cannabis.”
While Gaetz, like Blumenauer, supports federally legalizing marijuana altogether, he also took some by surprise recently when he said he’d be voting against a Florida cannabis legalization initiative as a resident of the state, arguing that the reform would be better addressed legislatively, rather than as a constitutional amendment on the ballot.
Delist Cannabis https://t.co/UXuDODca3J
— Matt Gaetz (@mattgaetz) August 26, 2024
Bryan Barash of Dutchie, who co-chairs the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform, said that “a hearing was always a possibility, and we are prepared for it.”
“We believe that medical evidence and public opinion are overwhelmingly in favor of a swift final rule. If the Drug Enforcement Administration moves ahead with the hearing, we urge them to conduct it in a timely manner,” he said. “Members of our coalition have petitioned to participate in any hearing. Now that the Drug Enforcement Administration has granted one, we expect to have a seat at a table. The Biden Administration’s review of cannabis has been expedited at every stage, and we remain optimistic that the proposed rule will be finalized this year.”
That take strikes a more optimistic tone compared to how many industry stakeholders have taken the news. Marijuana stocks have slumped following the announcement, as expectations about a final rescheduling rule being issued before the November election—partly fueled by dubious reporting—were dashed.
A hearing was always a possibility, and we are prepared for it. We believe that medical evidence and public opinion are overwhelmingly in favor of a swift final rule. If the DEA moves ahead with the hearing, we urge them to conduct it in a timely manner. https://t.co/U6uiHrxNMl
— Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform (@SchedReform) August 26, 2024
But it was far from certain that the administration would move to the final rulemaking without an administrative hearing, especially given the widespread public interest in the issue and multiple requests from reform supporters and opponents alike to take that additional procedural step.
NORML Deputy Director Paul Armentano said in a blog post that administrative hearings “are an integral part of the rescheduling process.”
“To think that the DEA, which historically has opposed any changes to cannabis’ prohibitive status, would sign off on the most significant proposed change in federal marijuana policy in over fifty years absent such hearings was always wishful thinking,” he said. “That said, the scientific evidence in favor of removing cannabis from Schedule I remains overwhelming. Cannabis clearly has legitimate therapeutic value and it possesses a superior safety profile compared to other Schedule I or Schedule II controlled substances.”
Steph Sherer, founder and president of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), also weighed in on the announcement, emphasizing that, “Millions of patients, their families, and healthcare providers are counting on leaders in Washington to prioritize their rights and health needs.”
“The delay in the rescheduling process only highlights the urgent need for federal representatives who will champion the integration of cannabis into our healthcare infrastructure and advocate for the rights of those who rely on it,” she said.
The prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) has made clear they’re enthused by the scheduling of the hearing, with SAM President Kevin Sabet calling it a “huge win in our fight to have this decision guided by medical science, not politics.”
SAM’S REQUEST FOR HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RESCHEDULING OF MARIJUANA GRANTED BY DEA
SAM Will Make The Case That Marijuana Must Remain in Schedule I
Statement from @KevinSabet pic.twitter.com/l37K0chzoJ
— SAM (@learnaboutsam) August 26, 2024
“We will seek to use this hearing to spell out in detail how marijuana continues to fail to meet the criteria to be rescheduled,” he said.
The psychedelics research company Panacea Plant Science (PPS), which has challenged DEA’s administrative hearing process over the agency’s proposed ban on certain psychedelic substances, told Marijuana Moment that “PPS is happy to see the hearing scheduled as we were one of the groups the DEA referenced as requesting a hearing in the original announcement.”
“We plan to challenge the legality of the hearing ahead of time and thus cause it to be canceled or delayed while our challenges play out,” PPS CEO David Heldreth said. “The Biden, Harris, DEA and DOJ did not follow proper administrative law process including their findings of no tribal implications, which is key to our challenge and expect the cannabis rule making to be delayed several years.”
In Congress, numerous lawmakers have shared their own perspectives on the proposed reform with DEA and DOJ since the Schedule III announcement was made in March.
In August, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) raised concerns about the Biden administration’s justification for recommending marijuana rescheduling—demanding answers to questions from federal agencies about how they arrived at that decision in what he described as a rushed and unconventional administrative process.
A week earlier, top Democratic senators—including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—sent a separate letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram urging the agencies to ”promptly finalize” the rule to reschedule marijuana.
While rescheduling would remove certain research barriers and free up state-licensed cannabis business to take federal tax deductions under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E, it would not federally legalize marijuana, as the Congressional Research Service (CRS) has made known in multiple recent reports.
Meanwhile, two additional congressional lawmakers have joined the ranks of GOP members who are challenging what they say is the “unusual” process that led the Biden administration to propose rescheduling marijuana, expressing concern about how the review was carried out and demanding answers.
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) condemned the Biden administration’s push to reclassify marijuana, as well as legislative efforts to enact bipartisan cannabis banking reform, because he says the policy changes would “prop up this immoral industry” and give a “green light to the evil that comes from drug use.”
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also blasted the Biden administration over what he described as repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.
Similarly, 25 GOP congressional lawmakers sent a public comment letter in July opposing the administration’s planned rescheduling of marijuana, specifically alleging the government’s recommendation was based on politics rather than science.
At the Republican National Committee convention last month, multiple GOP lawmakers spoke with Marijuana Moment about their own views on how cannabis policy issues such as rescheduling could be impacted if former President Donald Trump wins the November election. They generally deferred to the nominee, but there were mixed opinions about what they would like to see happen.
Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD), for his part, said at the event that “I don’t care” whether rolling back the Biden administration’s marijuana rescheduling move under a potential Trump presidency would hurt the Republican party, because he feels more strongly that the modest reform would endanger public health.
Also, bipartisan congressional lawmakers are seeking to remove a controversial section of a spending bill that would block the Justice Department from rescheduling marijuana—one of several cannabis- and psychedelics-related amendments to appropriations legislation.
GOP senators have separately tried to block the administration from rescheduling cannabis as part of a standalone bill filed last September, but that proposal has not received a hearing or vote.
Meanwhile, in one public comment on the proposed rule, a group representing state-level cannabis regulators recently called on the Biden administration and DEA administrator to provide a clear explanation of how rescheduling marijuana would affect federal enforcement priorities and the U.S. government’s interaction with jurisdictions that regulate cannabis products.
A series of recent polls shows widespread majority support for marijuana legalization, rescheduling and cannabis industry banking access among likely voters in three key presidential battleground states: Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
Photo courtesy of Mike Latimer.
