Groups Push DEA To Hold Hearing On Biden Administration’s Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal

Opponents of federal marijuana reform—and some legalization supporters—are requesting that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hold public hearings on the government’s planned move to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act.

Prohibitionists, law enforcement and former DEA leaders are leading the charge for the administrative hearing, asserting that the government’s review process that led to the Schedule III recommendation was deeply flawed, overstates the medical benefits of marijuana and glosses over what the groups say are significant public health risks of rescheduling.

The filings came ahead of a deadline Thursday to submit requests for the hearing. Among them are submissions from groups that oppose the reform, such as a coalition of 18 state attorneys general and a number of former DEA administrators.

State Attorneys General

First, rescheduling marijuana as a Schedule III drug is likely the most consequential rulemaking DEA has ever undertaken. The Proposed Rule carries both national and international ramifications. It would change the definition of currently accepted medical use and would alter the way the federal government implements international treaty obligations under the United Nations’ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. The Proposed Rule also represents the most significant relaxation of narcotics restrictions in the history of the CSA. Such sweeping changes cannot properly be made in the absence of a robust administrative record. That’s why Congress required such decisions to be made on the record with an opportunity for a public hearing.

Second, a hearing would aid DEA’s evaluation of the important sociological and scientific issues at stake in any major shift in drug classification. As DEA made clear in the Proposed Rule, additional data and rigorous scientific analysis is needed to determine whether marijuana may be appropriately assigned to Schedule III. A hearing is needed to sort through competing claims about marijuana’s pharmacological effects, potential for abuse, and impacts on public safety. Such a hearing would allow outside experts to present their views on the most current evidence on those topics, and their presentations would be subject to cross-examination. It would also allow local leaders, law enforcement groups, and advocacy organizations to speak on the complexity of this issue.

Former DEA Administrators

First, changing marijuana to Schedule III is likely the most consequential rulemaking DEA has ever attempted. Apart from the merits of rescheduling marijuana, it is undeniable that the decision has national and international significance. The rule proposes to change the definition of currently accepted medical use, as well as change the way the federal government implements our international treaty obligations under the Single Convention. It would be the most significant relaxation of narcotics restrictions in the history of the CSA. Such a sweeping change should be undertaken only on a robust administrative record. That is why Congress required that such decisions be made on the record and with opportunity for a hearing.

Second, a hearing would enhance DEA’s evaluation of the important sociological and scientific issues at stake. 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. Sifting through the competing claims about marijuana’s pharmacological effects, potential for abuse, and implications for public safety, are best done at a hearing. It would allow outside experts to offer their view of the latest evidence and be subjected to cross-examination. It would allow local leaders, law enforcement groups, and other advocacy organizations to speak to the complexity of this issue…

National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA)

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) issued in this matter contains a significant number of factual inaccuracies. In accordance with 21 CFR sections 1308.44(a) and 1316.47(a), we respectfully request that you grant a hearing on the record to consider the factual documentary evidence and expert witness testimony we would proffer to prove factual inaccuracies submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and upon which the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Attorney General are expected to rely for the decision about rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

More On This News Here