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.
Separate from the request for a hearing, the public still has until July 22 to submit comments on the overall rescheduling proposal.
Opposition organizations such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) have been successful in turning out critics of the move. The group, which for years has opposed loosening legal restrictions on cannabis, has in recent weeks earned significant national media attention around its pushback to rescheduling.
SAM has also been fundraising around the rescheduling news, sending out asks to supporters almost immediately following the policy announcement. “Our new Rescheduling Legal Defense Fund will be used to support our challenges of marijuana laws and regulations, specifically marijuana’s Schedule III recommendation,” the group’s donation page says.
The group’s leader, Kevin Sabet, also slammed the government’s scientific review process earlier this month, saying that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relied on “literally a few very bad studies” to justify rescheduling.
“It’s basically just saying that if it’s popular, then it’s approved, and then it’s accepted,” Sabet said of the process.
SAM has also asked DEA to delay the marijuana rescheduling process itself, arguing that a delay in the rulemaking process is a matter of “public interest.”
Below are excerpts of comments to DEA from various groups and individuals requesting an administrative hearing on the marijuana rescheduling proposal:
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.
Reclassifying any drug from Schedule I to Schedule III is a significant change. Especially considering how politically fraught the topics of marijuana use and legalization have become, a dramatic change in the classification of marijuana should not be done lightly or without sufficient public input. DEA should hold a public hearing on the Proposed Rule.
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…
We appreciate the complexity of this issue and how it relates to the mission of DEA and believe that a public hearing on this proposal would enhance transparency, integrity, and public confidence in this process, regardless of what final resolution is reached.
Drug Enforcement Association of Federal Narcotics Agents
Recent communication from the Assistant Secretary for Health and Human Services (HHS) in support of rescheduling marijuana is unfounded and in direct contradiction with its own SAMHSA (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration) evidence-based literature, NSDUH (National Survey on Drug Use and Health) reports, and grantee marijuana attestation requirements.
Numerous independent studies exist which quantify the steep rise in incidence of addiction, psychosis and mental illness directly resulting from increased marijuana use, especially among adolescents. The nexus between chronic use and mental illness is proven to increase homelessness effecting [sic] children and veterans the most. Related increases have been well-documented in marijuana-impaired driving incidents, emergency room visits, and hospitalizations. The negative impact of marijuana is undeniable and, in many cases, permanent. Even HHS’s own NIDA (National Institute on Drug Abuse) continues to publish studies warning about the significant harmful effects of teen marijuana use including permanent IQ reduction and schizophrenia. Administration support of marijuana rescheduling sends a clear message to our country’s youth that risky behavior is condoned, and mental wellness is disregarded.
DEAFNA is comprised of retired and active DEA agents, who unquestionably understand this issue from every perspective. In fact, DEA agents are the only federal employees whose sole mission since 1973 has been to enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States.
We are adamantly opposed to any intentional move that we predict will have such a drastically negative and permanent impact on public safety and health.
In a separate comment, the group’s president wrote:
We are currently in the throes of the deadliest drug threat in the history of America with respect to the fentanyl crisis. Consideration of such a drastic negative and permanent impact on our nation at this time is at best bad timing, reckless and completely disregards current science.
The first duty of government is to protect our citizens. This is a public safety and public health issue that deserves a formal hearing. Thank you for your commitment to Drug Enforcement and for your kind consideration of our request.
International Academy on the Science and Impact of Cannabis (IASIC)
We have an interest in the proceeding as physicians and concerned citizens of the United States of America who believe that re-scheduling will have immediate and irreparable harm to the public health…
Since botanical cannabis did not meet previous criteria for currently accepted medical use (CAMU), HHS pretextually changed the definition of CAMU from requiring FDA-approval—or meeting FDA’s core standards—to (1) “widespread current experience with medical use” of the substance in the United States by LHCPs operating in accordance with implemented State-authorized programs; and (2) “some” credible scientific support for a least one of those medical uses… Even using this broader definition, botanical cannabis fails to meet CAMU criteria…
The DEA states it will consider the marijuana-specific controls that would be necessary to meet U.S. obligations under the Single Convention, but ignores the issue of state-legal sales of recreational cannabis. Schedule 3 drugs can only be distributed by prescription by DEA registered practitioners. It follows that recreational cannabis stores would have to be shuttered and procedures for medical dispensaries revamped. These issues need to be addressed prior to a final rule.
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).
In accordance with 21 U.S.C. 811 and 812, the purpose of a hearing would be to ‘‘receiv[e] factual evidence and expert opinion regarding’’ whether marijuana should be transferred to schedule III of the list of controlled substances. We recognize the HHS’s scientific and medical determinations are accorded ‘‘significant deference’’ through the rest of the rulemaking process. However, scientific and medical determination based on flawed factual assumptions and incorrect data should not be afforded such deference. We respectfully submit that flaws in reasoning and incorrect factual assertions should be addressed by an administrative law judge, as the decider of fact, in this formal rulemaking process.
Before a final decision is reached on rescheduling, we respectfully request a hearing on the factually incorrect assertions of HHS, upon which the DEA and the Attorney General are relying in the proposal to make marijuana a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act. It is essential that the final rule rests upon solid reasoning and reliable facts.
Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI)
TBI joins other groups in strongly opposing the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III… A central concern is DOJ’s apparent lack of adherence to the established Eight Factor Analysis for evaluating the scientific and medical basis of such a rescheduling. Any rescheduling should be based on comprehensive scientific research, which it appears the Proposed Rule lacks. Aside from the deviation in the rescheduling process, TBI has concerns about the criminal justice, public-health, and social consequences of increased prevalence of marijuana that rescheduling would inevitably produce in our State. These consequences, which have played out in other States after legalization in some form, include: the heightened risk associated with the use of genetically modified and synthetically manipulated marijuana; the lack of necessary regulatory, pharmaceutical, medical, scientific, and enforcement infrastructure to manage the reschedule; and the inability to regulate marijuana production and prevent organized crime from exploiting the market, among other problems…
TBI would appreciate the opportunity to share and substantiate these concerns at a public hearing on the proposed rule.
