The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Facing Allegations on Marijuana Reclassification
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is currently under fire for its involvement in the impending hearing on the reclassification of marijuana. The agency stands accused of engaging in unauthorized interactions with anti-cannabis groups, thus contravening established legal mandates.
DEA Acting Head Did Not Validate Proposal
Breaking with its usual practices, the DEA did not see its acting head validate the proposal to reclassify cannabis. Instead, Attorney General Merrick Garland affixed his signature to the document. This irregularity has spurred legal action from Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International, parties intending to participate in the hearing, demanding remedial measures.
Allegations Against DEA
Allegations suggest the DEA bypassed established protocols by pursuing additional cannabis research subsequent to initiating the rescheduling process under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). These actions reportedly marginalized the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) from adequately contributing to the required research assessments. The legal motion criticizes the DEA for purportedly collaborating secretly with cannabis adversaries.
Scheduled DEA Hearing Deferred
Furthermore, the DEA’s scheduled hearing in December has been deferred, a decision emerging from apprehensions the ALJ had about the transparency of DEA’s selection of witnesses. The lack of detailed information about the DEA’s choice of 25 witnesses raised flags over possible impartiality issues. Although a preliminary meeting is slated for the following month, the in-depth examination of the issue will be delayed until at least 2025.
Complications with Hearing Timeline
Complicating the timeline of the hearings is a call from a marijuana and psychedelics expert to postpone the processing until the forthcoming Trump administration has the opportunity to review the rulemaking initiative. Despite the Biden–Harris administration overseeing the current assessment for cannabis rescheduling, Trump has also expressed support for policy reforms.
Reaction to the Allegations
Reacting to the allegations, the organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) criticized the new legal motion, expecting it to be dismissed as unfounded.
Objective of Legal Motion
The main objective of the motion is to advocate for the DEA’s disqualification as the advocate for this rescheduling initiative due to alleged partisanship and the agency’s noncompliance with the Administrative Procedures Act. The plaintiffs propose the Department of Justice or, alternatively, Hemp for Victory, should lead as proponents in the case.
Conclusion of Motion
The motion concludes by asserting that obligatory disclosure of undocumented contacts is not only a legal requirement but also a measure that would reinstitute trust in the legal processes. These assertions and procedural complications are fueling ongoing discussions within the stakeholder community regarding the marijuana rescheduling efforts.
