Two Democratic congresswomen, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN), have taken a strong stand against the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) new acting administrator, Derek Maltz, for his controversial views on marijuana. Their remarks highlight a growing divide over cannabis policy and reflect frustrations with what they see as outdated attitudes.
A Heated Debate Over Cannabis Policy
Derek Maltz, who recently came out of retirement to assume the DEA role, has sparked controversy with his statements on marijuana. He has labeled cannabis a “gateway drug,” linked it to school shootings, and criticized the ongoing effort to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under federal law.
Ilhan Omar, who now co-chairs the Congressional Cannabis Caucus, dismissed Maltz’s comments as antiquated. “What is he, 100 years old?” she remarked. “All of that has been debunked for a really long time, and I think it’s such a boomer thing to say.” She added that legal marijuana has proven to be a critical resource for many people, offering therapeutic benefits for various conditions.
Ocasio-Cortez echoed her colleague’s sentiments, suggesting that if Maltz is genuinely concerned about marijuana’s health impacts, he should support descheduling it entirely to enable comprehensive research. “Does he have a medical degree?” she asked pointedly. “We can learn from states that have treated marijuana like alcohol and regulated it accordingly.”
Controversial Claims Spark Outrage
Maltz’s tenure with the DEA and his outspoken views on marijuana have raised eyebrows. His assertion that state-regulated cannabis markets fail to curb illegal sales because of high taxes has been met with skepticism. Critics argue that his comments oversimplify the complex dynamics of regulated markets versus black-market operations.
Additionally, Maltz has accused the Department of Justice (DOJ) of sidelining the DEA in the marijuana rescheduling process, claiming the agency “hijacked” the effort for political gain. He criticized the DOJ’s handling of the process, which included a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services to shift marijuana to Schedule III—a move that could significantly alter federal cannabis policy.
The Broader Implications of Leadership Choices
Who leads the DEA during this critical period will have lasting consequences for U.S. drug policy. Maltz’s appointment as acting administrator comes amid delays in administrative hearings on the rescheduling proposal, which have been postponed by at least three months due to procedural appeals and allegations of improper communications between the DEA and anti-reform groups.
Adding to the intrigue, former DEA official Jack Riley is reportedly being considered for the permanent position. Riley has previously described marijuana as a gateway drug, suggesting that his appointment could reinforce the agency’s hardline stance on cannabis. Meanwhile, other leadership candidates, such as Florida Sheriff Chad Chronister, have faced pushback for advocating marijuana decriminalization.
Mixed Messages From Political Leaders
The broader political landscape adds another layer of complexity. The Biden administration initiated the rescheduling process, a significant step toward reform, but the Trump administration’s influence on the DEA could shift the momentum. Trump’s choice for U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has declined to clarify her stance on marijuana policy, leaving advocates and stakeholders in limbo.
For now, the cannabis debate remains deeply polarized. Pro-reform lawmakers like Ocasio-Cortez and Omar are pushing for a science-driven approach, while figures like Maltz cling to narratives many see as outdated. The outcome of this leadership battle could shape federal cannabis policy for years to come.