New claims have surfaced accusing the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of undermining a proposed shift in federal marijuana policy. Attorneys for cannabis advocacy groups argue that the agency’s actions suggest an active opposition to reclassifying marijuana, despite being tasked with defending the change.
Allegations of Improper Conduct Surface
The controversy centers on a proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This change could redefine the drug’s legal standing, signaling recognition of its medical uses and reducing its restrictions.
Attorneys for Village Farms International and Hemp for Victory contend that the DEA’s recent conduct demonstrates hostility toward the proposal. In a motion submitted to the administrative law judge (ALJ) overseeing the hearings, the groups allege that the DEA’s pharmacologist, in newly submitted testimony, adopted arguments traditionally used by anti-cannabis advocates. These arguments challenge marijuana’s medical value and emphasize its potential for abuse.
This motion follows an earlier request to remove the DEA as the proponent of the rule—a request the ALJ previously denied.
A Rejected Legal Standard and Delayed Data
The motion highlights a critical issue: the DEA relied on a five-factor test to assess marijuana’s medical value, a method deemed too narrow by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). Instead, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) employed a simpler two-factor analysis in recommending rescheduling.
Timing has also raised eyebrows. The DEA submitted its findings late in the process, circumventing requirements to provide data prior to HHS’s scientific review. By doing so, the motion claims, the agency undermined a transparent review process and violated administrative law.
“DEA’s timing raises serious questions about whether the process was fair to all parties,” said a representative from Hemp for Victory.
Unequal Treatment and Undisclosed Communications
The cannabis groups allege further misconduct involving DEA’s handling of participants in the hearings. Nearly 100 requests to join the proceedings were reportedly ignored or undisclosed, including a request from Colorado, a state with significant cannabis regulatory experience. By contrast, Nebraska’s attorney general—a staunch opponent of rescheduling—was allowed to participate.
The motion also claims the DEA coordinated with anti-cannabis groups like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. SAM’s president has publicly boasted about having confidential sources within the DEA, further fueling suspicions of bias.
“This looks less like an impartial process and more like a campaign against reform,” said one of the attorneys.
Favoring Anti-Cannabis Witnesses
The DEA is also accused of favoring witnesses opposing the rescheduling rule. For example, the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA) is listed as a resource on the DEA’s website and will testify in the hearings. Critics argue this undermines the appearance of neutrality in the proceedings.
Legal Battles and Public Scrutiny
These allegations come on the heels of a dismissed federal lawsuit that sought to compel the DEA to disclose its communications with SAM. The dismissal has done little to assuage concerns, with cannabis advocates pointing to newly published documents that they say reveal further bias in the agency’s actions.
What’s Next for the Hearings?
While the DEA ALJ rejected calls to remove the agency as the proponent of the rule, allegations of improper communication have not been fully resolved. The cannabis groups hope the new evidence will prompt reconsideration.
Observers say the stakes are high. A decision to reschedule marijuana could pave the way for broader reform, including increased research and changes to banking and tax policies affecting the cannabis industry. However, if the process is tainted by bias, any decision could face legal challenges.
For now, all eyes are on the upcoming hearings, where both sides will present their case. Whether the DEA’s role remains tenable or further allegations emerge could shape the future of marijuana policy in the United States.
