The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is pushing back against efforts to have it removed from marijuana rescheduling hearings, rejecting claims that it has conspired with opponents of the proposed reform. However, the agency remains tight-lipped about its actual stance on the potential move to reclassify marijuana under federal law.
A Heated Battle Over DEA’s Role
Last week, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney directed the agency to respond to a motion by pro-rescheduling witnesses alleging misconduct. The DEA submitted its reply on Monday, dismissing the allegations and calling for the motion’s dismissal.
Proponents of rescheduling marijuana, including groups like Village Farms International, Hemp for Victory, and several individual advocates, argue that the DEA’s actions and communications suggest a conflict of interest. They claim the agency is working against the very reform it is tasked with defending in the proceedings.
One focal point of the allegations is a recent declaration by a DEA pharmacologist, which reportedly cast doubt on the scientific basis for reclassifying marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). Additionally, critics allege undisclosed communications between the DEA and anti-rescheduling witnesses, including the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a well-known prohibitionist group.
Allegations of Secret Communications
Pro-rescheduling participants claim to have uncovered nearly 100 undisclosed requests to participate in the hearings and allege that the DEA coordinated with anti-rescheduling entities behind closed doors. The motion described this as “additional damning evidence” of unlawful communication and a lack of transparency.
The DEA, however, has dismissed these accusations, arguing that the cited evidence was already accessible to the witnesses and does not constitute new information.
“Movants have failed to demonstrate good cause for filing their request out of time because they have failed to demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence was unavailable to them at the time they filed their original ex parte motion despite their diligent efforts to discover it,” the DEA stated in its response.
Judge’s Previous Rulings Leave the Debate Open
This is not the first time these allegations have come up. Earlier, Judge Mulrooney declined to remove the DEA from its role as the proponent of the rescheduling rule. However, he did acknowledge that there were troubling indications of inappropriate communication between the DEA and SAM.
Separately, a federal judge recently dismissed a lawsuit that sought to compel the DEA to release its communications with SAM, further complicating efforts to shed light on the agency’s internal decision-making.
The DEA maintains that it has no conflict of interest that would prevent it from fulfilling its duties in the case. “Movants fail to prove that DEA suffers an actual conflict of interest that would prevent it from fulfilling its role as proponent of the rule in this case,” the agency asserted in its latest filing.
Proponents Challenge DEA’s Witness Selections
Another point of contention involves the DEA’s selection of witnesses for the hearings. Advocates for rescheduling argue that the agency has excluded key voices, such as representatives from the state of Colorado, while including figures aligned with anti-cannabis perspectives.
Critics say this selective approach undermines the credibility of the hearings and raises questions about the DEA’s impartiality. The agency has countered that its witness list reflects its commitment to presenting a balanced perspective on the issue.
What’s at Stake?
Rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would mark a significant shift in federal drug policy. A Schedule I classification denotes substances with a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use, putting marijuana in the same category as heroin. Moving to Schedule III would acknowledge its medical value and reduce regulatory hurdles, particularly for research and businesses.
The proceedings have broad implications for the cannabis industry, public health policy, and the legal landscape surrounding marijuana. Advocates argue that rescheduling could expand research opportunities and reduce criminal penalties, while opponents warn of potential unintended consequences, such as increased misuse.