The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has begun its hearing on the Biden administration’s proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The hearing is expected to be largely procedural, preparing for more substantive hearings next year.
The DEA has designated itself as the “proponent” of the proposed rule, but there is skepticism about where the agency’s leadership stands on the issue and whether it may insert bias into the hearing process. The agency’s administrator, Anne Milgram, did not sign the proposed rule, which is unusual, and the DEA has repeatedly stated that it needs additional information before reaching a conclusion on the rescheduling proposal.
The proposed rule would free up licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers, but it would not federally legalize marijuana. The DEA has said that the regulatory controls applicable to Schedule III controlled substances would apply, along with existing marijuana-specific requirements and any additional controls that might be implemented.
The hearing has generated significant public interest, with proponents and opponents set to appear. However, there has been controversy surrounding the process, with some arguing that the DEA is not taking a neutral stance and that the agency’s leadership is not committed to the rescheduling proposal.
The Biden administration has faced criticism for the delay in the rescheduling process, with Vice President Kamala Harris expressing frustration with the bureaucratic process. The administration has also faced opposition from some lawmakers, including Senator Chuck Grassley, who has raised concerns about the justification for the proposed rescheduling.
Despite the controversy, the DEA’s hearing is expected to be a significant step towards potentially rescheduling marijuana, which could have significant implications for the cannabis industry and research.
