Search
Search
Close this search box.

Immediate Investigation into DEA’s Conduct Demanded Ahead of Rescheduling Hearings Amid Fresh Allegations of Bias

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has come under renewed pressure to be removed from the upcoming cannabis rescheduling process amid fresh allegations of bias.

In November, 2024, Business of Cannabis reported that a 57-page motion calling for the DEA to be removed from the rulemaking process and be replaced by the Department of Justice had been submitted, before ultimately being dismissed by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney.

Now, according to attorneys representing Village Farms and Hemp for Victory, fresh evidence has come to light that demands a reconsideration of the judge’s ruling.

The new filing, submitted on January 06, alleges that the DEA, rather than supporting the proposed rule, has actively worked against it by using outdated and legally rejected criteria to undermine cannabis’ medical and scientific value.

The attorneys point to a recent declaration by a DEA pharmacologist that echoed ‘anti-rescheduling talking points,’ including claims that cannabis has a high potential for abuse and no accepted medical use. This stance directly contradicts the findings of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling using a broader two-factor analysis.

Moreover, the motion accuses the DEA of improper ex parte communications with opponents of rescheduling, including the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and anti-cannabis organizations like Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America (CADCA).

These groups are said to have coordinated closely with the DEA while pro-rescheduling participants, such as the state of Colorado, were denied participation in the hearings.

The exclusion of Colorado, a leader in cannabis regulation, and the inclusion of Nebraska’s attorney general, an outspoken opponent of rescheduling, have raised significant concerns about fairness.

The attorneys also allege that the DEA deliberately delayed the submission of critical evidence until shortly before the hearings, circumventing HHS’s scientific review and depriving pro-rescheduling parties of a transparent and balanced process.

This last-minute data submission, the motion argues, violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), further undermining the integrity of the proceedings.

The motion calls for an immediate investigation into the DEA’s conduct, including the extent of undisclosed communications with anti-rescheduling entities. The attorneys demand full disclosure of relevant communications, a postponement of the hearings, and a special evidentiary hearing to address the alleged misconduct.

They also request that the DEA formally declare its position on the rescheduling proposal, citing concerns that the agency is improperly acting as both the proponent and opponent of the rule.

This latest development follows earlier allegations that the DEA failed to provide sufficient information about its witnesses and improperly obstructed requests from advocacy groups and researchers to participate in the hearings. Critics argue that the DEA’s actions not only compromise the rescheduling process but also erode public trust in the agency’s ability to conduct fair and impartial regulatory proceedings.

If the motion is granted, it could significantly delay the rescheduling hearings, currently set to begin later this month, and force a reevaluation of the DEA’s role in the process. The outcome of these hearings is being closely watched by stakeholders in the cannabis industry, as rescheduling to Schedule III would ease federal tax burdens, reduce research barriers, and represent a pivotal shift in US cannabis policy.

Related Posts

Related Posts

CONNECT

Related Posts

Related Posts

Recent Posts

Related Posts

Subscribe to our mailing list to receives daily updates!

We won’t spam you

Categories

Browse by Tags

CATEGORIES

EDITION

BUSINESS OF CANNABIS

© 2023 Prohibition Holdings Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

EDITION

Are you sure want to unlock this post?
Unlock left : 0
Are you sure want to cancel subscription?