Law The Cannabis Chronicles - Misc Cannabis News

[Baron23]

FDA Head Says There’s ‘No Reason For DEA To Delay’ Rescheduling Marijuana

The head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says there’s “no reason” for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to “delay” making a marijuana scheduling decision.


FDA Commissioner Robert Califf also said that, “as a child of the sixties,” it would “be nice if in my lifetime we came up with a regulatory scheme” for cannabis.


At a hearing before the House Oversight and Accountability Committee on Thursday, Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) pressed Califf on the timeline for the scheduling review after his agency under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended that DEA move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

CBD Can Help Treat Pain, Cancer, Schizophrenia, COVID And Other Conditions


The “timing of a regulatory decision is something that would be up to the DEA, not up to me,” Califf said. “There’s no reason for DEA to delay. They have to take into account all the regulations that are in play.”


Asked whether he expects FDA would assume additional regulatory responsibilities if cannabis is rescheduled, the commissioner said that’s a “very complicated topic,” especially given that this “falls in this area where state regulation has been dominant.”



“This is an area where I believe we would be better off if we had guidance from Congress about how to proceed,” Califf said. “Medical marijuana is one thing where there’s a medical purpose and it’s proven through traditional medical pathways, but when it’s used for recreational purposes, there is no medical benefit in that case, it doesn’t fall under our typical regulation.”


Mace, who also recently discussed scheduling issues and the need for the GOP-controlled House to advance cannabis reform legislation, also raised concerns about the prevalence of hemp-derived intoxicating cannabinoids and the lack of regulations around those products.



“Without revealing too much about my age, I’m a child of the sixties so it’d be nice if, in my lifetime, we came up with a regulatory scheme where—whatever your belief is about use of the product—where the safety issues that you refer to are written into law so that we have a scheme whereby we can regulate it.”


Prohibitionist Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) also addressed the cannabis scheduling issue, stating he believes that “FDA did not base its assessment in scientific facts or realities of how marijuana has been abused and used in our country today.”



FDA’s recommendation to reschedule cannabis “completely ignores the realities of a drug that is causing enormous consequences of children and adults in our country, high schools, middle schools and communities.”


He then repeated talking points that he and other GOP lawmakers forwarded to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram urging the agency to keep marijuana in Schedule I of the CSA, including criticism of the revised review process FDA used that involved a new a two-pronged analysis instead of a five-factor review that has been used in the past. Opponents of cannabis reform argue this policy shift is evidence of FDA intentionally exercising more discretion to justify its rescheduling recommendation for political, rather than scientific, reasons.

 

[Baron23]

Cannabis Rescheduling Review ‘Now With The DOJ’ ​

White House Suggests Department of Justice May Determine Cannabis Rescheduling.​

The White House Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, has suggested that the Department of Justice could now have the final say in whether cannabis is rescheduled.


Asked whether the state is ‘doing anything to try to improve safety’ or considering the legalization of cannabis federally moving forward during a press conference yesterday, Ms Jean Pierre said that the scheduling review is ‘now with the DOJ’.


“So as you all know, the President asked the Secretary of HHS (Department of Health and Human Services) and the Attorney General to initiate the administrative process to review how marijuana is scheduled.


“HHS has concluded their independent review guided by the evidence, the scheduling review is now with DOJ and any input should certainly be directed to them at a time and in a manner they say is appropriate…At this point, now that HHS has completed their review, it’s in the Department of Justice, and they can speak to where marijuana rescheduling is at this point.”


The statement, first reported by Marijuana Moment, comes amid growing pressure and signs of commitment from the Biden administration to implement reform at the federal level.


Following the HHS recommendation that cannabis should be moved from a Schedule I substance to a Schedule III substance, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is continuing its review into the matter, and the industry is eagerly awaiting its decision.


According to sources speaking to Green Market Report however, the timing of this decision remains unclear, and the process could yet take years to come to fruition. With a November presidential election looming, this leaves the future of the initiative uncertain.


David Culver, Senior Vice President of public affairs at the US Cannabis Council, told the publication: “The president’s campaign politics dictate, in my mind, that we’re going to see a decision before the election, for sure, simply because they’ve already started to focus on the work they’ve done on cannabis reform, and the rescheduling piece of it is going to be the centrepiece.”

 

[Baron23]

I have to throw the BS flag on this. In over 3 years Biden hasn't really done squat to legalize MJ. And remember, the DOJ, DEA, and FDA all work for him.

But now he seems to be in a tough reelection cycle he panders to MJ advocates with what....a fucking tweet. Fuck him. He's been a drug cold warrior his entire career and I don't believe he's changed his stripes except to make noise as part of his reelection campaign.

P.S. - see today's post in New Mexico to see what the Feds...under Biden...are actually doing.

Joe Biden And Kamala Harris Tweet About Marijuana At Exactly 4:20 On 4/20​

President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both touted their support for marijuana law reform to mark the cannabis holiday 4/20 at exactly 4:20 p.m. on Saturday.

The comments are latest sign the administration plans to continue to focus on the popular issue ahead of the November election.

“Sending people to prison just for possessing marijuana has upended too many lives and incarcerated people for conduct that many states no longer prohibit,” the president said in a post on X. “It’s time that we right these wrongs.”

“Nobody should have to go to jail for smoking weed,” the vice president said in her own tweet at the same time. “We must continue to change our nation’s approach to marijuana while reforming the justice system so it finally lives up to its name.”

Later on Saturday, Biden tweeted that he’s “urging all governors to pardon prior state offenses of simple possession of marijuana.”

“No one should be in a federal prison solely due to the possession of marijuana, and no one should be in a local jail or state prison for that reason, either,” he said.

A day before, on Friday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden has been “very, very clear” about his support for decriminalizing marijuana. She added that the administration is waiting for the Justice Department to complete its review into cannabis scheduling and doesn’t have any additional updates on advancing reform or further expanding pardons.

She was responding to a question at a press briefing about advocates’ criticism that Biden has not yet fulfilled his campaign pledge to federally decriminalize marijuana, even though he has taken meaningful steps by directing the scheduling review and granting hundreds of cannabis pardons.

“Look, on decriminalization the president has been very, very clear he doesn’t believe that anyone should be in jail or be prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana,” she said. “He continues to say that. He believes that.”

That was the second time the White House has been asked about marijuana policy in the last week, as discussions around reform have been amplified around the cannabis holiday 4/20. As was the case earlier this week, Jean-Pierre reiterated that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) based on a review that was “guided by evidence [and] by science,” which is “what we believe here in this administration.”

“The scheduling review is now with the Department of Justice. Certainly, the process is still going—the review is still going—so DOJ has this,” she said. “But the president has been really, really clear about how he feels about people being prosecuted just for using or possessing marijuana. That has not changed.”


Asked whether there are any plans to further expand on the marijuana pardons the president has issued, the press secretary said “as it relates to pardons, I don’t have anything to preview at this time.”


“But look, there’s a review that Department of Justice is currently undergoing, so we’ve got to let them do their review,” she said. “The president has been pretty clear on where he stands on this, and so I would refer to Department of Justice on on rescheduling and their review.”


While the administration has repeatedly promoted Biden’s marijuana scheduling directive and pardons, especially in recent months as the presidential election approaches, it’s notable that the press secretary used the word “decriminalization” to discuss his position on the issue. Biden campaigned on decriminalization, but that specific language hasn’t been employed of late.


That might have to do with the reality that even moving marijuana to Schedule III as HHS has recommended would not, in fact, decriminalize it—nor do the president’s clemency actions to date constitute a formal decriminalization policy.


That’s why a group of 20 justice and drug reform advocacy organizations called on Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris to publicly support the removal of marijuana from the CSA, rather than merely a move to Schedule III, in a letter to the White House on Tuesday, as a reporter referenced in his questions to Jean-Pierre on Friday.


While DEA has not given a specific sense of timing for when it will complete and submit its cannabis review, there are heightened expectations that it will come before the November election—both because of past precedent in scheduling matters and because the Biden administration has become increasingly vocal about its role in facilitating the review.


Biden has continued to tout the marijuana scheduling directive and cannabis pardons he’s issued, including in a presidential proclamation declaring April “Second Chance Month.”


The president also discussed the marijuana actions in a historic context last month, during his State of the Union address.


Harris, meanwhile, separately urged DEA to finish its review and reschedule marijuana “as quickly as possible” while meeting pardon recipients for a roundtable event at the White House last month. Behind closed doors, she also said “we need to legalize marijuana.”


The head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under HHS told congressional lawmakers last week that there’s “no reason” for DEA to “delay” making a marijuana scheduling decision.


A DEA official recently said it sometimes takes up to six months for DEA to complete its analysis of health officials’ scheduling recommendations—which is just about how long it has now been since the agency began its current cannabis assessment.


Meanwhile, last month, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra defended his agency’s rescheduling recommendation during a Senate committee hearing and also told cannabis lobbyist Don Murphy that he should pay DEA a visit and “knock on their door” for answers about the timing of their decision.


Certain DEA officials are reportedly resisting the Biden administration’s rescheduling push, disputing the HHS findings on marijuana’s safety profile and medical potential, according to unnamed sources who spoke with The Wall Street Journal.


Meanwhile, a Democratic congressman said on Friday that this Saturday will be the “last 4/20 celebration that cannabis will be on Schedule I,” adding that he’s “quite confident” the GOP House will take up a bipartisan cannabis banking bill if lawmakers “break this loose in the Senate.”

 

[Baron23]

I'm not a one issue voter, but I believe the GOP is absolutely wrong in their position on MJ legalization and this position fails to reflect the desires of the majority of voters as demonstrated in many, many polls.

​

Congressional Progressive Caucus Says Democrats Can Legalize Marijuana If They Win House And Senate Majorities In November Election​

The Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) has unveiled a new legislative agenda that includes marijuana legalization and expungements among a list of priorities that members say Democrats “can pass with congressional majorities” if they keep the Senate and retake the House in the November elections.

The Progressive Proposition Agenda that was endorsed by the caucus covers a wide range of domestic policy issues that CPC’s chair, Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA), says are designed to “motivate people with a vision of progressive governance under Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic White House.”
Under a criminal justice section, the caucus is reiterating its call for federal cannabis legalization. It comes in stark contrast to a recent Republican Policy Committee memo urging GOP members to oppose even incremental reform proposals such as a bipartisan marijuana banking bill.

The progressive agenda specifically encourages legislative and administrative action to “reduce criminalization and incarceration through sentencing reform, legalizing cannabis, expunging records, providing restorative justice, and an accelerated and reformed clemency process for people with marijuana-related convictions.”

“Progressives are proud to have been part of the most significant Democratic legislative accomplishments of this century,” Jayapal said in a press release on Thursday. “We have made real progress for everyday Americans—but there’s much more work to be done.”


“With the Progressive Proposition Agenda, Democrats in Congress can meet the urgent needs people are facing, rewrite the rules to ensure majorities of this country are no longer barred from the American promise of equality, justice, and economic opportunity, and motivate people with a vision of progressive governance under Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic White House,” she said.

The cannabis reform proposals are among the items CPC says “Democrats can pass with congressional majorities that will deliver immediate, tangible results for everyday Americans as well as rebuild systems that have held communities back for too long.”

In contrast, the Republican Policy Committee set out a demonstrably different agenda in a recent memo that formally opposes marijuana banking legislation and a separate bill to remove past cannabis use as a disqualifying factor for federal employment and security clearances, while broadly criticizing the substance as a “gateway drug” that causes “violence, depression and suicide.”

Meanwhile, a separate Executive Action Agenda that CPC put forward last year urged President Joe Biden to direct federal agencies to “expedite” the ongoing marijuana scheduling review and reinstate guidance protecting state cannabis programs from federal interference.

That preceded the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) disclosing their recommendation to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is now completing its own review before making a final decision.
When CPC rolled out its platform in 2020, it called for marijuana to be legalized within the first six months of 2021 and the expungement of prior records.

 

[Baron23]

This is an excerpt from a longer article. Full article, much of which has to do Ventura's personal MJ activities and history, can be read by following the link. But I thought this part deserved posting...mostly because I agree with him! haha Drug enforcement is the DEA's rice bowl and that trumps any and all other considerations for a fed bureaucracy, IMO. Protect the rice bowl...protect the funding.

DEA Shouldn’t Be In Charge Of Marijuana Rescheduling Decision, Jesse Ventura Says

Former Minnesota Gov. Jesse Ventura isn’t planning to run for elected office again in the foreseeable future, choosing instead to commit his “total focus” to his newly launched cannabis brand. But if he was running, he tells Marijuana Moment that he’d make cannabis legalization a top campaign...

www.marijuanamoment.net

"MM: Biden has issued marijuana pardons and initiated the cannabis scheduling review that’s now being carried out by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). Can I get your thoughts about that process?​

​

JV: I guess the first thing that I did was I had to scratch my head and go, “Why is the DEA, the enforcement people, allowed to make the decisions on whether it should be legal or not?”​

​

​

I mean, excuse me, they have the biggest conflict of interest of anybody on the planet, right? Because if they keep it illegal, that means they stay in business and they get way more money allocated to them by the federal government to continue to go out and bust people for cannabis. How come they’re the deciding agency?​

​

​

Excuse my French, but that’s bullshit. You know, that’s like putting the police in charge of lawmaking. You elect people to make laws. The police merely enforce the law. Why are you allowing the enforcer of the law to make the law?"​

 

[Baron23]

Well, there goes Sabet and the rest of the anti-drug warriors principal scare tactic.

​

‘No Evidence’ That Marijuana Legalization For Adults Increases Youth Cannabis Use, New Research Published By American Medical Association Finds​

Authors of a new research letter published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on Wednesday said there’s no evidence that states’ adoption of laws to legalize and regulate marijuana for adults have led to an increase in youth use of cannabis.


To arrive at the results, researchers at Montana State University and San Diego State University took responses from the Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS), which asks high-school students about various health-related activities, the report explains. All told, the four-author team analyzed results from 207,781 respondents.


Findings showed that states’ adoption of recreational marijuana laws (RMLs) had no association with the prevalence of youth cannabis consumption.

Marijuana Consumers Have "Significantly Decreased Odds" Of Cognitive Decline

“In this repeated cross-sectional study, there was no evidence that RMLs were associated with encouraging youth marijuana use,” the two-page paper published in JAMA Psychiatry says. “After legalization, there was no evidence of an increase in marijuana use.”

Legalization “adoption was not associated with current marijuana use or frequent marijuana use.”

Nor did the opening of marijuana retail stores seem to impact youth use. “Estimates based on the state YRBS and estimates of the association between the first dispensary opening and marijuana use were qualitatively similar,” the team wrote.


Authors wrote that, in their study, “more policy variation was captured than in any prior study on RMLs and youth marijuana use.” Pre- and post-legalization data were available for 12 states, and nine contributed data from before and after retail sales began. Data also included 36 states without adult-use cannabis laws.



The data come on the heels of another JAMA-published study earlier this month that found that neither legalization nor the opening of retail stores led to increases in youth cannabis use.


That study, published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics, concluded that the reforms were actually associated with more young people reporting not using marijuana, along with increases in those who say they don’t use alcohol or vape products either.


Passage of recreational cannabis laws (RCL) “was not associated with adolescents’ likelihood or frequency of cannabis use,” found the analysis, by researchers at Boston College and the University of Maryland at College Park. Nor was the opening of retail stores associated with increases in youth use.


Over time, that study suggested, adult-use marijuana laws in fact led to lower odds of any cannabis use. “Each additional year of RCL,” it says, “was associated with 8% higher odds of zero cannabis use (lower likelihood of any use), with non-significant total estimates.”



“Results,” that study concluded, “suggest that legalization and greater control over cannabis markets have not facilitated adolescents’ entry into substance use.”


The subject of youth use has been a contentious topic as more states consider legalizing marijuana, with opponents and supporters of the reform often disagreeing on how to interpret results of various studies, especially in light of the sometimes mixed results in the latest JAMA paper and others.


Recently released data from a Washington State survey of adolescent and teenage students found overall declines in both lifetime and past-30-day marijuana use since legalizations, with striking drops in recent years that held steady through 2023. The results also indicate that perceived ease of access to cannabis among underage students has generally fallen since the state enacted legalization for adults in 2012.

 

[Baron23]

Who needs the circus when we have a 24x7x365 day clown show called out Federal government. As should be obvious by now, I'm a firm supporter of MJ legalization and personally think moving it to Sched I will cause a cascade of issues (such as requiring a Dr prescription and a pharmacy to be involved). With all that said, these politicians are just flapping their jaws. Exactly when did ANY of them introduce legislation to modify the Controlled Substance Act. Oh yeah, that's right....its Congress' job to set the law, no a bureaucracy like the DEA. Failure by Congress to even try to do anything about this is malfeasance IMO.

Congressional Lawmakers Demand DEA ‘Promptly’ Reschedule Marijuana, Regardless Of ‘Internal Disagreement’ At The Agency​

A coalition of 21 congressional lawmakers is telling the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to “promptly remove marijuana from Schedule I,” while recognizing that the agency may be “navigating internal disagreement” on the issue.

In a letter led by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and John Fetterman (D-PA), as well as Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR) and Barbara Lee (D-CA), members told DEA Administrator Anne Milgram and Attorney General Merrick Garland that it’s been eight months since the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended that DEA move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—and it’s “time for [DEA] to act.”

They added that the current Schedule I status of marijuana “produces a cascade of severe penalties for marijuana users and businesses, including for criminal records, immigration statuses, employment, taxation, health care, public housing, social services, and more.”
Teen Marijuana Use Has Declined In Washington Since Legalization

Citing prior letters, the lawmakers—including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)—reiterated that while a Schedule III reclassification would be a “meaningful improvement, the only way to remedy the most concerning consequences of marijuana prohibition is to deschedule marijuana altogether.”


“The DEA now has the power to determine whether it will continue the failed approach of keeping marijuana in Schedule I,” the letter says.



“Although some at the DEA have indicated that the agency’s review of an HHS scheduling recommendation often takes up to six months, almost eight months have now passed since the DEA received HHS’s recommendation,” they said. “While we understand that the DEA may be navigating internal disagreement on this matter, it is critical that the agency swiftly correct marijuana’s misguided placement in Schedule I.”


That point references reporting in The Wall Street Journal that said DEA officials are “at odds” with the Biden administration over the scheduling review.



“The longer marijuana remains scheduled in the CSA, the longer our communities face senselessly severe penalties and the longer the marijuana laws of the majority of U.S. states remain in conflict with federal law,” the letter continues. “Right now, the Administration has the opportunity to resolve more than 50 years of failed, racially discriminatory marijuana policy.”


“We trust that the DEA is working as quickly as possible toward a decision on how marijuana is scheduled, as Vice President Kamala Harris recently reassured stakeholders. We are also hopeful that the DEA will not make the unprecedented choice to disagree with HHS’s medical finding that a drug does not belong in Schedule I.”


The letter concludes by applauding President Joe Biden for promoting marijuana reform during his State of the Union address and saying Second Chance Month represents a “prime opportunity to finally begin remedying the harms of marijuana’s scheduling by removing marijuana from Schedule I.”



“We look forward to your prompt action and appreciate your attention to this important matter,” they said.


The letter, which was first reported by HuffPost, also cites a response several senators received from DEA earlier this month explaining that the agency is carrying out its duties in the cannabis review and “must follow the procedures set forth in the [CSA], including an opportunity for a public comment period and a hearing.”


That’s notable, as it appears to be the first time DEA has explicitly acknowledged the likelihood of a public feedback period including a public hearing after it announces the conclusion of its review.



Other signatories on the letter include Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeff Merkeley (D-OR), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Reps. Robert Garcia (D-CA), Dina Titus (D-NV) and more.


Meanwhile, the head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) says there’s “no reason” for DEA to “delay” making a marijuana scheduling decision.


Last month, HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra defended his agency’s rescheduling recommendation during a Senate committee hearing and also told cannabis lobbyist Don Murphy that he should pay DEA a visit and “knock on their door” for answers about the timing of their decision.

 

[Baron23]

"While the Biden campaign email criticized the prior administration’s action, however, it omitted the fact that any cannabis guidance has yet to be reissued under the current administration—despite Attorney General Merrick Garland saying in June 2022 that DOJ would be addressing the issue “in the days ahead.”​

Can't make this shit up....wow, I really hate politicians

Biden Campaign Says Trump ‘Took Marijuana Reform Backwards’ By Rescinding Enforcement Memo, Despite Current Admin Failing To Reinstate It​

The Biden reelection campaign says the Trump administration “took marijuana reform backwards” by rescinding Justice Department guidance that promoted discretion in federal cannabis prosecutions.

In an email distributed on Thursday, the Biden-Harris campaign touted the vice president’s White House roundtable with recent pardon recipients who received clemency for drug-related convictions and contrasted various criminal justice reform initiatives with the record of former President Donald Trump, who is the presumptive Republican nominee in this year’s presidential election.

Vice President Kamala Harris’s event—where she again touted President Joe Biden’s mass cannabis pardons—comes in “stark contrast with the Trump administration’s failures on criminal justice reform,” the Democratic ticket’s campaign email said, listing various policy actions from the former president.

Young Americans Are Five Times More Likely To Smoke Marijuana Than Cigarettes

“Trump and his administration took marijuana reform backwards, withdrawing guidelines to limit prosecutions of marijuana offenses that were legal under state laws,” the email says.

That’s a reference to former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’s move to rescind Obama-era guidance known as the Cole memo that laid out federal cannabis enforcement priorities, generally formalizing a policy of non-intervention for state-legal marijuana activity.

The practical impact of the decision was limited, as states have continued to operate legal marketplaces and approve additional legalization laws largely without federal interference. But the move was symbolically significant, raising concerns about a potential federal crackdown that never ultimately materialized.

While the Biden campaign email criticized the prior administration’s action, however, it omitted the fact that any cannabis guidance has yet to be reissued under the current administration—despite Attorney General Merrick Garland saying in June 2022 that DOJ would be addressing the issue “in the days ahead.”

When Garland was asked about the issue during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last March, he said that it was “fair to expect” that the updated marijuana policy would be “very close to what was done in the Cole Memorandum.”

Two Democratic congressional lawmakers said in a letter to Garland late last month that it is “unacceptable” that the Justice Department has yet to reissue the federal marijuana enforcement guidance to discourage interference in state cannabis programs, leaving Americans in a “legal limbo” despite promises to update the policy.

In any case, the Biden campaign’s choice to draw the cannabis contrast is notable, representing one of the latest examples of how the president is aiming to leverage the popularity of marijuana reform ahead of the November election.

“On criminal justice, the contrast couldn’t be clearer: while Trump talks about pardoning January 6th rioters and celebrating violence, Vice President Harris and President Biden are giving a second chance to people convicted of nonviolent drug offenses,” Biden-Harris campaign spokesperson James Singer said in Thursday’s email.

Meanwhile, on the cannabis holiday 4/20 last Saturday, both Biden and Harris promoted marijuana policy reform in social media posts at exactly 4:20pm ET.

The president also discussed the cannabis actions in a historic context last month, during his State of the Union address.

Earlier this month, Biden, Harris and a top Justice Department official all marked “Second Chance Month” by separately touting the administration’s mass marijuana pardons—another acknowledgement from the White House that cannabis reform is a focus heading into the November election.

 

[Baron23]

Is Weed a winning issue? Why Biden and Trump pounce legalize pot​

Joe Biden and Donald Trump have a prime political opportunity to pounce on marijuana legalization, especially in four key swing states.​

American voters face a November rematch for president that many did not want, and the winner will be the oldest man ever to hold or retake the White House. So courting young voters makes plenty of sense for President Joe Biden and the man he defeated in 2020, Donald Trump.


And there's an issue that, while polling strongly with all Americans, really appeals to voters under the age of 35 − the legalization of marijuana.


Three of the anticipated seven swing states already have approved full recreational and medical use for marijuana − Arizona, Michigan and Nevada. The other four − Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin − all still have strict limitations. This, despite plenty of polling in those states and nationwide that shows strong support for full legalization.


One problem there, according to Morgan Fox, the political director for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), is that public support has always been "a mile wide and an inch deep."


That's another way of saying that while plenty of people favor legalization, it has never been a political priority for them. "But that's definitely starting to change, especially as we roll into the next presidential election, where we have arguably one of the most informed young electorates that we've ever had," Fox told me.

Polls show strong support for marijuana legalization​

Gallup, in a survey released in November, said public support for legalization hit a record 70% "after holding steady at 68%" for the three previous years. And the younger you are, the more likely you feel that way. The survey found 79% support from people ages 18-34, 71% for respondents ages 35-54, and 64% for those 55 or older.


There was strong bipartisan support as well among Democrats (87%), independents (70%) and Republicans (55%).


Biden and Trump clearly know this, though they have taken different approaches to legalization.


Biden, during his State of The Union address in March, noted that he had called for a federal review of marijuana being classified as a "Schedule 1 drug," which means it has "no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse," according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, which lists heroin and LSD in the same category.


Biden also touted his expungements of thousands of criminal convictions for people charged on federal land, repeating a phrase he has used often − "because no one should be jailed for using or possessing marijuana!"


Biden softened his resistance to legalization during the 2020 campaign, but NORML still wants more from him.


"He has not lived up to his promises on the campaign trail in terms of decriminalizing and de-scheduling," Fox said. "But he has done more than any sitting president ever on this issue."


Trump, during his one term as president, issued pardons for people convicted for distributing marijuana and, on his last day in office, commuted the sentences for a dozen people convicted of similar crimes.


But in an interview with Newsmax last year, Trump called marijuana "pretty popular" while warning it does "significant damage." This month, in a speech at the National Rifle Association's Leadership Forum, he shifted blame for gun violence to "genetically engineered cannabis and other narcotics are causing psychotic breaks."


Fox told me Trump "did a lot of pretty decent things" on criminal justice reform and marijuana while in office.


"But when asked on the campaign trail, the former president really did not have a solid or cogent position on the issue," he said.

Marijuana laws vary by state​

The swing states that have not embraced legalization are governed by a patchwork of marijuana laws that don't come anywhere close to meeting what the voters want.


In Georgia, the state keeps a registry of people who can use "low THC oil" for medical uses. A poll last year by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the University of Georgia found that 53% of the registered voters in that state said marijuana should be fully legal for adults.


"We don't consider Georgia to have an effective medical cannabis program," Fox said.


In North Carolina, medical marijuana became available for purchase this month on the tribal lands of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. But Fox warned: "The second you step off tribal land you are subject to arrest."


North Carolina's legislature considered but did not pass a medical marijuana bill last year. A Meredith College poll in February found that 78% of registered voters in that state support medical marijuana.


Pennsylvania approved medical marijuana in 2016, but Gov. Josh Shapiro, a Democrat elected in 2020 and widely expected to run for president in 2028, pitched full legalization in his February budget address as a way to raise $250 million in state revenue per year.


A Franklin & Marshall College Poll of registered Pennsylvania voters this month found that 62% support full legalization.


And in Wisconsin, Gov. Tony Evers supports full legalization or just medical marijuana. But the state legislature, which looked at only medical uses, in February punted the issue until next year.


A recent Marquette Law School Poll of registered Wisconsin voters found that 86% support medical marijuana while 63% support full legalization.


There is a prime political opportunity for Biden and Trump to pounce on the issue, especially in these four states.


Decriminalization doesn't cut it with a majority of voters, who want marijuana legalized 54 years after it was added to the list of Schedule 1 drugs by the the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.


In a hyperpartisan election cycle with candidates and voters at odds over so many issues, why not grab hold of and run with an issue so many people agree on?

 

[Marlon Rando]

US drug control agency will move to reclassify marijuana in a historic shift, AP sources say

In a historic shift, the U.S. moves to reclassify marijuana as a less dangerous drug, AP sources say.

apnews.com

 

[Baron23]

Rescheduling Cannabis Shifts The Paradigm By Finally Recognizing Its Medical Value (Op-Ed)
on May 1, 2024 By Marijuana Moment


“Schedule III will not lift all barriers to research, but it may contribute to the advancement of urgently needed research, which should be prioritized and vigorously pursued.”
By Shawn Hauser, Vicente LLP
The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) decision to reschedule cannabis represents a historic and critically important shift in U.S. drug policy. By moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Controlled Substances Act, the U.S. government is finally (and officially) recognizing the efficacy and safety of cannabis for medical use.
Marijuana Consumers Have "Significantly Decreased Odds" Of Cognitive Decline

There are valid and important reasons why Schedule III is not the most appropriate classification for cannabis. It does not achieve imminently needed criminal justice reforms; state-regulated cannabis activities remain federally illegal; and some barriers to research and effective regulation remain. A strong case can be made that cannabis, like alcohol, should not be included in the drug schedules. There are also reasons to believe that “descheduling” was not in the realm of possibility in this administrative process and that rescheduling will hasten the route to that goal.


Rather than debating what the federal government could have or should have done, let’s take a closer look at what it is doing and why it matters. Specifically, let’s look at its implications for medical patients and the enduring impacts that will come from the federal government officially acknowledging cannabis’s medical value.



Legitimacy in the Medical Community


Despite evidence of medical cannabis use dating back thousands of years, a growing body of promising research and doctors recommending medical cannabis in 38 states where it is legal under state law, cannabis has spent the last 50 years on Schedule I—which is reserved for substances with “no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse.” Recognition of cannabis’s medical benefits has grown considerably in recent years, but it remains less accepted and less understood than many other medications and treatments.



The endocannabinoid system is not typically included in American medical school curriculums, despite being the largest neurotransmitter system in the body, with critical importance to its function. A lot of physicians will not recommend medical cannabis because they fear legal or professional repercussions, including many in states with medical cannabis programs. Even when doctors do recognize cannabis as a potentially valuable treatment, most are not equipped to fully utilize it.


In Schedule III, cannabis is deemed to have an accepted medical use in treatment and relatively low potential for abuse. This legitimization could be transformative for the medical community and its role in advancing medical cannabis, inviting engagement and shifts in public opinion by doctors, universities and medical institutions. Paired with some loosened requirements for research and the potential for additional capital (which are discussed further below), this should result in more studies on product formulations, dosage and modes of administration. It may also reduce stigma and alleviate physicians’ concerns about recommending it or learning about its benefits.



To be clear, Schedule III does not allow cannabis to be dispensed at neighborhood pharmacies and sold through interstate commerce, as these avenues are limited to Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs. To date, FDA has approved only one cannabis-derived drug (Epidiolex), along with three synthetic cannabinoid-based drugs for specific conditions. Cannabis sold in state-legal dispensaries will remain in clear violation of federal law. For over a decade, however, DEA and FDA have not interfered with state cannabis programs, which is a testament to the relative safety of marijuana when it is regulated responsibly.



Opportunities for Research and a New Standard for Medical Use in Treatment


Marijuana’s Schedule I status and unreasonable DEA policies that stemmed from it made it nearly impossible (by design) to conduct the standard of research that proves the medical efficacy and safety of cannabis. For decades, DEA has denied petitions and ignored mountains of compelling evidence, often citing the lack of scientific evidence that it was overtly blocking.


President Biden’s strong directive to expeditiously review the scheduling of cannabis provided the force necessary to spark a review by HHS and DEA that applied more reasonable standards when considering whether cannabis has accepted medical use. Remarkably, they considered state data in determining whether cannabis has accepted medical use.



This evolved standard also holds promise for the development of cannabis-based medicines. Rates of innovation and consumer demand in both pharmaceutical and more raw forms of cannabis indicate a place and need for both. A “regulate cannabis like alcohol model,” preserving the FDA drug pathway while providing a framework for adult-use products (as proposed in the STATES 2.0 Act), would support this.


Existing research indicates cannabis holds tremendous promise for a wide range of medical and therapeutic uses, including pain and opiate use disorders, which have reached epidemic levels in recent years. Yet clinical trials are limited in comparison to other treatments. Schedule III will not lift all barriers to research, but it may contribute to the advancement of urgently needed research, which should be prioritized and vigorously pursued.



Momentum Toward Ending Prohibition


Given marijuana’s relatively low potential for abuse, Schedule III is likely the best outcome that could have resulted from this historic administrative reclassification process. Rather than thinking of it as not going far enough, it should be viewed as a significant shift for medicine and a key stepping stone to the ultimate solution of descheduling, which is required to achieve criminal justice reform, social equity and a regulatory model appropriate for cannabis. The removal of cannabis from the purview of 280E and likelihood to attract investors will free up industry capital that is needed to fund research and further reform efforts to achieve this.



By establishing the legitimacy of cannabis as medicine and more materially engaging the industry and medical community, we can more effectively persuade and influence legislators and leaders across the political spectrum.


Rescheduling to Schedule III is neither the perfect nor final solution. It does, however, finally and officially recognize the medical efficacy of cannabis, which has dramatic and long-term societal impacts for medicine, patients and the industry.


Shawn Hauser is a partner at Vicente LLP, where she co-chairs the firm’s Hemp and Cannabinoids Department and serves as a leading member of the firm’s psychedelics and emerging therapies practice.

 

[Baron23]

My first thought was:

Marijuana Rescheduling Would Not Bring State Markets ‘Into Compliance’ With Federal Law, Congressional Researchers Say​

If the federal government reschedules marijuana as proposed by the Justice Department, that would not legalize cannabis or bring state-regulated markets “into compliance” with federal law, congressional researchers said in a new analysis.

However, moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) would allow state-licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain barriers to marijuana research, the Congressional Research Service’s (CRS) “Legal Sidebar” report says.

Days after it was confirmed that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agreed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that cannabis should be reclassified, CRS published an overview of legal implications on Thursday.

Perhaps most importantly, the non-partisan office reiterated that rescheduling marijuana, “without other legal changes, would not bring the state-legal medical or recreational marijuana industry into compliance with federal controlled substances law.”

“With respect to the manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana, if marijuana were moved to Schedule III, such activities would remain illegal under federal law and potentially subject to federal prosecution regardless of their status under state law,” it said.

“Some criminal penalties for CSA violations depend on the schedule in which a substance is classified. If marijuana were moved to Schedule III, applicable penalties for some offenses would be reduced. However, CSA penalties that apply to activities involving marijuana specifically, such as the quantity-based mandatory minimum sentences discussed above, would not change as a result of rescheduling. DEA is not required to set annual production quotas for Schedule III controlled substances.”
However, the potential reclassification would not affect a longstanding congressional appropriations rider preventing the Justice Department from using its funds to interfere in state medical cannabis programs.

The report echoes points CRS made in a separate marijuana analysis published in January.

Unlike Schedule I drugs, substances in Schedule III are defined as having “an accepted medical use and may lawfully be dispensed by prescription,” but only if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves a specific product, CRS said. FDA has approved certain cannabis-based medications, but botanical marijuana that’s available in state markets is unlikely to meet the agency’s standards for widespread approval.

One of the key legal effects of moving marijuana to Schedule III concerns an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E, which blocks individuals from taking federal business deductions for expenses related to commerce involving Schedule I and Schedule II substances.

“Other collateral legal consequences would continue to attach to unauthorized marijuana-related activities,” CRS said.

Such “collateral consequences arising from the federal prohibition of marijuana,” the report says, include implications for bankruptcy proceedings, immigration status and gun ownership.

The report also explains that scheduling changes can be implemented both through the administrative process that led to the new reclassification decision and through acts of Congress.

“If Congress wishes to change the legal status of marijuana, it has broad authority to do so before or after DEA makes any final scheduling decision,” CRS said. “Several proposals from the 118th Congress would remove marijuana from control under the CSA or move the substance to a less restrictive schedule.”

“Rescheduling or descheduling marijuana under the CSA could raise additional legal questions,” it said, noting the potential role of FDA in regulating cannabis products and the possibility of Congress establishing a regulatory framework for marijuana.

To that end, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues reintroduced legislation this week to federally legalize cannabis and impose certain regulations. The bill’s prospects are dubious in the current divided Congress, however.

Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the U.S. House said on Wednesday that the Biden administration’s move to reschedule marijuana is a “step in the right direction,” but it should be followed up with congressional action such as passing the legalization bill Schumer filed.

“While most recent proposals would relax federal regulation of marijuana, Congress could also seek to impose more stringent controls,” the CRS report says. “One proposal from the 118th Congress would withhold certain federal funds from states in which the purchase or public possession of marijuana for recreational purposes is lawful.”

 

[Baron23]

"federal administration helping them to normalize their highly-addictive product."

Probably should have put this under Atrocious MJ news subforum.

See below byline...this is apparently an editorial (??) from the Union Leader in New Hampshire. Wow...wonder if this is Sabet's butt buddy who wrote this? lol

Big Marijuana is the only winner with rescheduling​

Posted May 7, 2024 on Union Leader

The Rise of Big Marijuana: Who Really Wins with Federal Rescheduling?​

Last week the Biden administration recommended marijuana be rescheduled from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug, and it sent the marijuana investment markets skyrocketing. Regardless of the change, marijuana will still remain a federally illegal drug and states who legalize it are still open to liability, should the federal government decide to enforce its own law. So who was the real winner? Big Marijuana.


If rescheduling occurs (and it is not a done deal yet), it means that large, well-funded marijuana corporations could be eligible for billions of dollars in tax write-offs, and now they have a federal administration helping them to normalize their highly-addictive product.


Here a few examples of Big Marijuana:


Phillip Morris: One of the largest tobacco companies in the globe, invested $20 million into Syqe Medical, an Israeli marijuana company that has created a marijuana inhaler.


Altria: Altria Group, maker of Marlboro, invested $1.8 billion in Cronos for a 45% stake in the Canadian-based marijuana company.


Anheuser Busch: Invested $50 million to partner Tilray through subsidiary brand Labatt to create a marijuana-infused drink.


Heineken: Heineken subsidiary Lagunitas partnered with CannaCraft brand Absolute Xtracts to create a non-alcoholic marijuana-infused beer.


Molson Coors: Partnered with HEXO (Hydropothecary Corporation) to develop marijuana-infused beverages. Molson Coors is entitled to purchase shares of HEXO through the deal.


Aiding this effort to commercialize marijuana across the U.S. are many political heavyweights, who are now cashing in on the financial windfall of Big Marijuana. These include Tom Daschle (D-S.D.), former U.S. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), and Rep. Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.), among others.


What is most remarkable about this whole situation is that for the first time in my memory a federal agency is being asked to reschedule a drug for political reasons. If this were for medical reasons, then the request would not have bypassed the Schedule II category completely, which includes drugs with a high potential for abuse, with use potentially leading to severe psychological or physical dependence. As a Schedule III drug, our federal agencies will be asked to certify that marijuana has a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.


For starters, that is a patently false assumption that those in health compliance agencies understand to be untrue. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 1 in 10 people who begin to use marijuana will become addicted.


The National Institute of Drug Abuse is well aware that from 1995-2021, marijuana THC potencies have increased from 3% to 15%. And a landmark study from Denmark that has been widely shared with governmental health agencies found “strong evidence of an association between cannabis use disorder and schizophrenia among men and women, though the association was much stronger among young men...The study authors estimated that as many as 30% of cases of schizophrenia among men aged 21-30 might have been prevented by averting cannabis use disorder.”


Even the Obama administration understood the risks of marijuana and recommended that it continue to be a Schedule I drug. Political interests are pushing to legalize recreational marijuana at breakneck speed — much faster than the health research needed to understand the health risks. Objective research is beginning to push through the Big Marijuana hype and the news is not good.


Our national health agencies and federal government can’t be blind to the consequences, yet they push on with an effort to reschedule anyway. Worse yet, our state legislators, and Gov. Chris Sununu, know all of this yet they continue to push for recreational legalization right now.


What can you do if you are concerned about our state legislators and federal agencies trying to cash in on the sale of a federally illegal drug and doing the bidding of Big Marijuana? Provide your input on rescheduling when the federal public comment period opens.


This change is considered a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making, which means there will be 30 to 60 days for public comment. This notice will be posted in the Federal Register.


You can also email or call your state senator and Gov. Sununu, and tell them that you do not want New Hampshire to be a victim for Big Marijuana, and you would like them to say NO to HB 1633, a bill to legalize recreational marijuana.


At this point, it’s clear there are many New Hampshire legislators, and our governor, who are jumping at the bit to bring a new marijuana addiction tax to our state. In addition, our federal agencies are doing their best to help destigmatize a highly addictive and psychoactive drug. So now it’s up to you to remind them that Granite Staters don’t want Big Marijuana to ruin our state.

 

[Baron23]

"Congress still has the authority to address the federal-state cannabis policy gap “before or after” that reform is enacted."

This ^^ presumes that self-serving, feather bedding, politicians actually do anything...well, beside read polls and pander. IMO, don't hold your breath. Congress could have removed MJ from the CSA at any time....and have not. They just flap their lips....mostly about partisan character assassination.


Congressional Researchers Say It’s ‘Likely’ Marijuana Will Be Rescheduled, But It Wouldn’t Fix Federal-State Policy Gap



It “appears likely” that the federal government will reschedule marijuana, congressional researchers say in a new report. But Congress still has the authority to address the federal-state cannabis policy gap “before or after” that reform is enacted.

Days after the Justice Department announced that it was moving forward with plans to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a report outlining policy considerations for legislators.

“Given the current marijuana law and policy gap between the federal government and most states, there are a number of issues that Congress may address,” CRS said. “These topics include, but are not limited to, marijuana’s designation under the CSA, financial services for marijuana businesses, federal tax issues for these businesses, oversight of federal law enforcement and its role in enforcing federal marijuana laws, and states’ implementation of marijuana laws.”

“In addressing state-level legalization efforts, Congress could take several routes. It could take no action, in which case it appears likely DEA will move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III,” it said. “Congress could also enact marijuana legislation before or after DEA acts on rescheduling.”

CRS has repeatedly drawn attention to the policy gulf that’s widened as more states have moved to legalize marijuana. That won’t necessarily change if the federal government reschedules cannabis, which would not legalize it, but it does renew interest in possible legislative solutions.

“Although state laws do not affect the status of marijuana under federal law or the ability of the federal government to enforce it, state legalization initiatives have spurred a number of questions regarding potential implications for federal laws and policies, including federal drug regulation, and access to banking and other services for marijuana businesses,” the report says. “Thus far, the federal response to states’ legalizing marijuana largely has been to allow states to implement their own laws.”

CRS said that potential legislative options for Congress include implementing “more or less stringent marijuana control, ranging from pushing for federal law enforcement to dismantle state medical and recreational marijuana programs to limiting federal marijuana regulation through means such as appropriations provisions, to rescheduling or de-controlling marijuana under the CSA.”

“This last option would largely eliminate the gap with states that have authorized recreational and comprehensive medical marijuana,” the report says. “As Congress considers these questions, states may continue to act on marijuana legalization. No state has reversed its legalization of either medical or recreational marijuana at this time.”

 

[Baron23]

KJP has a very interesting take on the role of Presidential Press Secretary. It seems her view of her function is to read out of a binder and not actually answer any questions. Wow....

White House Declines To Say Whether Biden Supports Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal From DOJ

The White House has declined to say whether President Joe Biden personally supports the Justice Department’s plan to reschedule marijuana following a review that he directed.


Speaking with reporters on Air Force One on Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre was asked about the president’s position on DOJ’s plans to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).


“We’re going to let that review process continue, so I’m not going to get ahead of that,” she said, adding that Biden has been “very clear” that he “doesn’t believe any American that possesses marijuana only should go to jail.”


Jean-Pierre has repeatedly avoided commenting directing on the administration’s position on the specific rescheduling proposal. However, she said last week that the review the president directed is part of fulfilling the pledge he made to voters in the 2020 election.


Biden has issued two rounds of mass pardons for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses. A Schedule III reclassification would not legalize cannabis or free people still incarcerated over cannabis.


It should also be noted that, during his run for the presidency, Biden pledged to move cannabis to Schedule II—a stricter category compared to what’s been proposed by his administration.


In any case, the press secretary said on Wednesday that the president’s stance on the issue is why he directed” the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Justice Department “to review rescheduling marijuana.”


“They’re doing that—that process has moved, right? [It] went through HHS, now it’s at DOJ. I just don’t want to get ahead of that,” Jean-Pierre said.


The White House has also so far been unwilling to confirm where the rescheduling proposal is in the process. While the press secretary said it’s with DOJ, the Justice Department confirmed that the review is complete. The expectation is that it should have been submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review before it’s published in the Federal Register and opened up for public comment.


The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) also told lawmakers during a committee hearing on Tuesday that it would be “inappropriate” for her to comment on the agency’s recent marijuana rescheduling determination because the rulemaking process is “ongoing.”

 

[Baron23]

I have no idea how Reurters screwed up and inserted all the multiple instances of "open new tab" text om this article.

"For perspective, the rulemaking concerning hemp-derived CBD, legalized as part of the 2018 Farm Bill, is entering its sixth year."

And this ^^ is because nobody gets fired for actually not accomplishing a fucking thing in the Federal Government.

DEA's historic move to reschedule Cannabis is no panacea​

DEA Signals Intent to Reschedule Cannabis: What It Means and What Comes Next.​

As first reported, opens new tab by the Associated Press, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has agreed with the earlier recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and at the urging, opens new tab of President Biden, has signaled its intent to move Cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), putting it on par with ketamine, anabolic steroids and some acetaminophen-codeine combinations.


This means that, even at the conclusion of what is sure to be a lengthy process, absent congressional action, federal policy towards Cannabis will still be at odds with the 24 states that allow the sale of recreational cannabis.


While a contentious election year — which may reshape the face of the legislative and executive branch — is hardly the time to make definitive predictions about what federal policy might look like in the coming years, it is a good time to take stock of what the DEA's move may mean in the short term, and what policy considerations advocates (on either side of the legalization debate) should keep track of.

The rescheduling process​

The (at this point unofficial) announcement is the first step in an administrative process that will take months (or maybe years) to complete. It is unknown whether the DEA already crafted a proposed rule, or whether the announcement is just the beginning of that process.


Those familiar with the administrative rulemaking process know this can be a rather lengthy process. For perspective, the rulemaking concerning hemp-derived CBD, legalized as part of the 2018 Farm Bill, is entering its sixth year.


Any proposal for rescheduling by the DEA will first need to be reviewed by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Upon OMB approval, the proposed rule would be released for public comment, feedback from which may result in a round of revisions.


Any rule adopted by the DEA is likely to be subject to review under the Congressional Review Act (CRA, 5 U.S.C. §§801-808), as it is likely to meet the definition of a "major" rule because it is likely to result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more. 5 U.S.C. § 804(2). Thus, even in the context of purely administrative review, Congress will still have a role to play (if it so chooses).


A move to Schedule III will put Cannabis, which contains both THC and CBD, squarely in the crosshairs of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which has its own lengthy and thorough rulemaking process focusing on safety, efficacy and quality. That is because Schedule III drugs may only be dispensed by prescription which requires the drug to be approved by the FDA. While Epidiolex — the approval of which was the basis for the FDA asserting jurisdiction over CBD regulation after hemp's legalization in 2018 — was approved by the FDA, "Cannabis" (which is an entire family of plants) has not been.


Even if approval is subsequently obtained, manufacturers and distributors would need to register with the DEA and comply with regulatory requirements applicable to Schedule III substances. None of the state-level medical cannabis programs currently comply with such standards to the authors' knowledge.


Considering the fact that the FDA's CBD rulemaking is now entering its sixth year, and that the FDA has explicitly requested congressional intervention, the FDA's rulemaking with respect to Cannabis writ-large would not be a quick process. In the meantime, as was the case with CBD, a patchwork of laws and state-level regulations is likely to proliferate.

What rescheduling without congressional action would look like​

If one were to be a pessimist and assume that congressional gridlock is the status quo for the foreseeable future, rescheduling (together with some additional relief from executive agencies) will still be a net-positive for the industry. But it will not be a panacea.


The first, and most important, change would be from the criminal justice perspective. Although cannabis is already treated differently, opens new tab from other Schedule I drugs for the purpose of penalties, its movement to Schedule III is likely to result in calls to further ratchet down the penalties, as well as re-examine the sentences of those individuals already incarcerated. If nothing else happens, this is a worthy result that is too often overlooked.


In addition, movement to Schedule III would take cannabis out of the exclusion of Internal Revenue Code Section 280E, which only precludes tax deductions for trafficking in Schedule I and Schedule II (but not Schedule III) substances. This would be welcome relief to participants in both medical and recreational cannabis programs, which carry a tax burden no other business does.


However, as the non-partisan Congressional Research Service's "legal sidebar" report, opens new tab, titled "Legal Consequences of Rescheduling Marijuana" explains, "[m]oving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, without other legal changes, would not bring the state-legal medical or recreational marijuana industry into compliance with federal controlled substances law." This includes a bevy of federal rights, including federal trademark protection, immigration, and import and export of cannabis and cannabis derivatives, to name just a few.


It is worth noting that moving Cannabis to Schedule III may also encourage additional challenges to state-level "closed" regulatory schemes under the U.S. Constitutional Dormant Commerce Clause (DCC). In recent years, those programs were challenged on the basis that states attempt to discriminate against out-of-state applicants by favoring in-state applicants (and in some cases barring out of state applicants).


The challenges have seen success, but in some instances the argument that Cannabis remains totally illegal on the federal level (and therefore outside of the scope of the DCC) resulted in federal courts turning away such challenges. Rescheduling of cannabis would undercut such defenses.


In addition, it is likely to encourage a new type of DCC litigation: focusing on restrictions on the importation of cannabis between states (which has resulted in closed regulatory systems where cannabis must be grown in the state it is consumed). The genesis of this siloed approach is the now-rescinded Cole memorandum, which outlined interstate-commerce as one of the considerations in federal prosecution. That 2014 memorandum, rescinded by subsequent Attorney General Jeff Sessions, proceeded from the premise that Cannabis was on Schedule I (and therefore completely illegal).

Congressional legislation still needed​

Full legalization, in conjunction with and to facilitate regulatory clarity, still requires action from Congress. Some legislation, like the SAFER Banking Act, has strong support in Congress. As we previously wrote, as drafted, it provides some protections to financial industry participants (like banks and credit unions) by creating safe-harbors, but stops short of considering the broader capital markets ecosystem.


Other legislation, like various iterations of the STATES Act (which would like to leave regulation of the cannabis market to the various states), has not advanced as far.


Whatever the ultimate result of the rescheduling process is, it remains clear (both to industry observers and the Congressional Research Service), that Congress still has a role to play. Hopefully, they are up to the task.

 

[Baron23]

"As a senator, Mr Biden authored a 1994 crime bill that is often blamed for mass incarceration, disproportionately of black people, over drug offenses."

Slams "failed approach"....like the one he authored? Biden has been a drug cold warrior his entire time in politics (which is pretty much his entire life).

Wonder why the change of heart?

"But it could help Mr Biden, a Democrat, shore up wavering support among younger voters in an election year."

This ^^ is why and if you don't believe it, I've bridge to sell you.

Mom...if this is too political please just go ahead and delete it. But I just could not let this utter bullshit stand without criticism.

By the by, the below article is from the BBC. Not exactly a right wing, Biden bashing, media outlet, right?

And yes, I hate politicians...all of them, pretty much...and would prefer my son to be a honest car thief than a scum bag, lying ass, self-serving, hypocritical, politician.

Biden endorses Cannabis reclassification, slamming 'failed approach'​

The US justice department has formally moved to reclassify cannabis as a less dangerous substance - the country's biggest drug reform in over 50 years.​

President Joe Biden hailed the step as "an important move toward reversing longstanding inequities".

It's a turnaround for a politician who three decades ago crafted a tough crime bill that's now politically divisive.

But it could help Mr Biden, a Democrat, shore up wavering support among younger voters in an election year.

Thursday's plan does not legalise marijuana outright for recreational use as is currently the law in 24 US states and the District of Columbia. Thirty-eight US states have also legalised marijuana for medicinal purposes.

"Far too many lives have been upended because of our failed approach to marijuana," Mr Biden said on Thursday on X, formerly Twitter, in a departure from his usual reticence on cannabis policy.

"I'm committed to righting those historic wrongs. You have my word."

The administration's proposal would shift pot from a Schedule I controlled substance, its most restrictive category, to Schedule III.

The federal government would no longer view the drug alongside other dangerous and habit-forming substances like ecstasy, heroin and LSD.

Drugs in the Schedule III category are seen as having a low or moderate risk of abuse. They include anabolic steroids, ketamine and testosterone.

The federal government has retained its Schedule I classification for cannabis since Congress first enacted the Controlled Substances Act in 1970.

Rescheduling would probably stimulate the legal cannabis industry by enabling easier access to traditional banking services and outside investments.

The move could also provide a crucial boost to the president as he struggles to rally young and minority voters behind his re-election bid, particularly amid anger over the war in Gaza.

As a senator, Mr Biden authored a 1994 crime bill that is often blamed for mass incarceration, disproportionately of black people, over drug offenses.

As a candidate in 2020, Mr Biden promised to decriminalise the use of cannabis and said he did not believe anybody should be behind bars on charges of simple possession or small-scale use.

But he continues to oppose full-scale legalisation. His administration has instead granted two rounds of mass pardons for people with federal cannabis possession convictions.

"No-one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana," he wrote on X on Thursday, nodding to his previous actions.

"Right now, marijuana has a higher-level classification than fentanyl and methamphetamine - the two drugs driving America's overdose epidemic," he added. "That just doesn't add up."

Thursday's formal rule proposal to the federal register kicks off a lengthy approval process, beginning with a 60-day public comment period, before the change can take effect.

 

[Baron23]

​

​

​

Marijuana Companies Want Court Hearing In Case Challenging Federal Prohibition To Be Streamed Online Next Week​

Major marijuana companies are asking a federal court to grant remote public access to a hearing next week in a case where they’re seeking to shield in-state cannabis activity from federal enforcement. And the Justice Department says it has “no position” on the request.


The hearing before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s Western Division is scheduled to take place on Wednesday. Attorneys for the plaintiffs stressed in a motion filed on Friday that the “dispute involves questions of public concern,” and they’ve “received a number of requests from members of the press who are seeking means to observe the hearing remotely because they are unable to attend the hearing.”


“Permitting the hearing to be accessed remotely will not prejudice the parties in any manner,” they said, adding that allowing access via video conference or telephone would work. “Plaintiffs’ counsel conferred with Defendant’s counsel, who confirmed that Defendant takes no position on this motion.”


The suit against the federal government—Canna Provisions v. Garland—is being led by multi-state operator Verano Holdings Corp. and the Massachusetts-based cannabis businesses Canna Provisions and Wiseacre Farm, along with Treevit CEO Gyasi Sellers. Plaintiffs are represented by the law firms Boies Schiller and Flexner LLP and Lesser, Newman, Aleo and Nasser LLP.


Litigator David Boies—whose list of prior clients includes the Justice Department, former Vice President Al Gore and plaintiffs in the case that led to the invalidation of California’s ban on same-sex marriage—is leading the suit.


The cannabis businesses have said in their lawsuit against the federal government that the prohibition of marijuana has “no rational basis,” pointing to officials’ largely hands-off approach to the recent groundswell of state-level legalization.


When plaintiffs made their request for oral arguments last month that was accepted by Obama-appointee Judge Mark G. Mastroianni, DOJ similarly took no position.


At issue in the case is the degree to which in-state cannabis activity affects interstate commerce, with the government arguing that cannabis legalization attracts out-of-state tourists.


DOJ argued in a filing last month that “it is rational to conclude that the regulated marijuana industry in Massachusetts fuels a different kind of marijuana-related interstate commerce: marijuana tourism.”


“As the Supreme Court held decades ago, Congress has the authority to regulate businesses that cater to tourists from out of state, even if the businesses’ transactions occur wholly in-state,” DOJ said in the brief.


Plaintiffs, meanwhile, contend the Constitution’s Commerce Clause should preclude DOJ from interfering in state-legal activity because it is regulated within a state’s borders.


The filing of the latest motion comes just one day after the President Joe Biden announced that his administration is formally moving to reschedule marijuana, with a proposal set to be published in the Federal Register next Tuesday to place cannabis in Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).


Attorney General Merrick Garland, a chief defendant in the marijuana industry litigation, signed off on the proposed rule on Thursday. But reclassifying cannabis as Schedule III would not federally legalize it, so it seems unlikely that rulemaking will influence DOJ’s position in the federal court case at hand.

 

[Baron23]

Kinda ballsy of them to actually admit that all this sudden action on MJ legalization is driven by cynical election campaign calculations.

Biden ‘Smokes’ Trump On Marijuana Policy, Campaign Says After President’s Rescheduling Announcement


President Joe Biden “smokes” former President Donald Trump on marijuana policy, his reelection campaign said short after the administration announced a historic cannabis rescheduling action on Thursday.


In an email blast that was sent out hours after the president announced the “monumental” step to reclassify cannabis, his campaign highlighted the “stark contrast with the Trump administration’s failures and broken promises on criminal justice reform and marijuana.”


Specifically, it compared the Biden administration’s push to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) with the elimination of federal cannabis enforcement guidance under Trump.


“Trump and his administration took marijuana reform backwards, withdrawing guidelines to limit prosecutions of marijuana offenses that were legal under state laws,” the campaign said, repeating a point it made last month in a separate email when it promoted Vice President Kamala Harris’s roundtable event with cannabis pardon recipients at the White House.







“It’s simple, Joe Biden smokes sleepy Don on delivering for the American people,” Biden-Harris 2024 Spokesperson James Singer said. “After four years of all talk, all failure from Donald Trump, Joe Biden is keeping his promise on marijuana policy, moving America forward, and making America safer.”


“Donald Trump was wrong on marijuana policy and made America less safe, hurting young people and communities of color,” he said. “Voters can’t afford the broken promises and dangerous failures of a second Trump term.”


It should be noted, however, that while rescheduling marijuana was among Biden’s 2020 campaign promises, advocates remain frustrated that he’s yet to federally decriminalize cannabis as he also pledged to do.


And while the campaign is criticizing the rescission of the federal marijuana guidance, the Justice Department under Biden has yet to reissue any updated guidance—despite Attorney General Merrick Garland saying in June 2022 that DOJ would be addressing the issue “in the days ahead.”


When Garland was asked about the issue during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last March, he said that it was “fair to expect” that the updated marijuana policy would be “very close to what was done in the Cole Memorandum.”


Two Democratic congressional lawmakers said in a letter to Garland in March that it is “unacceptable” that the Justice Department has yet to reissue the federal marijuana enforcement guidance to discourage interference in state cannabis programs, leaving Americans in a “legal limbo” despite promises to update the policy.


In any case, the Biden campaign’s choice to once again draw the cannabis contrast with the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee is notable, representing one of the latest examples of how the president is aiming to leverage the popularity of marijuana reform ahead of the November election.


In the day since Biden made the rescheduling announcement, he and Harris have repeated touted the action on social media.







“No one should be jailed for simply using or possessing marijuana,” Biden reiterated on Friday.







Harris also noted the president’s mass pardons for people who’ve committed federal cannabis possession offenses.







Meanwhile, the Justice Department also announced on Thursday that Attorney General Merrick Garland had officially initiated the formal rulemaking process, submitting the proposed rescheduling rule to the Federal Register to begin a 60-day public comment period.


The action is being largely praised as a historic step in the right direction, with the federal government recognizing for the first time in over 50 years that cannabis has accepted medical value and a lower abuse potential than other drugs in Schedule I such as heroin.


Read the full Biden campaign email below:


Biden Smokes Trump on Marijuana Policy


In the 2020 campaign and as President, Joe Biden has said no one should be in jail just for using or possessing marijuana.


President Biden is keeping his promise, delivering a historic victory for criminal justice and common-sense marijuana policy across America.


Today, the Biden administration reclassified marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug, moving marijuana out of a classification higher than fentanyl and methamphetamine and removing long standing barriers to critical research into medical benefits of marijuana that could help veterans, seniors, and people with chronic illnesses.


Additional note: Under Joe Biden, violent crime is near a 50-year low and murders are plummeting in major cities.


This is in stark contrast with the Trump administration’s failures and broken promises on criminal justice reform and marijuana:

• • Broken Promises on Marijuana: Trump and his administration took marijuana reform backwards, withdrawing guidelines to limit prosecutions of marijuana offenses that were legal under state laws.
  • Crime Went Up: Under Trump, America was less safe. In 2020, violent crime rose and murder increased 29.4%.
  • Police Reform Failures: Trump called for police officers to shoot shoplifters. As president, he inflamed tensions between the police and the communities they serve. He insisted police departments should use “stop and frisk” and sought to block local police reform. His administration also reduced oversight of police departments and repeatedly proposed cutting funding for local police departments and combating illicit drug flows.

Trump’s Project 2025 agenda: Pardon violent January 6 rioters while worsening racial inequity in the justice system, prosecute his political opponents, and criminalize abortion.


The following is a statement from Biden-Harris 2024 Spokesperson James Singer:


“It’s simple, Joe Biden smokes sleepy Don on delivering for the American people. After four years of all talk, all failure from Donald Trump, Joe Biden is keeping his promise on marijuana policy, moving America forward, and making America safer.


“Donald Trump was wrong on marijuana policy and made America less safe, hurting young people and communities of color. Voters can’t afford the broken promises and dangerous failures of a second Trump term.”

 

[Baron23]

Attorney General Formally Moves To Reschedule Marijuana, But DEA Signals Resistance Despite DOJ Legal Review​

The Justice Department announced on Thursday that Attorney General Merrick Garland has formally initiated the process to reschedule marijuana—releasing DOJ’s proposed rule and a separate legal opinion that informed the decision but which also seemed to signal skepticism from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).
Shortly after President Joe Biden announced that the administration is moving to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), DOJ said Garland “has submitted to the Federal Register a notice of proposed rulemaking initiating a formal rulemaking process.”

It included both the proposed rule that will be published in the Federal Register, kicking off a 60-day public comment period, as well as an Office of Legal Council (OLC) opinion that generally supported the rescheduling action from a legal perspective.

Much of the narrative included in both documents suggests that the Justice Department exercised its authority to make a scheduling determination despite DEA, which has historically been delegated rescheduling authority, seemingly pushing back on the criteria used to justify the modest reform. Moving marijuana to Schedule III would not federally legalize it, but it would recognize that cannabis has some accepted medical value and a relatively low abuse potential.

The draft rule points out that, following a scientific review directed by Biden, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) concluded that a Schedule III reclassification was appropriate. However, “DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana.”
“The CSA vests the Attorney General with the authority to schedule, reschedule, or decontrol drugs,” it says. “The Attorney General has delegated that authority to the DEA Administrator, but also retains the authority to schedule drugs under the CSA in the first instance.”

“The HHS Assistant Secretary for Health has provided a recommendation for transferring marijuana to schedule III,” it says. “In light of that recommendation, the Attorney General is exercising the Attorney General’s authority under 21 U.S.C. 811(a) to initiate a rulemaking that proposes the placement of marijuana in schedule III.”


The rule goes through the eight-factor drug scheduling analysis, detailing HHS’s findings on each of the criterion such as abuse potential, pharmacological effects, public health risks, dependence liability and more.

“Overall, these data demonstrate that, although marijuana is associated with a high prevalence of abuse, the profile of and propensity for serious outcomes related to that abuse lead to a conclusion that marijuana is most appropriately controlled in schedule III under the CSA,” it says.

“After considering the foregoing facts and data and the recommendation of HHS, and after according binding weight to HHS’s scientific and medical determinations, the Attorney General concludes that there is, at present, substantial evidence that marijuana does not warrant control under schedule I of the CSA.”

Notably, the proposed rule clarifies that the rescheduling action “would not apply to synthetically derived THC, which is outside the CSA’s definition of marijuana.” Also, it explains that cannabis would continue to be subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), which means cannabis products would require Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in order to be lawfully introduced into interstate commerce.

FDA typically does not grant such approval to botanical substances; instead, it has so far only authorized the use of synthetic THC or CBD-derived medications as prescription drugs for certain conditions.

To that end, DOJ emphasized that marijuana would continue to be considered federally illegal, and cannabis-related activity would continue to be criminalized, even if it is rescheduled.

“If marijuana is transferred to schedule III, the regulatory controls applicable to schedule III controlled substances would apply, as appropriate, along with existing marijuana-specific requirements and any additional controls that might be implemented, including those that might be implemented to meet U.S. treaty obligations. The manufacture, distribution, dispensing, and possession of marijuana would also remain subject to applicable criminal prohibitions under the CSA.”

At several points throughout the document, it notes that DEA believes “additional information” that could be collected via public comment or a possible administrative hearing could influence the final scheduling decision. Adding to questions about a possible disconnect between DOJ and DEA over the proposal is the fact that the attorney general, rather than the DEA administrator, signed the draft rule.

It was previously reported that certain DEA officials have been “at odds” with the Biden administration over the rescheduling push.

“Based on the legal opinion of OLC and consideration of the scientific and medical evaluation and accompanying recommendation of HHS, the Attorney General is initiating a rulemaking that proposes the placement of marijuana in schedule III of the CSA,” the proposed rule says. “DOJ is soliciting comments on this proposal.”
A key component of the Justice Department’s rationale for the rescheduling proposal came from a legal analysis from OLC, which considered questions about DEA’s standards for assessing medical value, HHS’s revised review process and potential implications of rescheduling on international treaty obligations, for example.
OLC concluded that “DEA’s current approach to determining whether a drug has a [currently accepted medical use (CAMU)] is impermissibly narrow, and that satisfying HHS’s two-part inquiry is sufficient to establish that a drug has a CAMU even if the drug has not been approved by FDA and would not satisfy DEA’s five-part test.”
It also determined that HHS’s rescheduling recommendation is binding on DEA—but only until a formal rulemaking process is initiated. But even after that point, “DEA must continue to accord HHS’s scientific and medical determinations significant deference.”

Finally, it concluded that neither the United Nations (UN) Single Convention treaty nor the CSA require DEA to keep marijuana in either Schedule I or Schedule II, as the agency has asserted in previous rejections of rescheduling petitions such as a 2016 denial.

“Both the Single Convention and the CSA allow DEA to satisfy the United States’ international obligations by supplementing scheduling decisions with regulatory action, at least in circumstances where there is a modest gap between the Convention’s requirements and the specific restrictions that follow from a drug’s placement on a particular schedule,” OLC said. “As a result, DEA may satisfy the United States’ Single Convention obligations by placing marijuana in Schedule III while imposing additional restrictions pursuant to the CSA’s regulatory authorities.”

Certain conservative congressional lawmakers and prohibitionist groups have insisted that cannabis cannot be placed in Schedule III without violating international treaty obligations.

The documents are being released about two weeks after the Justice Department confirmed that DEA was moving to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III drug.
The public comment period that will soon open is expected to receive historic attention given widespread public support for broad legalization and competing perspectives about the appropriateness of a Schedule III designation.

On the one hand, many advocates have welcomed the rescheduling determination, given that it represents the first time in over 50 years that the federal government has recognized the medical value and relatively low abuse potential of a plant that’s been legalized in some form in the vast majority of states.

On the other hand, activists have emphasized that rescheduling does not federally legalize marijuana or provide corrective relief to people who’ve been criminalized over it. And, of course, prohibitionists have urged DEA to keep marijuana in Schedule I and are expected to litigate if the agency moves forward with the incremental reform.

DEA Administrator Anne Milgram has also acknowledged the possibility of an administrative hearing to gain further input on the decision before its finalized.
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has also weighed in on the rescheduling development, saying in a report that while it was “likely” that DEA would enact the policy change, that would not bring state markets into compliance with federal law. It added that Congress still has the authority to address the federal-state cannabis policy gap “before or after” that reform is enacted.

To that end, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and colleagues have reintroduced legislation to federally legalize cannabis and impose certain regulations. The bill’s prospects are dubious in the current divided Congress, however.

Meanwhile, the top Democrat in the U.S. House said that the Biden administration’s move to reschedule marijuana is a “step in the right direction,” but it should be followed up with congressional action such as passing the legalization bill Schumer filed.

In a recent interview with Fox News, former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said it “absolutely looks like” the agency will follow through with moving marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the CSA.

Biden has separately issued two rounds of mass pardons for people who’ve committed federal marijuana possession offenses. Again, a Schedule III reclassification would not legalize cannabis or free people still incarcerated over cannabis.

It should also be noted that, during his run for the presidency, Biden pledged to move cannabis to Schedule II—a stricter category compared to what’s been proposed by his administration.