A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge has officially ruled on which of the agency\u2019s selected witnesses for a marijuana rescheduling hearing will be able to participate, while laying out the procedure for the administrative process\u2014including how pro- and anti-reform speakers will be able to cross-examine one another.<\/p>\n
The order also briefly addressed a motion filed on Monday on behalf of one of the participants that argued DEA itself should be removed from the hearing as a \u201cproponent\u201d of the rescheduling rule<\/a> due to alleged statutory violations, including \u201cunlawful\u201d communication with the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana. The judge said that he found the argument \u201cwholly unpersuasive\u201d in the context of the group\u2019s defense of its standing in the case, but that he will soon be separately ruling on the merits of the standalone motion.<\/p>\n In any case, with a December 2 preliminary hearing on the rescheduling matter just weeks away, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney\u2019s order on Tuesday lists the agency\u2019s chosen witnesses and assesses their legal standing for participation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A key component of the standing determination was whether the participants could establish that they\u2019d be meaningfully<\/p>\n Three of the 25 witnesses who initially asked to take part in the proceedings<\/a> withdrew their requests, and another two were deemed ineligible to participate. The DEA judge determined that several of the designated participants (DPs) technically lacked standing under the tribunal\u2019s interpretation of the law, but said that they could still join the hearing.<\/p>\n \u201cStanding to appear in an APA agency proceeding can differ markedly from the rigid standing requirements incumbent on those seeking relief in the federal courts,\u201d the order says. And while the agency is required to include certain witnesses with demonstrable interest in the proposed rule, \u201cthis is not to say that everyone must be inexorably welcomed to appear before every agency on every issue that touches widely on society or tugs at the heartstrings.\u201d<\/p>\n The ALJ was not provided with copies of the original requests to participate in hearing that were submitted to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, it notes. Instead, the judge based decisions on supplementary information his office requested after finding that the administrator\u2019s letters regarding the witnesses it chose were insufficient<\/a>.<\/p>\n All told, the witnesses that are moving forward seem to skew on the oppositional side of the proposed marijuana reschedule rule, but that largely reflects the rules for determining standing, which generally prioritizes those who claim they would be adversely impacted by a proposed rule.<\/p>\n Law enforcement organizations, prohibitionists and Nebraska\u2019s attorney general are among those who will testify at the hearing, for example.<\/p>\n On the pro-rescheduling side, entities like the National Cannabis Industry Association (NCIA), the Connecticut Office of Cannabis Ombudsman and Hemp for Victory have been cleared to participate, despite the fact that the judge determined that the latter two lacked standing.<\/p>\n With respect to NCIA, the judge said that one of the group\u2019s claims of standing was \u201cmore nuanced and more persuasive\u201d than its broader position in support of rescheduling. That is, NCIA \u201cposits that a number of its members would be adversely affected by a new definition of tetrahydrocannabinol which is incorporated\u201d in the proposed rule.<\/p>\n However, a \u201csignificant weakness in this position is that NCIA has not specifically alleged that any of its members are currently utilizing any particular substances that would be affected (a deficit that could conceivably undermine its standing argument in this regard),\u201d the order says.<\/p>\n Michelle Rutter Friberg, NCIA\u2019s director of government relations, told Marijuana Moment that the association is \u201cbeyond proud that we have \u2018established standing and may continue to participate in these proceedings,\u2019 especially since all other pro-reform groups didn\u2019t meet the same standard.\u201d<\/p>\n \u201cNCIA will be working with our membership to gather feedback and ensure that the entire cannabis industry is heard throughout these proceedings,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n At the hearing, DEA will be allowed to bring as many witnesses as it wants, while each of the other designated participants are limited to providing testimony from a single witness.<\/p>\n The order also describes the structure of the hearing. First, the government will make its case on the proposed rescheduling rule. Then, pro-rescheduling witnesses will get the chance to speak for up to 90 minutes, followed by the anti-rescheduling participants.<\/p>\n \u201cAnti-Rescheduling DPs may cross-examine all Government witnesses and all Pro-Rescheduling witnesses. Witnesses presented by the Anti-Rescheduling DPs may be cross-examined by the Government and ProRescheduling DPs,\u201d the order says. \u201cIn all cases, cross-examination will be limited to approximately twenty (20) minutes per witness for each authorized cross-examiner.\u201d<\/p>\n Hemp for Victory, which will get to join the hearing, is one of two cannabis organizations that submitted a motion to the ALJ on Monday that contested DEA\u2019s role as the \u201cproponent\u201d of the proposed rule to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).<\/p>\n The filing cited alleged statutory violations that include \u201cunlawful\u201d communication with the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), which will also be testifying at the hearing and has strongly opposed the reform.<\/p>\n In a footnote of the order, the judge said he wasn\u2019t convinced that the underlying argument merited consideration with respect to the group\u2019s standing to participate in the hearing. But he said the substance of the motion would still be considered separate from the witness selection order.<\/p>\n \u201cThe balance of this requestor\u2019s arguments in favor of standing are wholly unpersuasive. To argue, at this procedural juncture, that the DEA is an improper advocate or sponsor of its own [proposed rule] adds nothing to the standing equation and (at least on the present record) presents little more than an ad hominem distraction from the important advocacy and adjudicative work to be accomplished in these proceedings,\u201d Mulrooney\u2019s order says.<\/p>\n While the judge is asserting that DEA issued the rule and is thus properly appointed as its sponsor, the agency did not in fact sign off on the rescheduling notice and raised a series of questions that signaled to many that it wasn\u2019t on board. Attorney General Merrick Garland ultimately signed the notice, in a departure from precedent on scheduling decisions.<\/p>\n The DEA judge acknowledged that a \u201cseparate motion has been filed on this issue and it will be addressed in a separate order.\u201d<\/p>\n Meanwhile, a marijuana and psychedelics researcher is\u00a0asking the DEA ALJ to postpone its rescheduling hearing<\/a>\u00a0due to the agency\u2019s alleged \u201cimproper blocking\u201d of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until President-elect Donald Trump\u2019s administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.<\/p>\n About a week after Panacea Plant Sciences founder and CEO David Heldreth filed a lawsuit in federal court,\u00a0requesting an order halting the cannabis rescheduling proceedings<\/a>, he submitted a motion to the DEA judge on Monday seeking a stay of the upcoming December hearing.<\/p>\n Mulrooney separately\u00a0rejected a veterans group\u2019s petition to participate in the upcoming rescheduling hearing<\/a>, which the organization called a \u201ctravesty of justice\u201d that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change.<\/p>\n For what it\u2019s worth, Vice President Kamala Harris said recently that part of the reason for the delay in the administration\u2019s marijuana rescheduling effort is\u00a0federal bureaucracy that \u201cslows things down,\u201d including at DEA.<\/a><\/p>\n In March, Harris also expressed some frustration with the bureaucratic process of rescheduling marijuana, prior to DOJ\u2019s formal recommendation,\u00a0calling on DEA to expediently finish the job<\/a>.<\/p>\n While the Biden\u2013Harris administration facilitated the review that led to the DOJ rescheduling proposal, Trump has also voiced support for the reform.<\/p>\n In Congress, numerous lawmakers have shared their own perspectives on the proposed reform with DEA and DOJ since the Schedule III announcement was made.<\/p>\n In August, for example, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA)\u00a0raised concerns about the Biden administration\u2019s justification<\/a>\u00a0for recommending marijuana rescheduling, demanding answers to questions from federal agencies about how they arrived at that decision in what he described as a rushed and unconventional administrative process.<\/p>\n A week earlier, top Democratic senators\u2014including\u00a0 Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY)\u2014sent a separate letter to DOJ\u2019s Garland and DEA\u2019s Milgram urging the agencies to\u00a0\u201dpromptly finalize\u201d the rule to reschedule marijuana<\/a>.<\/p>\n While rescheduling would remove certain research barriers and free up state-licensed cannabis business to take federal tax deductions under the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E, it would not federally legalize marijuana, as the\u00a0Congressional Research Service (CRS) has made known in multiple recent reports<\/a>.<\/p>\n Meanwhile, two additional congressional lawmakers have joined the ranks of GOP members who are challenging what they say is\u00a0the \u201cunusual\u201d process that led the Biden administration to propose rescheduling marijuana<\/a>, expressing concern about how the review was carried out and demanding answers.<\/p>\n Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)\u00a0condemned the Biden administration\u2019s push to reclassify marijuana<\/a>, as well as legislative efforts to enact bipartisan cannabis banking reform, because he says the policy changes would \u201cprop up this immoral industry\u201d and give a \u201cgreen light to the evil that comes from drug use.\u201d<\/p>\n Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) also blasted the Biden administration over what he described as\u00a0repeated refusals from federal agencies to brief Congress<\/a>\u00a0on its plans and justification for rescheduling marijuana, which he argues fuels speculation that the proposed policy change is politically motivated.<\/p>\n Similarly, 25 GOP congressional lawmakers sent a public comment letter in July opposing the administration\u2019s planned rescheduling of marijuana, specifically alleging\u00a0the government\u2019s recommendation was based on politics rather than science<\/a>.<\/p>\n This story has been updated to clarify that the DEA judge\u2019s assessment of a recent motion on DEA\u2019s role in the rescheduling hearing referred to a question of standing, without addressing the merits of the legal filing.<\/em><\/p>\n Read the DEA judge\u2019s order<\/a> on the marijuana rescheduling hearing below:\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n DEA Judge Rejects Veterans Group\u2019s Petition To Participate In Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing<\/a><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n Photo elements courtesy of rawpixel<\/a> and Philip Steffan<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n The post DEA Judge Issues Order Approving And Denying Witnesses For Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing And Laying Out Next Steps<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n
A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge has officially ruled on which of the agency\u2019s selected witnesses for a marijuana rescheduling hearing will be able to participate, while laying out the procedure for the administrative process\u2014including how pro- and anti-reform speakers will be able to cross-examine one another. The order alsoContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":458,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"false","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[18,81],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79130"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/458"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=79130"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79130\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79131,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79130\/revisions\/79131"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79130"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79130"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79130"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n
\n
\nRead More: DEA Judge Issues Order Approving And Denying Witnesses For Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing And Laying Out Next Steps<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"