{"id":86678,"date":"2026-08-18T07:27:49","date_gmt":"2026-08-18T15:27:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/08\/18\/dea-and-anti-marijuana-groups-file-final-briefs-in-hearing-on-trump-administration-rescheduling-proposal\/"},"modified":"2026-08-19T19:46:37","modified_gmt":"2026-08-20T03:46:37","slug":"dea-and-anti-marijuana-groups-file-final-briefs-in-hearing-on-trump-administration-rescheduling-proposal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/2026\/08\/18\/dea-and-anti-marijuana-groups-file-final-briefs-in-hearing-on-trump-administration-rescheduling-proposal\/","title":{"rendered":"DEA And Anti-Marijuana Groups File Final Briefs In Hearing On Trump Administration Rescheduling Proposal"},"content":{"rendered":"<\/p>\n

Participants in a\u00a0Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing on the Trump administration\u2019s marijuana rescheduling proposal<\/a> have filed their final briefs in the proceedings\u2014setting up the judge overseeing the matter to issue his recommendation on the reform.<\/p>\n

DEA, which is charged with defending the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III, said in its brief that \u201cmarijuana no longer fits the statutory requirements for Schedule I because it has a currently accepted medical use within the United States and it has an accepted safety for its use under medical supervision.\u201d<\/p>\n

The agency noted that under the law it must give \u201csignificant deference\u201d to an \u201cextensive ten-month study on the scientific and medical properties\u201d of cannabis conducted by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which recommended rescheduling.<\/p>\n

\u201cCurrently there are over 30,000 practitioners treating more than six million patients in 43 U.S. jurisdictions,\u201d DEA said. \u201cSuch practices demonstrate that there is no longer a lack of accepted safety for use of marijuana under medical supervision, and as such, marijuana does not fulfill the requirements of being a Schedule I substance.\u201d<\/p>\n

It also said that there is \u201csubstantial evidence sufficient to show that marijuana\u2019s abuse and dependency profiles better align with Schedule III substances than Schedule II\u201d or Schedule I. \u201cThe vast majority of individuals who use marijuana do so in a manner that does not result in dangers to themselves or to their communities.\u201d<\/p>\n

The drug agency said there is \u201cno merit\u201d to arguments made by reform opponents who participated in the hearing that a new two-part test federal officials used to analyze cannabis improperly departs from a former five-part test.<\/p>\n

DEA also said that several witnesses for opposition parties \u201csupported the therapeutic use of marijuana in certain instances\u201d during their testimony.<\/p>\n

\u201cDr. Bertha Madras (Madras), the addiction expert presented by SAM, testified that there is scientific evidence of marijuana\u2019s efficacy for neuropathic pain patients, although she believes that the science is weak. Dr. Kenneth Finn, also a pain management physician, admitted that he previously recommended marijuana for his pain patients and currently believes that there is likely a therapeutic benefit to marijuana. His concern is mainly with the dosing and quality controls for the substance.\u201d<\/p>\n

Opponents also \u201chave not offered sufficient fact or expert testimony to rebut HHS\u2019 findings that marijuana\u201d has a currently accepted medical use (CAMU), the agency said. \u201cThe evidence proffered by the Opposed Parties boils down simply to the fact that Schedule III marijuana poses employment and enforcement difficulties, the same as any other controlled substance in Schedules II \u2013 V.\u201d<\/p>\n

DEA also argued that several opposition witnesses \u201clacked necessary reliability and credibility and should be afforded no weight\u201d\u2014also saying that some of them ignored the judge\u2019s instructions for sequestration by reading transcripts of the testimony delivered by others prior to their appearances, leading to their own testimony being \u201cirreparably tainted.\u201d<\/p>\n

In conclusion, DEA asked the judge overseeing the hearing to \u201cexpeditiously recommend\u201d that marijuana be transferred from Schedule I to Schedule III.<\/p>\n

A joint brief submitted by the prohibitionist organization Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska began by noting that DEA and HHS have previously considered rescheduling marijuana at least nine times, and that \u201con each occasion, after reviewing the available scientific evidence and applying the criteria specified by the Controlled Substances Act, the Government determined that marijuana must remain in Schedule I because it (i) has a high risk of abuse, (ii) has no currently accepted medical use, and (iii) cannot be used safely under medical supervision.\u201d<\/p>\n

They argued that those decisions can only be reversed if DEA can show that cannabis has a risk of abuse that is lower than relevant comparator drugs, has a use in medical treatment that is accepted by established medical authorities and can be used safely under medical supervision with relatively limited dependency risks.<\/p>\n

But the hearing showed that \u201call the evidence is to the contrary,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

\u201cSo the Government now proposes to reschedule marijuana not based on the facts, but rather based on new and different standards\u2014standards that are not found in the Controlled Substances Act, that run contrary to previous HHS and DEA practices, and that were devised solely for purposes of this rescheduling,\u201d SAM and the states said, referring to the new two-part analysis used to evaluate cannabis.<\/p>\n

\u201cThis Tribunal should reject the Government\u2019s attempt to supplant the standards of the Controlled Substances Act and decades of agency precedent with newfound standards dreamt up only for this proceeding. Under the established legal standards, the evidence points in only one direction: Marijuana must remain in Schedule I.\u201d<\/p>\n

In 2024, the Department of Justice\u2019s (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)\u00a0said the prior five-part test was \u201cimpermissibly narrow\u201d<\/a>\u00a0and said the two-part review \u201cis sufficient to establish that a drug has CAMU even if the drug has not been approved by FDA and would not satisfy DEA\u2019s five-part test.\u201d<\/p>\n

DEA has since\u00a0embraced the new approach to evaluating cannabis for CAMU<\/a>\u00a0and it has been used to subsequently evaluate other substances.<\/p>\n

A separate brief from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) argued that the fact the proposed cannabis rescheduling rule was issued by the attorney general instead of the DEA administrator is \u201cenough\u201d is enough to consider the proposal \u201cdeficient and keep marijuana in Schedule I.\u201d<\/p>\n

TBI also claimed that rescheduling \u201cfares no better on the merits,\u201d saying the evaluation neglected to consider issues such as diversion of state-licensed cannabis, \u201cmarijuana-related violent crime\u201d and traffic fatalities from impaired drivers.<\/p>\n

A brief from the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), which represents members of the drug testing industry, expressed concerns that \u201cif the transfer of marijuana to Schedule III is finalized, the authority of the Federal government to test for it will end.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cImportant safety and critical security personnel the federal government would no longer be subject to testing, including air traffic controllers, Secret Service, and Federal employees with security clearances. The list of DOT safety sensitive employees who perform commercial transportation duties in the private sector, in who would no longer be subject to marijuana testing would include: airline pilots, airline mechanics, locomotive engineers, school bus drivers, truck drivers, transit operators, Coast Guard mariners, and pipeline operators.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe prevention and deterrence that the American public has encountered for almost years would be lost if marijuana is moved to Schedule III,\u201d NDASA said.<\/p>\n

A brief from DUID Victim Voices and Kenneth Finn began with an anecdote about a memorial to people who have died from fentanyl that is displayed at DEA headquarters in Virginia, where the cannabis rescheduling hearing was held:<\/p>\n

\u201cEvery day, walking through DEA Headquarters, the participants in this hearing passed a beautiful tribute to the faces of those killed by fentanyl. While the gesture is sincere and touching, it cannot be ignored that those faces are, in part, the product of the agency\u2019s own documented failures: opiate production quotas set too high for too long, and inadequate and delayed action against major distributors shipping suspicious volumes of opioids. The same wall of faces could just as easily be assembled for the many and growing memorial roll of young people whose minds and lives have been destroyed by marijuana\u2026 The agency now, through this proceeding, has an opportunity to limit the number of faces that will one day have to be added to that wall, rather than later acknowledge and pay homage to those fellow citizens we lost, again, due to institutional inaction in the face of a clear and present danger.\u201d<\/p>\n

DUID and Finn argued that DEA \u201cfailed to carry its burden\u201d to demonstrate that marijuana has medical value\u2014saying that its \u201crescheduling endeavor depends entirely on a novel analytical framework that has never been subjected to notice-and-comment rulemaking, lacks any foundation in prior agency practice, and was engineered to reach a predetermined outcome.\u201d<\/p>\n

The drug agency also used \u201cfundamentally flawed\u201d comparator methodology, \u201crelying on substances that are pharmacologically distinct from marijuana\u2014including alcohol, which is not a controlled substance and is not typically used as a CSA scheduling comparator,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n

The brief additionally claimed that DEA \u201csystematically ignored or underweighted the grave safety and public health consequences of marijuana abuse\u2014including psychosis, schizophrenia, suicidality, cardiovascular harms, impaired driving, diversion, and devastating workplace and transportation safety consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n

A brief from Phillip Drum, a pharmacist and an emergency medicine and pediatric physician, said that \u201cmarijuana, with its 300+ \u2018active\u2019 ingredients as claimed by the marijuana industry, is not a medicine\u201d\u2014which he called a \u201cfraudulent statement.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe States are simply not regulating and protecting the public with their current practices in place. Dosages for various formulations are unknown,\u201d the brief said. \u201cCurrently, marijuana is the active ingredient in: tampons, condoms, intravaginal suppositories, inhalers, topical creams or ointments, rectal suppositories, sublingual applications, lip balms, oral gummies, chips, candies, cereals, sodas or alcohol-infused products, and smoked versions including: dabs, waxes, joints or bong hits.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe harms are paramount, and are being minimized and use has been normalized by the media and popular vote making marijuana out to be as both a recreational drug and a \u2018medicine,\u2019 thus making it seem safer to the public at large,\u201d Drum\u2019s brief said.<\/p>\n

DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius will now consider the final briefs and testimony delivered during the hearing and issue a recommendation on cannabis\u2019s scheduling status. The final decision will ultimately be up to the DEA administrator, however.<\/p>\n

During the hearing, DEA officials charged with defending the cannabis rescheduling proposal<\/a> highlighted testimony on marijuana\u2019s medical benefits and its relative safety compared to other substances such as alcohol and opioids<\/a>. That included appearances from a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) scientist and a medical doctor from New Hampshire who detailed how medical marijuana provides relief to pain patients and can serve as an alternative to opioids.<\/a><\/p>\n

Meanwhile, lawyers and witnesses for parties who are oppose marijuana rescheduling and participated in the hearing\u00a0put significant focus on the alleged harms of cannabis use as well as criticism of recently adopted changes to an analysis used to determine whether drugs have accepted medical value<\/a>.<\/p>\n

DEA Administrator Terrance Cole invited only organizations and people who oppose marijuana reform to join the hearing<\/a> as designated participants\u2014telling supporters that they do not meet the definition of an \u201cinterested person\u201d to participate because they are not \u201cadversely affected or aggrieved by any rule or proposed rule issuable.\u201d<\/p>\n

Opposition parties that participated include Smart Approaches to Marijuana, National Drug & Alcohol Screening Association, Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, DUID Victim Voices, Kenneth Finn, Phillip A. Drum and the states of Idaho, Indiana and Nebraska.<\/p>\n

Ahead of the hearing\u2019s start, marijuana reform activists held a press conference outside DEA headquarters to highlight how they feel the have been \u201cshut out\u201d<\/a> of the process\u2014criticizing the fact that no supporters of reform were invited to participate and that the proceedings were not livestreamed despite officials\u2019 vows of \u201ctransparency.\u201d<\/p>\n

Marijuana Moment sent requests to Julius, the DEA judge, and to Cole, the DEA administrator,<\/a> requesting they reverse a decision to prohibit the public from tuning into the cannabis hearing via livestream<\/a>. A congressman and other journalists later joined in that request<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\u2014<\/strong>
\nMarijuana Moment\u2019s journalism is made possible by readers like you who value this work enough to support us with monthly pledges on Patreon<\/a>. If you rely on our reporting to stay informed about key cannabis developments, please help us keep doing this by becoming a sustaining subscriber today<\/a>.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Backing us at the $25\/month level also gets you access to our Bill Tracker so you won\u2019t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state.<\/strong>
\n\u2014<\/strong><\/p>\n

Attorney General Todd Blanche in April issued an order that immediately reclassified state-licensed medical cannabis<\/a>, as well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) to Schedule III.<\/p>\n

Under a separate order the acting attorney general signed, the hearing<\/a> is being held to consider more comprehensively moving marijuana to Schedule III.<\/p>\n

A prior hearing process on the marijuana rescheduling process that was initiated by the Biden administration stalled last year amid litigation over alleged improper communications and witness selection<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The current marijuana rescheduling process is being challenged with several lawsuits<\/a> that have been consolidated by a federal appeals court. Those pieces of litigation against the cannabis reform have been filed by state attorneys general<\/a>, marijuana legalization opponents<\/a> and a cannabis-focused biopharmaceutical corporation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, the already-enacted rescheduling of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having broad impacts.<\/p>\n

The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current cannabis rescheduling move<\/a>\u00a0explaining that certified patients who possess medical marijuana from state-licensed dispensaries now have certain protections under Schedule III. \u201cThe order appears to authorize end users to possess marijuana for medical use without a CSA-compliant prescription,\u201d it says.<\/p>\n

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has posted a\u00a0draft update to a gun purchase form to acknowledge the federally legal status of medical marijuana<\/a>\u00a0under rescheduling. The revised section in question\u00a0notably says that only \u201cuse or possession of marijuana for recreational purposes\u201d is federally prohibited, leaving out the prior form\u2019s mention of medical cannabis.<\/p>\n

The U.S. Department of the Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to\u00a0issue new tax guidance for the marijuana industry<\/a>\u00a0following rescheduling. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions they\u2019re currently barred from under an IRS code known as 280E that doesn\u2019t apply to Schedule III substances.<\/p>\n

Even DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and was accused of stalling the rescheduling process initiative by the Biden administration, has launched a registration process for state-legal marijuana businesses<\/a>\u00a0to\u00a0take advantage of federal benefits that come with the reform<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The Department of Transportation, on the other hand, issued guidance saying that use of state-legal medical cannabis is still no excuse for a positive drug test by truck drivers<\/a>, pilots and other safety-sensitive workers.<\/p>\n

The Department of War issued a memo making clear that marijuana use by military service members<\/a> and civilian employees of the department remains prohibited, even under federal cannabis rescheduling.<\/p>\n

A congressional committee recently voted to\u00a0block federal officials from taking further steps to carry out cannabis rescheduling<\/a>, though bipartisan lawmakers told Marijuana Moment they don\u2019t believe that provision will be enacted<\/a> into law.<\/p>\n

Read the final briefs<\/a> in the DEA marijuana rescheduling hearing\u00a0below:<\/strong><\/p>\n

\n

The post DEA And Anti-Marijuana Groups File Final Briefs In Hearing On Trump Administration Rescheduling Proposal<\/a> appeared first on Marijuana Moment<\/a>.<\/p>\n


\n
\nRead More: DEA And Anti-Marijuana Groups File Final Briefs In Hearing On Trump Administration Rescheduling Proposal<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Participants in a\u00a0Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing on the Trump administration\u2019s marijuana rescheduling proposal have filed their final briefs in the proceedings\u2014setting up the judge overseeing the matter to issue his recommendation on the reform. DEA, which is charged with defending the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I ofContinue Reading<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":459,"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\/86678"}],"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\/459"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=86678"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86678\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":86679,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/86678\/revisions\/86679"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=86678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=86678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cannabiscultivatornews.com\/home\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=86678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}