DEA Claims “Final Authority” Over Cannabis Reclassification

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has asserted that it has the final say in the reclassification of cannabis amid discussions of moving it from Schedule I to Schedule III under Health and Human Services (HHS) recommendations. The assertion has sparked frustration among legislators, with 30 bipartisan legislators urging the DEA to reconsider the merits of cannabis legalization.

In a recent letter to Congress, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reaffirms its “final authority” over any decision to reclassify cannabis, independent of the recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

As stakeholders eagerly await the outcome, the complex interplay between federal agencies, legislators, and public opinion is evident.

For more news like this, along with all the latest in legalization, research, and lifestyle, download our free cannabis news app.

Reclassifying Cannabis: DEA Claims Final Authority

In 2022, the Biden administration initiated a review of federal cannabis policies. Last year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) officially recommended moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances List. The Schedules regulate substances based on their danger, with Schedule I being the most restrictive, recognizing no medical use and having a high potential for abuse.

Once the HHS made its recommendation last August, “the DEA is conducting its own review,” states the letter sent last month.

“The DEA has the final authority to classify, reclassify, or declassify a drug under the Controlled Substances Act, after reviewing the relevant statutory and regulatory criteria and the scientific and medical evaluation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),” the document reads.

This clarification has sparked frustration among legislators, including Senator Earl Blumenauer, who co-chairs the Congressional Cannabis Caucus. He and 30 other bipartisan legislators urge the DEA to consider the “merits” of cannabis legalization during the review.

However, the DEA response gives little indication of these concerns, maintaining a procedural approach and not addressing key arguments presented by legislators.

HHS’s Lack of Transparency

The HHS’s recommendation to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, based on scientific evaluation, initiated the current review process. However, details of this recommendation remain shrouded in secrecy, with hundreds of pages of explanations sent to the DEA only available in a heavily redacted form.

This lack of transparency prevents stakeholders from fully understanding the reasoning behind the HHS’s recommendation, further complicating the decision-making process.

While a coalition of six U.S. governors urged the Biden administration to reclassify cannabis before the end of the previous year, 29 former U.S. attorneys spoke out against such a move, asking that the administration maintain cannabis in Schedule I. Six former DEA heads and five former White House drug czars also expressed opposition to the HHS’s recommendation.

The outcome of the DEA review will have profound implications for cannabis policy reform in the United States. Advocates and legislators continue to call for a comprehensive approach, urging the DEA to go beyond Schedule III and consider complete declassification, namely removing cannabis from the list of Controlled Substances and decriminalizing it at the federal level.

The shift in public opinion, reflected in a Gallup poll where seven out of ten Americans support a change in cannabis policy, adds weight to the argument for a more progressive stance on cannabis regulation in the United States, despite what the DEA might want.

—

(Featured image by Joe Flood (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0) via Flickr)

DISCLAIMER: This article was written by a third-party contributor and does not reflect the opinion of Hemp.im, its management, staff, or its associates. Please review our disclaimer for more information.

This article may include forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements generally are identified by the words “believe,” “project,” “estimate,” “become,” “plan,” “will,” and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks as well as uncertainties, including those discussed in the following cautionary statements and elsewhere in this article and on this site. Although the company may believe that its expectations are based on reasonable assumptions, the actual results that the company may achieve may differ materially from any forward-looking statements, which reflect the opinions of the management of the company only as of the date hereof. Additionally, please make sure to read these important disclosures.

First published in Newsweed, a third-party contributor translated and adapted the article from the original. In case of discrepancy, the original will prevail.

Although we made reasonable efforts to provide accurate translations, some parts may be incorrect. Hemp.im assumes no responsibility for errors, omissions or ambiguities in the translations provided on this website. Any person or entity relying on translated content does so at their own risk. Hemp.im is not responsible for losses caused by such reliance on the accuracy or reliability of translated information. If you wish to report an error or inaccuracy in the translation, we encourage you to contact us.