United States — First Step in DEA Hearing on Cannabis Reclassification

The DEA just held its first procedural hearing on cannabis reclassification, although the focus was more on scheduling future sessions. Early tensions have already been raised over bias, withheld evidence, and improper communications with anti-cannabis groups. Deadlines were set for evidence submission and witness availability, with merit-based hearings slated for mid-January 2025.

The first step in the historic efforts to reclassify cannabis in the United States officially took place yesterday, setting the stage for what promises to be a lively and passionate process.

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

A DEA Procedural Beginning with Rising Tensions in the United States

Although this initial session, held at the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) headquarters in Springfield, United States, was primarily focused on scheduling future hearings, tensions began to rise as disagreements emerged.

Matt Zorn, an attorney advocating for reclassification and representing the Connecticut Office of the Cannabis Ombudsman, highlighted key points of contention that have already heated up the debate over reclassifying cannabis in the United States.

Rejected Motion to Remove DEA from Rulemaking

Last week, Business of Cannabis reported on a 57-page motion seeking to remove the DEA from the rulemaking process. The motion, citing concerns about bias, called for the United States Department of Justice to take over instead. However, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney rejected the motion.

Zorn raised these concerns during the hearing, criticizing the DEA’s role as a “proponent” of change in the United States while its actual stance on the proposals remains unclear. He also accused the DEA of withholding evidence ahead of the hearing, prompting a jovial Judge Mulrooney to order the agency to submit its materials by December 13, with a broader evidence submission deadline set for January 3.

Allegations of Improper Communication with Anti-Cannabis Group

The judge also addressed claims in the rejected motion that the DEA had engaged in illegal discussions with the anti-cannabis group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), which is scheduled to testify next year. He explained that proving such allegations would be nearly impossible.

Attorneys requested the opportunity to cross-examine the United States government, but were categorically denied. Cross-examinations are only permitted between participants under the established procedures.

Focus on Addiction and Harm, Not Morality

Judge Mulrooney emphasized his neutrality, clarifying that the hearing is not intended to decide whether cannabis is “good or bad” but to evaluate its potential for addiction and harm in the United States.

The judge acknowledged the significance of public input, noting that 42,000 comments from United States citizens had been submitted. However, he stated it would be impractical to review each one individually and requested summaries instead.

Timeline and Next Steps

Judge Mulrooney expressed his ambition to move the process of reclassifying cannabis in the United States forward efficiently. The following dates have been scheduled:

• Merit-Based Hearings with Witness Testimonies: Mid-January 2025
• DEA’s Evidence Submission Deadline: December 13
• Participants’ Evidence Submission Deadline: January 3
• Witness Availability Confirmation Deadline: End of the Year

—

(Featured image by Zachary Caraway via Pexels)

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.