The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) will hold its first hearing on December 2 to address the Biden administration’s proposal to reclassify marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The hearing, announced through a public advisory on November 26, is procedural and will not include witness testimony. Instead, it will focus on logistical matters and future scheduling for merit-based discussions.
This pivotal rescheduling initiative could significantly impact cannabis research and industry operations, though it stops short of federal legalization. Moving marijuana to Schedule III would allow licensed cannabis businesses to claim federal tax deductions under Section 280E of the IRS tax code, a long-sought reform. It would also remove some barriers to scientific research, though marijuana would remain subject to CSA regulations and applicable criminal prohibitions.
A Divisive Proposal
The proposal has sparked debate across political and regulatory landscapes. While the DEA is officially listed as the “proponent” of the rule, questions persist regarding the agency's commitment to the initiative. Notably, it was Attorney General Merrick Garland, not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, who signed the proposal—an unprecedented move that some interpret as signaling internal hesitancy.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which conducted the scientific review underpinning the rescheduling recommendation, declined the DEA’s request to provide witnesses for the hearing, according to Cannabis Business Times. This decision has fueled speculation about bureaucratic tensions and perceived gaps in interagency coordination.
In its prehearing statement, the DEA previewed testimony from its two selected witnesses: Heather Achbach, who will address rulemaking procedures, and Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye, a pharmacologist, who will provide insights into public health risks, marijuana potency and abuse patterns. However, the agency stopped short of revealing its stance on the proposed reclassification.
Congressional Scrutiny
The rescheduling process has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers, particularly from Republican members of Congress. As Marijuana Moment reported, Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Representative Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) have expressed concerns about the transparency and motivations behind the Biden administration’s push for reform. Meanwhile, Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have urged swift action, emphasizing the potential benefits for the cannabis industry and public health.
Opposition has also come in the form of allegations from pro-rescheduling advocates, who accuse the DEA of improper communications with prohibitionist groups, such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). Both the DEA and SAM have denied these claims, with Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney overseeing the proceedings and rejecting several motions to postpone the hearing.
The Road Ahead
Although the initial hearing is set to proceed, the evidentiary sessions have been postponed to early 2025, reflecting ongoing complexities in the process. Vice President Kamala Harris recently attributed delays to federal bureaucracy, calling for expedited action while reiterating the administration’s commitment to reform.
While rescheduling to Schedule III represents a significant shift, experts and lawmakers agree it is not a panacea. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has emphasized that this change would not federally legalize marijuana, leaving key issues like interstate commerce and criminal justice reform unresolved.
The outcome of the DEA's proceedings will have profound implications for the cannabis industry, research and federal drug policy. As the rescheduling debate unfolds, the Biden administration faces mounting pressure from both advocates and critics to deliver meaningful progress in cannabis reform.
Cover image made with AI
