Republicans are making a last-ditch effort against finalizing the Biden administration’s decision to reschedule marijuana, though advocates say the fight isn’t worth the effort.
The White House in May began the formal rulemaking process to move marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) – drugs considered to have a higher potential for abuse with no accepted medical use – to Schedule III, drugs considered to have a “ moderate to low potential” for physical and psychological dependence.
The comment period for this rule ended last week, with an analysis finding that more than 40,000 comments were submitted, the majority in favor of the change.
Among the comments was one 42-page letter of 11 state attorneys general from the Republican Party, speaking out against the rescheduling change.
In their letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland, the attorneys general acknowledged that the rescheduling does not remove obstacles that prevent the marijuana industry from being fully integrated into the U.S. economy, but argued that it is a step toward “normalizing” marijuana business.
They cited five specific reasons why marijuana should not be rescheduled: The proposed rule was not signed by DEA Administrator Anne Milgram; rescheduling would violate U.S. international treaty obligations; the proposed rule erroneously states that “meaningful deference” is due to the determination made by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS); DEA’s previous refusals to reschedule were decided using the same essential facts in favor of rescheduling; and the decision to reschedule did not meet the conditions established by the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Dozens of Republicans in Congress are also resisting the rule through letters to Biden or last-minute amendments in the House and Senate. A bicameral charter in early June was signed by 25 Republicans, led by Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas).
They argued that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) proposed rule was poorly researched and rejected by the government’s conclusion that marijuana had a low potential for abuse.
“Despite the prevalence and high rate of marijuana use, we still lack adequate and robust research on the drug,” they wrote.
Both members of Congress and attorneys general also questioned the two-part test that HHS employed to determine whether marijuana had a currently accepted medical use.
A drug is considered to be of accepted medical use if it is approved by the Food and Drug Administration or passes a five-part test used by the DEA: There are adequate safety studies; its chemistry is known and reproducible; there are adequate and well-controlled studies that prove its effectiveness; the medicine is taken by qualified specialists; and scientific evidence is widely available.
In lieu of this test, HHS employed a two-part test asking: whether there is widespread current experience with the medical use of marijuana in the United States by licensed health care providers operating under the implemented state-authorized program, and whether There is some scientific support for at least one of the medical conditions for which the Part 1 test is satisfied.
In its opinion on the matter, the Office of Legal Counsel determined that the long-standing five-part test used by the DEA to determine accepted medical use is “inadmissibly narrow,” while also concluding that the two-part test HHS is “sufficient to establish that a drug has a [currently accepted medical use] even if the drug has not been approved by the FDA.
With the comment period closed, the CSA determines that the DEA must provide an opportunity for a hearing on the rule if requested. The Hill has reached out to the DEA for comment on the GOP-led letters and whether a hearing on the rule will be held.
Karen O’Keefe, state policy director for the Marijuana Policy Project, called the state attorneys general’s objection “shocking and disappointing.”
“More than 14,000 Americans die every year from fatal overdoses of prescription opioids – Schedule II drugs – while suspected fatal cannabis overdoses are increasingly rare. State AGs should not try to block progress in recognizing that a safer alternative exists,” O’Keefe said in a statement to The Hill.
“A staggering 45 states – including eight of these governed states – allow some seriously ill patients to use federally illegal cannabis products. It is past time for federal law to recognize reality. These public officials should not try to impede progress,” she added.
Recreational marijuana use among adults is legal in 24 states.
Despite all the resistance, rescheduling to Schedule III still prohibits the manufacture, distribution, distribution, and possession of marijuana under the CSA.
Afterwards, marijuana reform advocates continued to characterize the proposed rule as largely symbolic beyond some potential tax benefits that marijuana companies could take advantage of after the rescheduling is complete.
Cat Packer, director of drug markets and legal regulation at the Drug Policy Alliance, called the rescheduling a “lateral move.”
“There are people who say this is decriminalization, but I disagree, in part, because of the way the Controlled Substances Act is set up,” Packer said. “’There is no change in criminalization. So there is a means by which the government can continue criminalization and at the same time, for the first time, recognize that there is a currently accepted medical use.”
Packer’s organization was part of an effort to facilitate public comment on the proposed rule, which presented an “unprecedented opportunity” for the public to weigh in on federal cannabis policy.
The Drug Policy Alliance recently released the findings of a study analysis of comments submitted on the proposed rule, which found that about 70 percent were in favor of federal decriminalization of marijuana.
“We discovered that of these more than 40 thousand public comments, 69.3 [percent] of those comments supported deprogramming, supported decriminalization or legalization of marijuana at the federal level,” Packer said. “We also found that 42.4 percent of comments submitted had some mention of federal reform that needed to advance or address racial inequality and social justice.”
As recently as 2016, the DEA found that scheduling marijuana for anything other than Schedule I or II would be a violation of international treaties. The proposed rule addressed these concerns, with the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel concluding that moving the drug to Schedule III could still comply with international treaties if supplemental regulatory actions were instituted.
Although the attorneys general argued that this action violates the CSA, Packer said he agreed with the determination, noting that “there is nothing in the international treaties themselves that requires the U.S. to place a specific drug on a specific schedule and not reference the USA”. US drug policy or timelines.
“In fact, I think it’s harmful that we have political leaders who suggest, despite the evidence again in the year 2024, that marijuana should continue to be classified alongside drugs like fentanyl,” Packer said.
“I think that through other examples of substances such as alcohol, tobacco, coffee or sugar, we can recognize that, even when substances present some type of risk to public health, the best way to mitigate that risk is by regulating that risk. activity.”
This story originally appeared on thehill.com read the full story
