The head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) told lawmakers on Tuesday that it would be “inappropriate” to comment on the agency's recent cannabis deferral decisions because the rulemaking process is “ongoing.”
About a week after the Department of Justice confirmed that the DEA was moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), DEA Administrator Ann Milgram spoke at a hearing before the House Commerce and Judiciary Appropriations Subcommittee. I briefly touched on this issue at the meeting. , science, and related institutions.
Ahead of Tuesday's committee meeting, the prohibitionist group Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) said a source familiar with the matter said Milgram had not personally signed the proposed rescheduling rule. said. If that's true, that doesn't necessarily mean she disagrees with the decision, but the administrator made clear to lawmakers that she has no intention of revealing the process at this time.
But she did not specifically answer one question about past precedent, saying she was unaware of any instance in which a DEA administrator had not signed a scheduling order regarding “withdrawal from marijuana.”
Although Milgram focused much of his opening remarks on combating international fentanyl trafficking, he also preemptively addressed news of the marijuana schedule change.
“Because a formal rulemaking process is underway and my role in that process is to determine drug scheduling, it would be inappropriate for me to respond to questions regarding this rescheduling issue,” she said at the meeting. I mentioned this at the end of my opening statement. Hearing.
While the Department of Justice is working to reschedule cannabis through an extensive review process, there are still several additional steps before the rules are finalized and implemented. This includes a review of the rules by the White House, a public comment period, and the possibility of administrative hearings.
CA Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) did indeed ask about the decision to reschedule with Mr. Milgram at the hearing, despite opening comments intended to preempt such questions. However, the administrator reiterated that he would not discuss Mr. Milgram because it was an “ongoing process.” Do it directly.
“There is a formal rulemaking process to schedule or reschedule controlled substances. That process is ongoing,” she said. “The next step in that process is a notice of proposed rulemaking followed by an opportunity for public comment.”
“The DEA is heavily involved in that scheduling process, and DEA administrators are personally involved, so it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that at this time,” she said.
In response, Ruppersberger urged the DEA to “balance” federal law enforcement priorities with the need to respect state marijuana laws. He said Maryland's adult-use cannabis program is “working well.” Mr. Milgram said only that he appreciated the input.
Another lawmaker, Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), asked the administrator where the marijuana rescheduling proposal is progressing and whether the White House has contacted the DEA about the measure. It approached.
Milgram again declined to comment directly. But when asked if she knew of any instances in which a DEA administrator did not personally sign a scheduling order, she declined to act on the cannabis proposal, as SAM sources claim. “I don't know of any such instances of withdrawal from marijuana and speaking about this in general.
Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) asked the administrator about studies on the prevalence of cannabinoid hyperemesis syndrome and whether they could consider the negative effects of marijuana use in light of the decision to change the date. But Milgram also said, “It would be inappropriate for me to comment at this time because it becomes part of this regulatory process.”
“But I appreciate you mentioning that study. I'll definitely read it,” she said.
Aderholt went on to say that he is “very concerned about this rescheduling” because he believes cannabis use is associated with an increase in certain mental health conditions.
Rep. Matt Cartwright (D-Pa.) also asked Milgram whether the potential reclassification of marijuana under the CSA would free up DEA resources to tackle the nation's fentanyl problem. Ta.
She said, “Some of this involves decisions that are part of the rulemaking process, so I can't comment on that.”
But at a “very, very high level,” he asserted that the DEA is “currently working to combat marijuana across the United States, all the way down to the federal level,” adding that “many states are currently experiencing widespread illegal marijuana. “Efforts are being made to address this issue.” For example, organizations in China are leading the charge. ”
“So we have a job to do. Our biggest focus is obviously fentanyl, which is the drug that is killing Americans,” she said. “But we are working on [marijuana] the current. “
Later this year, another DEA representative, William Hewett, will present on the agency's Processing of Schedule I Research Applications at a federal research conference on the potential of marijuana to treat pain. It's unclear how that presentation will be updated given the ongoing rescheduling process.
Meanwhile, following the DEA's schedule change announcement, a former DEA administrator said the proposal is “understandable” because it “reflects the reality” of public opinion regarding the medical value of cannabis.
In an interview with Fox News last week, former DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson said it “seems like the DEA is definitely going to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III” under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). he said.
“When you see a dozen states now have medical marijuana, there's obviously a reclassification movement going on,” he said. “So it's not surprising to me.”
“I think this reflects the reality of not only today's culture but also national sentiment. That's the most important thing,” said Hutchinson, a Republican who also served as governor of Arkansas.
Separately, top House Democrats said last week that the Biden administration's move to reinstate marijuana use is a “step in the right direction,” but that it should be followed up with legislative action, such as passing legalization legislation. said the majority leader. (D-New York) filed.
Conversely, one Republican senator said marijuana is a “gateway drug” and that Democratic moves to legalize it would “further fuel crime on America's streets” and “be pro-criminal and anti-American.” He said that it reflected a “policy”. He also argued that the Cannabis Banking Act “facilitates an entire infrastructure and ecosystem for increasing drug use in the United States.”
Marijuana date change will make Republicans 'more comfortable' voting on banking and other reforms, former Republican lawmaker says
Photo by Chris Wallis/Side Pocket Images