Prohibitionist Group Denies Collusion Allegations Ahead Of DEA Cannabis Rescheduling Hearing

Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), an active prohibitionist group, has denied allegations of improper communications with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) ahead of next week’s cannabis rescheduling hearing.

SAM's Nov. 25 legal response dismissed the claims as unfounded and aimed at distracting from the proceedings, reported Marijuana Moment.

The hearings, scheduled to begin Dec. 2, will explore the Department of Justice's proposed rule to reschedule cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The proposal follows recommendations from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration.

SAM Pushes Back On Collusion Allegations

The allegations, raised in a joint motion by cannabis company Village Farms International VFF and veterans group Hemp for Victory, sought to disqualify SAM and the DEA from participating in the hearings.

SAM, one of 25 designated participants, countered that the motion was a baseless attempt to smear its reputation.

"This motion is a transparent effort to smear both SAM and the DEA," SAM's lawyers, Patrick F. Philbin and Chase Harrington, wrote.

Read Also: DEA Judge Blocks Researcher’s Motion In Cannabis Rescheduling Case

Get Benzinga's exclusive analysis and the top news about the cannabis industry and markets daily in your inbox for free. Subscribe to our newsletter here. If you're serious about the business, you can't afford to miss out.

They argued that the claims amounted to a "sideshow" and urged the DEA's Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John J. Mulrooney to focus on the substance of the hearing.

While SAM denied any ex parte communications after the May 21 publication of the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), it acknowledged earlier social media posts by its president, Kevin Sabet, predicting that Attorney General Merrick Garland, rather than DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, would sign the NPRM.

Critics allege that Sabet's May 6 post referencing "confidential sources inside DEA" raises questions about transparency. As for that evidence, SAM's lawyers argued the post was made before the NPRM's issuance.

A Related Case

The same DEA judge leading this case has recently denied the request by research company MedPharm to participate in the December 2 hearing, citing his limited authority and deferring to the DEA Administrator’s discretion over participant selection.

MedPharm criticized the exclusion of DEA-licensed marijuana researchers and the inclusion of prohibitionist groups, calling the process biased and undermining its legitimacy.

Critics worry the imbalance in witness selection could skew the hearing’s outcomes, despite support from other federal agencies for rescheduling.

• Read Next: DEA Denies Allegations Of Colluding With Anti-Marijuana Group While Involved In Cannabis Rescheduling Process

COVER: AI-Generated image