Veterans Group Challenges DEA For Seat At Cannabis Debate Table

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) may consider additional participants for its marijuana rescheduling hearings following a Nov. 15 order by chief administrative law judge (ALJ) John J. Mulrooney II. As MJBiz Daily reported, this development follows the withdrawal of some designated participants and growing scrutiny over the agency’s handling of the rescheduling process, which has now been delayed until 2025.

Veterans Group Demands Inclusion

The Veterans Action Council (VAC), a cannabis advocacy organization for military vets, filed a petition challenging its exclusion from the DEA's participant list, which was released in October. VAC contends that the DEA failed to meet its obligation to include all interested parties. "The DEA was tasked with putting forward a group of ‘interested parties.' They failed to do so, as illustrated by the judge's recent order," said VAC's Michael Krawitz.

The DEA had initially planned for the hearings to begin on Dec. 2, 2024, but Mulrooney clarified that no testimony or evidence would be received on that date. Instead, the initial hearing will focus on scheduling participant availability for 2025. Mulrooney's Oct. 31 order criticized the lack of clarity regarding participants' positions on the proposed rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III.

"There is no indication in the four corners of the document as to whether the ‘participants' support or oppose the [rulemaking proposal] or how the ‘participants' satisfy the ‘interested person' definition set forth in the regulations," Mulrooney wrote, requiring additional details from participants by Nov. 12.

On November 15, Mulrooney rejected VAC's request, explaining that because the VAC was not included on Milgram's list, “no action can or will be taken on its request.” However, he also suggested that the matter might not be completely closed. In his ruling, he referenced a legal precedent indicating that decisions about participation could still be appealed. “The issue may not be entirely settled,” the judge wrote in a footnote, citing a case where a subpoena decision was not final until the case was fully resolved.

“He didn't completely shut it down,” Krawitz told MJBiz Daily, suggesting that the VAC could pursue other legal avenues.

Advocating For Descheduling

VAC is advocating for either cannabis descheduling or its classification under Schedule 5, the least restrictive category under DEA jurisdiction, rather than the proposed Schedule 3. According to VAC, Schedule 5, or descheduling, better reflects the realities of a $32 billion cannabis industry and its economic and medicinal significance.

"Schedule 5, if not descheduling entirely, is more appropriate for a $32 billion legal cannabis industry," Krawitz stated in the petition. Moving cannabis to Schedule 3 would alleviate some tax burdens under Section 280E of the tax code, but critics argue it still places cannabis in an inappropriate category alongside FDA-approved prescription drugs.

Changes To The Participant List

Several organizations have withdrawn from the hearings since the original list was announced. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine missed procedural deadlines, while an oncologist representing the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine declined to participate. Meanwhile, five of the remaining participants share legal representation by David Evans, a noted anti-cannabis advocate, illustrating the polarized nature of the hearings.

Crucial Decision Delayed

The DEA's rescheduling process originates from President Joe Biden's 2022 directive to review cannabis's classification. In 2023, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended reclassifying cannabis to Schedule III, citing accepted medical use. Despite the recommendation, the DEA retains ultimate authority to determine the plant's schedule under the Controlled Substances Act.

The hearings, now delayed to early 2025, pushed the DEA's final decision beyond the Biden administration. The inclusion of additional voices, particularly from groups like VAC, could influence the outcome of the hearings and shape the future of federal cannabis regulation.

Cover image made with AI