Cannabis Rescheduling Challenged by Lawmakers as Future of Project Looks Likely to Depend on Election Outcome
Two Republican lawmakers are questioning the Biden administration’s proposed rescheduling of cannabis, citing concerns over the process.
House Energy & Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Subcommittee on Health Chair Brett Guthrie have sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Xavier Becerra.
The lawmakers argued that the review process leading to the recommendation to reschedule cannabis is unusual and lacks transparency, suggesting that the process may have been politically motivated.
According to Marijuana Moment, the pair pointed out that previous cannabis scheduling reviews involved rigorous analyses of medical value and abuse potential, typically using a five-factor analysis. They questioned why HHS used a two-factor analysis this time, suggesting it is an unusual deviation from standard procedures.
They also noted that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) indicated more information was needed before accepting the rescheduling determination.
Alongside concerns regarding the gaps and conflicts in federal-state policy, the lawmakers also highlighted opposition from former DEA administrators and federal prosecutors, who argue that reduced penalties could hinder law enforcement.
It comes as the Biden administration’s rescheduling project moves into its next phase after the deadline for public comments passed last week, seeing the DEA recieve more than 40,000 submissions, over 90% of which were in favour of the move.
During the International Cannabis Bar Association conference in Chicago last week, legal experts and industry insiders discussed the potential outcomes, challenges and prospective timeline of rescheduling, Green Market Report reported.
No consensus was reached on the timeframe in which rescheduling could take place, with some members suggesting the ‘final rule’ could be announced as early as August, while others remained skeptical of this expedited timeline, citing the slow pace of regulatory processes in Washington.
With the Presidential election looming, the conversation soon turned to how each candidate’s administration would handle the project, with the group agreeing that a Kamala Harris White House would likely take a ‘more aggressive’ approach to enforcement than that of the current administration.
A Trump administration, on the other hand, could derail the project altogether if the process is not completed by January, 2025, the group suggested.
