Monday marks the next deadline in the federal government’s long-running effort to decide whether marijuana should be reclassified under U.S. drug law. The briefs, due Aug. 17, are the latest step in a high-stakes proceeding over whether marijuana should be moved from Schedule I, the most restrictive category under the Controlled Substances Act, to Schedule […]
Menej ako 1 min.
min.
Monday marks the next deadline in the federal government’s long-running effort to decide whether marijuana should be reclassified under U.S. drug law.
The briefs, due Aug. 17, are the latest step in a high-stakes proceeding over whether marijuana should be moved from Schedule I, the most restrictive category under the Controlled Substances Act, to Schedule III, a classification for drugs with accepted medical uses and lower potential for abuse than Schedule I or II substances.
Download the Straight Arrow app today to get the stories that matter free from manipulation, bias or agenda.™
Point phone camera here
The administrative hearing concluded July 15 after testimony that underscored deep divisions among federal officials, medical professionals, state representatives and advocacy groups over marijuana’s medical value, public health risks and commercial future.
Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius set Monday as the deadline for optional post-hearing briefs and proposed transcript corrections. The briefs may include closing arguments and proposed findings, but the deadline is not a final decision date.
After reviewing the filings and hearing record, Julius is expected to issue a recommendation to the DEA administrator. That recommendation is advisory, and no firm timeline has been set for a final agency decision.
The outcome could carry major consequences for the cannabis industry, researchers, patients and state-regulated marijuana programs.
Rescheduling would not legalize marijuana federally or resolve the conflict between federal law and state legalization systems. But it could ease some restrictions on research and remove a major tax burden on state-licensed cannabis businesses by ending the application of Section 280E of the federal tax code, which bars businesses trafficking in Schedule I or II substances from deducting ordinary business expenses.
Supporters of rescheduling say the change would better reflect marijuana’s accepted medical use in many states and could help move federal policy away from decades of prohibition. Opponents argue the evidence does not justify moving marijuana out of Schedule I and warn that a lower classification could expand an industry they say is already marketing high-potency products with inadequate safeguards.
Morgan Fox, political director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said he expects the administrative law judge’s recommendation to support rescheduling because the hearing was focused on whether cannabis has accepted medical value and whether it has a lower abuse potential than Schedule I drugs.
“I think the evidence clearly shows that cannabis does have accepted medical value,” Fox told Straight Arrow.
Fox said rescheduling would be a meaningful symbolic and political shift because opponents could no longer point to Schedule I status to argue marijuana has no accepted medical value. But he said the practical effects would be limited.
“It doesn’t change any criminal penalties,” Fox said. “The biggest practical benefit is that it would allow cannabis businesses to be able to deduct normal business expenses on their federal taxes.”
Fox said NORML continues to support removing marijuana from the controlled substances schedules altogether, arguing that descheduling would be needed to eliminate federal criminal penalties, resolve conflicts with state laws and create a more coherent national regulatory structure.
“Rescheduling is a step in the right direction,” Fox said. “Descheduling is really the best and only real solution to eliminate the conflict between state and federal laws.”
Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which opposes rescheduling, has argued that marijuana should remain in Schedule I and that the proposal would primarily benefit the cannabis industry.
In written responses provided to Straight Arrow before the hearing, Dr. Kevin Sabet, the group’s president and CEO and a former White House drug policy adviser, said today’s high-potency marijuana products raise concerns about addiction, psychosis and harm to developing brains.
“Let’s be clear about who wins here — and it isn’t patients or families; it’s the marijuana industry,” Sabet said. He said rescheduling would give cannabis businesses access to federal tax deductions without adding new protections for children or adolescents.
The debate comes as state marijuana programs continue to expand despite federal prohibition. The gap between state and federal law has created uncertainty for businesses, patients, physicians and regulators, while also fueling disputes over product safety, impaired driving, youth access, workplace rules and consumer protections.
Monday’s deadline will close the briefing phase, but the larger fight is likely to continue. Once Julius issues his recommendation, parties will have an opportunity to challenge his findings before the record goes to the DEA administrator for a final decision. Litigation is also expected, regardless of the outcome.
