State AGs And Former DEA Leaders Push Agency To Hold Public Hearing On Marijuana Rescheduling Proposal
In a filing with the federal government ahead of a key deadline this week, a group of former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) leaders is asking the agency to hold a public hearing on the proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA)—saying that the move is “likely the most consequential rulemaking DEA has ever attempted.”
A group of 18 state attorneys general also filed a similar request.
“Given the magnitude of the impact of the proposed rule and considering we face an unprecedented drug overdose crisis in this country,” said the group of six former DEA administrators and three former acting administrators, “we write to emphasize that a hearing on this rulemaking is in the public interest.”
“A public hearing is in the public interest, and therefore in the interest of our states,” added the attorneys general, led by South Carolina AG Alan Wilson (R). Others who signed on represent Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming. All are Republicans.
The groups’ asks came ahead of a deadline Thursday to file comments requesting that DEA hold a hearing on the rescheduling proposal.
“As DEA made clear in the Proposed Rule, additional data and rigorous scientific analysis is needed to determine whether marijuana is appropriately placed into Schedule III,” the former drug enforcement officials wrote. “Sifting through the competing claims about marijuana’s pharmacological effects, potential for abuse, and implications for public safety, are best done at a hearing.”
They assert that the rescheduling recommendation “proposes to change the definition of currently accepted medical use, as well as change the way the federal government implements our international treaty obligations.”
read the rest here at Marijuana Moment
The New Federal Definition of Hemp
The New Federal Definition of Hemp: Legal and Regulatory ImplicationsCongress has enacted a sweeping revision to the federal definition of hemp through the Continuing Appropriations, Agriculture, Legislative Branch, Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, and...
Forfeiture without Criminal Charges
Can the police seize your belongings and hold it without charging you with a crime?Read the summary below and watch Attorney Michael Komorn in the Court of Appeals.Summary of "Ruben Delgado v. Michigan State Police": This case was filed in the Jackson County Circuit...
Other Articles
What is Inference Stacking?
What Is Inference Stacking? A Legal ExplanationInference stacking—also called pyramiding of inferences—is a rule of evidence that prohibits courts or juries from building one inference on top of another when the first inference is not supported by direct evidence....
Deadlocked Jury – What does it mean?
A deadlocked jury is often called a hung jury—A deadlocked jury—often called a hung jury—occurs when jurors cannot reach the unanimous (or legally required) agreement needed to deliver a verdict. In criminal cases, most jurisdictions require unanimity. When the jury...
Improper Transport of a Firearm in Michigan
Improper Firearms Transport, Storage Laws and Penalties Michigan law makes improper gun transport a misdemeanor crime under MCL 750.227d. Firearms can be confiscated and sometimes not returned, but attorneys can file motions under Michigan Court Rules (MCR) to seek...
Miranda v Arizona
Case Summary Miranda v. Arizona established that before police conduct custodial interrogation, they must advise suspects of their rights: the right to remain silent, that statements may be used against them, and the right to an attorney. These “Miranda warnings”...
