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
Search and Seizure – Consent or Plain view
The Fourth Amendment was established to protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures, yet there are exceptions.In Michigan, understanding the concepts of search and seizure, particularly regarding consent and plain view, is crucial for both law...
A drunk driving investigation, a car wreck and a blood draw
A Case Summary: People v. Blake Anthony-William BartonOn October 11, 2024, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a decision in the case People of the State of Michigan v. Blake Anthony-William Barton. The case involved a drunk driving investigation following a car...
Other Articles
Squatters and the Law in Michigan
Squatters and YouSquatting, in one definition is the act of occupying a property without legal permission, can be a headache for both property owners and squatters themselves. Sorry to cause you a such a headache squatter. Michigan has specific laws addressing...
Adverse Possession in Michigan – Can Someone Claim Your Property?
Understanding Adverse Possession in MichiganMichigan recognizes adverse possession, a legal doctrine allowing someone to acquire ownership of real property they've occupied for a specific period, even without a formal title.The Statute: MCL 600.5801 The relevant...
Red Flag Rules for Extreme Risk Protection Orders-Firearms Act
Michigan Supreme Court - These changes follow the creation of the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act and amendments to the Firearms Act. Red Flag Laws.Effective February 13, 2024On February 6, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court issued ADM File No. 2023-24, which adopts...
Laws passed by Michigan lawmakers in 2023 will take effect
Several new laws passed by Michigan lawmakers in 2023 will take effect on Tuesday, Feb 13, 2023Making use of the first combined Democratic majority in the state House, Senate, and governor's seat in decades, legislators have the numbers and have successfully approved...
