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
Stop and Frisk – Terry v. Ohio
Terry v. Ohio (1968)Background On October 31, 1963 while conducting his regular patrol in downtown Cleveland, seasoned Cleveland Police detective Martin McFadden, who brought 39 years of law enforcement experience to the job, observed three men behaving suspiciously...
Federal Appeals Court Rules That Gun Ban For Cannabis Consumers Is Unconstitutional
A federal appeals court has ruled that the ban preventing people who use marijuana from possessing firearms is unconstitutional. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit concluded that the historical context of the Second Amendment's original 1791 ratification...
How Much Does it Cost for an Expungement in Michigan?
Ask yourself - How much is your record costing you not to have it expunged.When you have been convicted of a crime in Michigan, you are likely aware of the negative impact it can have on your life, even after you have knelt in submission, paid the fines, served your...
Pending Charges?
Pending Charges. Don't wait. Get ahead of their game. If you have been arrested but not charged yet. Don't wait while they build evidence and take your statements to use against you! They may just be building a case against you and letting you get more comfortable...
