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
Cambridge Analytica data breach comes before court
Oral arguments in Facebook v. Amalgamated Bank will beginThe justices are set to review securities law as they hear arguments in a significant case linked to the 2015 data breach involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook. The tech giant’s effort to fend off federal...
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...
Other Articles
Probable Cause v Reasonable Suspicion
What's the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion?Definition of Probable Cause Probable cause refers to the belief held by a reasonable person that a crime is currently being committed, has already been committed, or is likely to be committed in...
Are there exceptions that justify warrantless searches?
Exceptions to your 4th Amendment Rights against Search and Seizure (more to come).The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution safeguards citizens by prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and generally mandates the necessity of a warrant for such intrusions....
Warrantless Searches in Michigan
I don't need a warrant for that...In Michigan, as in the rest of the United States, the Fourth Amendment of the fading Constitution provides individuals with protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by law enforcement. Generally, this means that police...
Michigan Crime Victim Compensation
Michigan has a crime victim compensation fund. You can contact them using the various links on this page. This post is just to provide you with information. We do not provide any services for this topic.Crime Victims Victims of crime often face lasting repercussions...
