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
You’re too stupid to store a gun properly
The Biden administration once again defends a ban in federal court, arguing that people who use marijuana should be prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. They claim that this restriction is supported by historical precedent and that individuals who...
Illegal Firearms in Michigan
Illegal Gun Ownership in Michigan: Insights and StatisticsThe issue of illegal gun ownership in Michigan is a complex one, influenced by various factors ranging from criminal activity to loopholes in regulatory measures. Understanding who owns illegal guns is crucial...
Restoring Second Amendment Rights in Michigan
Restoring Your Gun RightsAs of 4/17/24...There is still a second amendment The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution grants citizens the right to bear arms, a fundamental aspect of American freedoms. However, in some cases, just like every other right...
Is a Verbal Agreement Legal?
Is Oral Legal?Verbal agreements, also called oral contracts, can be legal and enforceable in Michigan, but with some limitations. Here's a breakdown: Generally Enforceable: Michigan law recognizes verbal contracts as valid if they meet the standard elements of a...
