Connecticut State Agency withdraws from Drug Enforcement Administration hearings to reschedule marijuana, due to a loss of trust in the system amid “administrative shenanigans”.
On Thursday, the Connecticut Office of the Cannabis Ombudsman, along with My Doc App (a medical cannabis firm that facilitates recommendations), submitted a withdrawal notice to the DEA Administrative Law Judge’s office. They simply stated that they no longer “wish to participate in this proceeding and, therefore, respectably withdraw.”
The DEA has delayed the hearings regarding the proposed move of cannabis from Schedule I (CSA) to Schedule III. This latest development may complicate matters further. The majority of the designated participants for the hearings were anti-rescheduling, so there are fewer voices in support of the reform.
Erin Kirk, Connecticut Cannabis Ombudsman told MEDCAN24 that “even though it was an honor and culmination of a 40-year career in advocacy to be designated a Participant,” OCO withdrew from the DEA Cannabis Rescheduling Proceedings on Friday.
She said, “The behind the scenes shenanigans that took place between the DEA, certain individuals, and Connecticut’s patients caused us to lose trust in the system, and given our limited resources it wasn’t in their best interests to continue.” We believe that our patients deserve better. And we will continue to fight for clean medication, which is covered by insurance, just as other prescriptions are, along with further research into its many life-changing applications.
This comes about a month after DEA ALJ John Mulrooney notified former DEA Administrator Anne Milgram that the ball is back in the department’s court with respect to the marijuana rescheduling proposal, providing notice of a request for leave to file appeal that he granted last month in the hearing proceedings.
Mulrooney explained how several pro-rescheduling parties had requested a leave to file an interlocutory appeal amid allegations that certain agency officials conspired with anti-rescheduling witnesses who were selected for the hearing.
The judge ultimately granted the appeal motion, canceling scheduled hearings on the proposed cannabis rescheduling rule that had been set to begin on January 21.
After denying a motion to remove DEA from the rescheduling process, he appealed. The court argued that DEA was incorrectly identified as “the chief proponent” for the proposed rule due to allegations about ex parte communication with anti-rescheduling witness that had “resulted into an irrevocable taint”.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department told a federal court last month that it should pause a lawsuit challenging DEA’s marijuana rescheduling process after Mulrooney canceled the upcoming administrative hearings.
In the background, the judge last month also condemned DEA over its “unprecedented and astonishing” defiance of a key directive related to evidence it is seeking to use in the marijuana rescheduling proposal.
The issue at hand is DEA’s refusal to digitally submit tens and thousands of public commentaries it received as a response to the proposal rule that would move cannabis from Schedule II to III.
Mulrooney is not shy in calling out DEA for various procedural mistakes throughout the rescheduling.
For example, in December he criticized the agency for making a critical “blunder” in its effort to issue subpoenas to force Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials to testify in hearings—but he allowed the agency to fix the error and ultimately granted the request.
Relatedly, a federal judge also recently dismissed a lawsuit seeking to compel DEA to turn over its communications with the anti-cannabis organization.
Meanwhile, Mulrooney recently denied a cannabis research company’s request to allow it to add a young medical marijuana patient and advocate as a witness in the upcoming rescheduling hearing.
Also, one of the nation’s leading marijuana industry associations asked the judge to clarify whether it will be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine DEA during the upcoming hearings on the cannabis rescheduling proposal.
Further, a coalition of health professionals that advocates for cannabis reform recently asked that the DEA judge halt future marijuana rescheduling hearings until a federal court is able to address a series of allegations they’re raising about the agency’s witness selection process.
Public interest in the rescheduling process has been high. The rescheduling of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III would not make it federally legal, but the reform could allow licensed cannabis businesses access to federal tax deductions as well as remove some research obstacles.
Meanwhile, two GOP senators introduced a bill on Thursday that would continue to block marijuana businesses from taking federal tax deductions under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code 280E—even if it’s ultimately rescheduled.
Aside from the delays in hearings and the withdrawal of designated key participants, the new leadership at DEA during the Trump administration is also a complicating factor.
Acting Administrator Derek Maltz subscribes to the “gateway drug” theory for marijuana and believes most people living in states that have legalized cannabis will continue to obtain it from illicit sources such as cartels due to high taxes in regulated markets, for example.
—
MEDCAN24 tracks hundreds of marijuana, psychedelics, and drug policy legislation in state legislatures this year. Patreon subscribers who donate at least $25/month have access to the interactive maps and charts as well as our hearing calendar.
Discover more about the marijuana bills tracker. Become a patron on Patreon and you will have access.
—
In a prehearing statement submitted in November, DEA previewed the testimony its two agency witnesses plan to provide at the upcoming hearing—without clarifying where it stands on the rescheduling proposal.
While the initial preliminary hearing happened last week, the merit-based proceedings were delayed until at least early 2025 after Mulrooney notified DEA that it provided insufficient information about the 25 selected witnesses that Milgram submitted.
Separately, the DEA judge has also denied a request from a cannabis and psychedelics researcher to postpone the upcoming rescheduling hearing over the agency’s alleged “improper blocking” of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until the Trump administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.
Mulrooney also rejected a veterans group’s petition to participate in the rescheduling hearing, which the organization called a “travesty of justice” that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change. That group has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to intervene on its behalf.
Trump’s White House Budget Director Says Marijuana Is A ‘Gateway Drug’ And Pushed To Roll Back State Legalization
MEDCAN24 could not exist without readers’ support. Consider a Patreon subscription if our marijuana advocacy journalism is what you use to keep informed.
