, clearing one of the many hurdles preventing the process from progressing. ){kind=link}
The Drug Enforcement Administration has been dropped by a coalition of medical professionals who support cannabis. This is one step forward in the long process.
Doctors for Drug Policy Reform has confirmed its withdrawal as the DEA hearing to reschedule cannabis remains indefinitely on hold. D4DPR is a group of 400+ physicians who support evidence-based marijuana policy.
Just a day ahead of the deadline for D4DPR to submit its ‘reply brief’ for the its legal case ahead of a scheduled hearing on May 12, 2024, the coalition filed a ‘motion to dismiss the petition’.
In an explanation of its withdrawal published on its website yesterday (April 21, 2025), the coalition said that it had achieved its ‘principal objective’ of bringing the DEA’s alleged bias into the spotlight, and remained concerned that its legal case could set the process back further.
However, should the DEA choose to not to agree with the recommendations of the HHS to reschedule cannabis, it has reserved the right to ‘re-urge’ its arguments at a later juncture.
This case is a good example.
D4DPR filed a lawsuit against the government in February 2025. On Monday, 17 February, they submitted a brief of 56 pages to the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, requesting that the selection process be re-done.
D4DPR’s lawsuit alleges the DEA acted arbitrarily in limiting the participants to the hearing, rejecting 138 applicants out of 163.
Furthermore, they have called the process ‘opaque,’ arguing that no explanation was provided as to why certain participants were selected over others and why the majority of participants were opposed to rescheduling.
Last month was a busy one for the e-commerce industry. MEDCAN24 It was reported that as part of the case new evidence that showed bias in the DEA had been released.
Not only was the selection process entirely opaque, but the DEA issued 12 so-called ‘cure letters’ to participants in the rescheduling process, requesting additional information to demonstrate their eligibility as a ‘person adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule,’ as required under federal law.
These letters were distributed in a biased manner, as shown by copies of them that have been filed in courts. Nine of the twelve recipients were entities who were opposed to rescheduling. This shows a bias towards prohibitionist views.
Only one letter was sent to a known supporter of rescheduling, the University of California, San Diego’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR)—a government entity. CMCR had provided requested information, confirmed their support of the new rule but the DEA still rejected it without explaining why.
The Drug Enforcement Administration has been dropped by a coalition of medical professionals who support cannabis. This is one step forward in the long process.
Doctors for Drug Policy Reform has withdrawn their appeal as the DEA continues to delay the long-awaited hearing regarding cannabis rescheduling. The coalition, which includes over 400 doctors advocating for a cannabis policy based on evidence, announced the decision.
Just a day ahead of the deadline for D4DPR to submit its ‘reply brief’ for the its legal case ahead of a scheduled hearing on May 12, 2024, the coalition filed a ‘motion to dismiss the petition’.
In an explanation of its withdrawal published on its website yesterday (April 21, 2025), the coalition said that it had achieved its ‘principal objective’ of bringing the DEA’s alleged bias into the spotlight, and remained concerned that its legal case could set the process back further.
However, should the DEA choose to not to agree with the recommendations of the HHS to reschedule cannabis, it has reserved the right to ‘re-urge’ its arguments at a later juncture.
This case is a good example.
D4DPR filed a lawsuit against the government in February 2025. On Monday, 17 February, they submitted a brief of 56 pages to the US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, requesting that the selection process be re-done.
D4DPR’s lawsuit alleges the DEA acted arbitrarily in limiting the participants to the hearing, rejecting 138 applicants out of 163.
Furthermore, they have called the process ‘opaque,’ arguing that no explanation was provided as to why certain participants were selected over others and why the majority of participants were opposed to rescheduling.
Last Month MEDCAN24 It was reported that as part of the case new evidence that confirmed bias in the DEA had been released.
Not only was the selection process entirely opaque, but the DEA issued 12 so-called ‘cure letters’ to participants in the rescheduling process, requesting additional information to demonstrate their eligibility as a ‘person adversely affected or aggrieved by the proposed rule,’ as required under federal law.
These letters were distributed in a biased manner, as shown by copies of them that have been filed in courts. Of the 12, nine recipients received letters from entities strongly opposing rescheduling.
Only one letter was sent to a known supporter of rescheduling, the University of California, San Diego’s Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research (CMCR)—a government entity. CMCR had provided requested information, confirmed their support of the new rule but the DEA still rejected it without explaining why.
Cannabis Law Resources for Poland
Browse essential legal pages on cannabis sales and cultivation in Poland. You can use these resources to learn about the requirements for certifications, permissions and compliance.
-
Polish News Registration and Interests of Cannabis Businesses
-
Permissions for Cannabis Sales in Poland
-
Authorization for Importing or Manufacturing Medical Products
-
Permission for Manufacturing or Importing Medical Products
-
Certificate of Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)
-
Registration of Medical Products in Poland