After a sudden delay and a mysterious new administration, the future of the US cannabis reform effort, one of its most important and consequential reforms in the past century, seems to be more and more uncertain.
The final week of the year. MEDCAN24 Reports stated that the first hearing on the proposed rescheduling cannabis for a new schedule had been delayed indefinitely due to allegations that the Drug Enforcement Administration was actively working against it.
On January 15, Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney filed an interlocutory appeal with DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, following his approval of a rare request from pro-rescheduling parties to investigate allegations of improper ex parte communications between DEA officials and witnesses opposing rescheduling.
Decide Mulrooney, along with authorized representatives of events that were referred to for the enchantment leveled out that the DEA was but to deny these allegations.
Despite the request from the appellants, no hearing has taken place to address these allegations, and no evidence or testimony has been gathered to support the claims. No conclusions have been reached,” he wrote in his letter to Milgram, adding that the allegations had left an ‘irrevocable taint’ on the entire process.
Shane Pennington, representing the parties behind the appeal—Village Farms and Hemp for Victory—spoke on the Dales Report podcast last week, saying, “We’ve provided clear evidence of the DEA’s collusion, and they haven’t even denied it happened.
In response to the complaints of those in the industry who felt that their interference had delayed the procedure forever, he added: “We are working night and day on this and want it done as soon as possible.” The general public ought to perceive that the DEA—not us—selected to delay the method by granting this listening to.
“The delays have angered an enterprise that is determined for progress. “I understand that people want to win. However constructing a document of what’s occurring right here—documenting the grotesque lack of judgement and equity from DEA officers—is essential for any future administration or Congress to behave.”
All eyes are focused on the next administrator of the DEA, as the rhetoric is heating up.
Deb Tharp, Head of Authorized and coverage analysis at NuggMD tells MEDCAN24 that this represents a big ‘crossroads’ within the rescheduling journey.
“Trump will be the wildcard, and everything depends on him right now. John Thune will probably not move anything in Congress, and enforcement could escalate as opponents look for evidence to influence public opinion during hearings. Businesses should put strict compliance first to protect themselves. Trump’s neutrality on cannabis does not mean that his supporters will be.
“It would not surprise me to see Derek Maltz on the list for DEA Administrator, a retired DEA agent who specialized in the fentanyl catastrophe. Tom Homan, former Appearing ICE director, could also be a candidate, given his focus on border trafficking. Jack Riley is another potential candidate who has publicly stated that he wants the job. Riley, who views cannabis as a gateway substance, is strongly anti-cannabis. His appointment would be disastrous to the business.
Paula Savchenko Esq. – founding father of Cannacore Group & PS Regulation Group – echoed this sentiment, saying: “An important worry now is how the incoming Trump government will affect the matter. This is significant because the President Elect has to call a subordinate to run the DEA.
While Trump has shown support in recent months for easing certain federal restrictions on cannabis it does not appear to have been a priority throughout his political career. The key issue moving forward will be Trump’s choice to lead the DEA, and their stance on cannabis policy.
Concerning the postponement, Tharp instructed that delays mustn’t come as a shock to anybody who has been following the method thus far, including the advocates might even must ‘push for delays to make sure a good course of’.
The DEA has not made a formal ruling on whether it was trying to sway the method.
It is important that the process remains honest. A rushed or biased consequence may result in yet one more ‘no’ on rescheduling.”
The ALJ instructed the federal government and appellants that they must submit a standing replacement on the appeal within 90 days, and continue to do so every 90 days if it remains unresolved. An appeal can be filed by events within 15 days of the date the order was issued.