Washington, D.C. — November 19, 2024

In a stunning move that could shape the future of federal cannabis policy, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney has ruled that nearly all pro-cannabis advocates are disqualified from participating in hearings on rescheduling marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Meanwhile, all anti-rescheduling participants who applied for standing have been approved, setting the stage for a contentious and one-sided debate.

Eleven groups opposed to rescheduling marijuana, including Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), the Cannabis Industry Victims Educating Litigators (CIVEL), the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, and the state of Nebraska, have been granted full standing to participate. Nebraska has been actively fighting medical marijuana legalization in court. Notably, an organization representing DEA agents, who are directly impacted by cannabis policy changes, will also participate—effectively allowing elements of the DEA to argue against itself in the proceedings.

This decision has effectively excluded nearly all pro-cannabis voices, including industry stakeholders, medical advocates, and legalization supporters, from presenting their arguments in the hearings. The ruling raises concerns about the impartiality of the process and has already sparked outrage from cannabis reform advocates.

Implications for Marijuana Rescheduling

The hearings come at a pivotal time, as the Biden administration has signaled openness to rescheduling cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3, a move that could have profound implications. Rescheduling would officially acknowledge cannabis’s medical potential and reduce restrictions on research and access. However, critics of today’s ruling fear that the exclusion of pro-rescheduling participants could tip the scales against any meaningful change.

“This is a blatant attempt to silence those who represent the majority of Americans who support cannabis reform,” said one excluded advocate, who wished to remain anonymous. “The DEA is stacking the deck against progress, and this process now lacks credibility.”

The Anti-Rescheduling Argument

Anti-rescheduling participants argue that moving cannabis to Schedule 3 could lead to increased drug abuse and undermine public health. Groups like SAM have long contended that legalization and medical marijuana programs are driven by profit motives rather than public interest. CIVEL, a relatively new entrant to the debate, claims to represent victims of the cannabis industry, citing alleged harms caused by legalization.

What’s Next?

The hearings are set to proceed with only anti-rescheduling participants allowed full participation. Observers are closely watching to see how the heavily one-sided debate unfolds and whether the ruling will face legal challenges.

For now, the future of federal cannabis policy remains uncertain, and today’s decision could be a significant setback for advocates hoping for a more balanced approach to marijuana reform.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.