DEA Misses Deadline to Respond to Senators on Cannabis Rescheduling

NEW YORK- In a notable lapse, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and Attorney General Merrick Garland did not meet the February 12 deadline to answer critical inquiries from a group of 12 U.S. senators concerning the process of cannabis rescheduling. The missed deadline underscores the complexities and bureaucratic hurdles in the ongoing dialogue about cannabis policy reform at the federal level.

A Unified Call for Descheduling

Led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the collective of senators reached out to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram and Attorney General Garland on January 29, advocating not just for the rescheduling but for the complete descheduling of cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). This bold move signifies a push to align federal policy with the growing acceptance and recognized medical value of cannabis, as well as with state-level legalization efforts across the country.

The senators’ letter sought clarity on the DEA’s actions following the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommendation to reclassify cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III, indicating recognized medical use. This recommendation came after an eight-factor analysis by the HHS, highlighting a shift in the federal perspective on cannabis.

Awaiting DEA’s Transparency and Action

The senators’ queries to the DEA and the Department of Justice sought to shed light on the current status and expected timeline of the DEA’s review process. These questions are crucial for understanding how the DEA plans to address the HHS’s rescheduling recommendation and what evidence it will consider in its decision-making process.

Furthermore, the letter probes into the DEA’s adherence to its own five-factor test established in 1992, differing from the HHS’s analysis, and questions how rescheduling might affect cannabis-related criminal enforcement. The senators also inquire about the DEA’s commitment to addressing the harms of cannabis criminalization, including racial disparities in federal marijuana enforcement.

Implications for Federal Cannabis Policy

The DEA’s silence on these matters leaves significant policy questions unanswered, particularly concerning how the federal government intends to reconcile its cannabis policies with shifting public opinion, scientific evidence, and state-level reforms. The senators’ emphasis on transparency from the DEA and HHS reflects a broader call for federal agencies to base their cannabis policies on scientific rationale and public health considerations, moving away from decades of prohibitionist policies.

Congressional Authority and the Path Forward

While the DEA holds the executive power to reschedule cannabis, Congress possesses the legislative authority to enact broader cannabis reform, including descheduling. Despite the House of Representatives passing legalization measures, the Senate has yet to act on comprehensive cannabis reform. This stalemate places added pressure on the DEA to advance the conversation through its regulatory authority.

The senators’ push for answers from the DEA highlights a collective effort to ensure that federal cannabis policy is informed, equitable, and reflective of contemporary understandings of cannabis. As the dialogue continues, the DEA’s response—or lack thereof—will play a crucial role in shaping the future of cannabis policy in the United States, affecting millions of Americans and the burgeoning cannabis industry.