The long-awaited hearing to discuss cannabis rescheduling will begin on January 21, 2025, marking a significant moment in the ongoing debate over cannabis regulation. As Business of Cannabis reported, the six-week hearing will continue until March 6, 2025, but its outcome remains uncertain due to political and procedural challenges.

With key positions in the new administration still unconfirmed, many questions remain about how much influence the incoming cabinet will have on the hearings. This uncertainty has raised concerns over the DEA’s impartiality and the fairness of the process.

Legal Challenges From Health Coalitions And Advocates

In a move that has added to the controversy, the Doctors for Drug Policy Reform has filed a federal court petition challenging the DEA's exclusion from the hearings. According to Businnes of Cannabis, the group argues that their medical expertise is essential for evaluating the implications of cannabis rescheduling, particularly regarding medical marijuana prescriptions.

Additionally, weeks ago, the agency denied MedPharm's bid to join the December 2 hearing. MedPharm, a DEA-registered research firm, criticized the exclusion of marijuana researchers and the inclusion of prohibitionist organizations such as Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM). 

SAM has been also at the center of the controversy. On November 28, attorney Matt Zorn sued the DEA for failing to release records related to its communications with the organization. The DEA dismissed them as "gossip," arguing that there was no illegal contact, despite SAM President Kevin Sabet admitting to discussing the details of the rescheduling with DEA insiders. SAM also denied that the conversations had anything to do with the rescheduling procedure.

Earlier in November, the Veterans Action Council, a cannabis advocacy organization for military veterans, filed a petition challenging its exclusion from the DEA’s participant list, published in October. The petiton followed the withdrawal of some designated participants and growing scrutiny over the agency's handling of the rescheduling process.

Several organizations have pulled out of the hearings since the initial announcement. The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine missed important procedural deadlines, while an oncologist representing the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine opted not to participate. Additionally, five remaining participants are represented by David Evans, a prominent anti-cannabis advocate, highlighting the polarized nature of the upcoming hearings.

Scheduled Presentations And Participants

The DEA has outlined a strict schedule for the hearings, featuring presentations from various stakeholders, including industry groups, law enforcement and medical professionals. Notable participants include the National Cannabis Industry Association and Smart Approaches to Marijuana, among others. The schedule includes:

• January 21: Presentation by the government
• January 22-23: Presentations from Hemp for Victory, Cannabis Bioscience International Holdings and other groups
• January 28-30: Presentations from the Connecticut Office of the Cannabis Ombudsman, National Cannabis Industry Association and additional participants
• February 4-6: Presentations from The Commonwealth Project, Veterans Initiative 22 and others
• February 18-20: Presentations from the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, International Association of Chiefs of Police and more
• February 25-27: Presentations from Smart Approaches to Marijuana, Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America and other stakeholders
• March 4-6: Presentations from Dr. Kenneth Finn, National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association and others.

Public Comments Excluded From the Process

Although more than 43,000 public comments were submitted during the 60-day comment period, the DEA has ruled that these comments will not be accepted as evidence, citing the limitations of the Administrative Procedure Act. This decision has generated criticism from cannabis advocates and industry leaders.

High Stakes For The Industry

Reclassifying marijuana could provide significant advantages to the U.S. cannabis industry. It would ease research and financial restrictions, improve access to banking and reduce legal challenges, enabling businesses to operate more freely. A Schedule III classification could also lead to broader insurance coverage and more federal funding for cannabis research, potentially fostering growth, investment and innovation. Advocates argue that rescheduling would enhance regulation and increase access to medical cannabis, but given the complexities of the process, the final decision may still be months away, with lasting impacts on the industry.

Cover image made with AI