Tag: dea

Marijuana Rescheduling Would Create Over 50,000 New Jobs, Industry Group Tells DEA On Last Day Of Public Comment Period

If the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) ultimately decides not to move forward with marijuana rescheduling, many small and minority-owned cannabis business will have to close shop, “resulting in major economic losses and unemployment,” according to a new industry report. But enacting the reform, in contrast, would grow the sector, adding more than 50,000 jobs by 2030.

The Minority Cannabis Business Association (MCBA) included the data from the report that was conducted by Whitney Economics in a public comment submitted to DEA ahead of Monday’s deadline for stakeholders to weigh in on cannabis rescheduling, offering a detailed economic analysis as the agency had specifically requested in its call for expert input.

The MCBA survey of 206 marijuana licensees across 32 states revealed some troubling trends in the cannabis industry, with just 27 percent of respondents reporting that their operations are profitable, compared to 41 percent that are breaking even and 36 percent that are losing money.

More than 80 percent of the businesses cited finances and tax issues as major economic problems. And MCBA said those issues could be largely resolved in DEA does move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) as the Justice Department has proposed because it would mean that the sector could finally take federal tax deductions they’re currently barred from under an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code known as 280E.

The “economic data indicates this Proposed Rule would positively impact all 42,125 state-issued marijuana licenses, and in particular small and minority-owned businesses,” it says. “The excess tax payments imposed as a result of IRC § 280E currently prevent marijuana businesses from deducting ordinary business expenses, resulting in higher taxable income and federal tax expense.”

Keep reading

Kentucky Governor Pushes DEA To Reschedule Marijuana, Saying It’s An “Alternative To Deadly Opioids’

The governor of Kentucky has added his voice to the chorus of people urging the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to follow through on the Biden administration’s plan to reschedule marijuana.

Gov. Andy Beshear (D) on Wednesday submitted a public comment on the proposed rule, which would move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). There are currently more than 31,000 comments submitted on the proposal, with the deadline to weigh in coming up on Monday.

“As Governor, my job is to move our state forward,” Beshear said, referencing his state’s medical cannabis legalization policy that he signed into law. “Rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III is a significant, common-sense step forward for all Kentuckians, especially those with significant medical conditions.”

He added that the reclassification will have “substantial and meaningful impacts” on patients, communities, businesses and research.

While he argued that the reform would provide an “alternative to deadly opioids,” that’s not necessarily the case. As a Schedule III drug, marijuana would still be federally illegal unless the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved it as a medicine, which is unlikely for a botanical substance.

Beshear added that rescheduling will promote “fair markets” for cannabis, as it will allow state-licensed marijuana businesses to take federal tax deductions that they’ve been barred from under an Internal Revenue Service code known as 280E. The policy change would also mean “real opportunities for research on marijuana” since certain barriers imposed on studying Schedule I drugs would be lifted.

Keep reading

DEA Exemption Process For Religious Psychedelics Use Needs Clearer Timelines And Standards, Government Watchdog Agency Says

A federal government watchdog agency says in a new report that the Drug Enforcement Administration should improve the process through which it considers granting religious exemptions for psilocybin and other controlled substances, asserting that the existing route lacks clarity on timing, evaluation and other matters.

The 80-page report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) notes that although psilocybin remains a Schedule I controlled substance under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), people may petition DEA for exemptions to use it—or other controlled substances—for religious purposes.

“DEA has established a process for these petitions, but its guidance doesn’t set clear timeframes for the decision-making,” it continues. “Exemption petitions have taken from 8 months to over 3 years to be resolved.”

GAO focused specifically on psilocybin use under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which is meant to protect religious practices from undue government burdens. The agency found that the DEA exemption procedure itself was burdensome.

“Selected stakeholders reported several barriers to the legal access and use of psilocybin for religious practices under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” GAO says. “For example, DEA established a process for parties to petition for a religious exemption from the Controlled Substances Act to use controlled substances for religious purposes. However, DEA’s guidance does not inform petitioners on its timeframes to make determinations on completed petitions.”

Keep reading

DEA Says ‘THCA Does Not Meet The Definition’ Of Legal Hemp As Congress Weighs Cannabinoid Recriminalization In Farm Bill

To meet the federal definition of hemp under the 2018 Farm Bill, a cannabis product must contain less than 0.3 percent delta-9 THC. Now, in a new letter clarifying that limit, a top Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) official says the threshold includes not only delta-9 THC itself but also the related cannabinoid THCA, which is converted into delta-9 THC when heated—a process known as decarboxylation.

“In regards to THCA, Congress has directed that, when determining whether a substance constitutes hemp, the delta-9 THC concentration is to be tested ‘using post-decarboxylation or other similarly reliable methods,’” says the letter, sent earlier this month by Terrence Boos, chief of DEA’s drug and chemical evaluation section.

“The ‘decarboxylation’ process converts delta-9-THCA to delta-9-THC,” Boos continued. “Thus, for the purposes of enforcing the hemp definition, the delta-9 THC level must account for any delta-9 THCA.”

“Accordingly, cannabis-derived THCA does not meet the definition of hemp under the CSA,” he concluded, “because upon conversion for identification purposes as required by Congress, it is equivalent to delta-9-THC”

The position articulated in the May 13 letter comes in response to a request for clarification sent to DEA last month by cannabis attorney Shane Pennington, who declined to comment for this story. According to the DEA letter, Pennington last month “requested the control status of tetrahydrocannabinolic acid (THCA) under the Controlled Substances Act.”

A similar request from Pennington, a lawyer at the firm Porter Wright, was also the impetus for DEA’s declaration in 2022 that marijuana seeds are considered legal hemp as long as they don’t exceed federal THC limits.

DEA’s position on THCA comes as federal lawmakers reconsider how to address hemp and cannabinoids under a revised version of the Farm Bill, with a key House committee having recently adopted an amendment that would generally ban hemp-derived cannabinoids such as delta-8 THC.

DEA is essentially saying in the letter that because THCA so readily converts into delta-9 THC, it can’t be ignored when measuring a product’s delta-9 THC level.

That’s not at all how the U.S. hemp industry sees it, however.

“This interpretation would destroy the hemp industry,” Jonathan Miller, general counsel for the U.S. Hemp Roundtable, told Marijuana Moment on Friday. “Most hemp growers, even fiber and grain growers, would be out of compliance.”

Asked if he thought hemp farmers would object to the idea that a product that tests at 0.2 percent delta-9 THC but also 4.6 percent THCA, Miller replied: “I would imagine nearly every hemp farmer and company would find this interpretation objectionable.”

Shawn Hauser, who co-chairs cannabis-focused law firm Vicente LLP’s hemp and cannabinoids practice, said the Farm Bill “requires biomass to be tested pre-harvest for total THC, which considers the percentage of THCA in pre-harvest material.”

Hemp products are required to have a pre-harvest certificate of analysis showing the products are compliant, she said.

“So pre-harvest, a plant with high THCA likely exceeds the maximum allowable THC content and wouldn’t be lawful,” Hauser said. “This has been a point of confusion among businesses and state regulators.”

The situation—including ongoing discussions of how to amend the Farm Bill’s handling of cannabinoids—”just underscores the imminent need for legalization and regulation of the whole plant,” she added. “Trying to draw arbitrary lines in the plant and the law without a federal regulatory or enforcement framework doesn’t work.”

Keep reading

Biden’s Spin on Marijuana’s Rescheduling Exaggerates Its Practical Impact

President Joe Biden describes the Drug Enforcement Administration’s proposal to reclassify marijuana under federal law as “monumental.” How so? “It’s an important move toward reversing longstanding inequities,” Biden claims in a video posted on Thursday. “Today’s announcement builds on the work we’ve already done to pardon a record number of federal offenses for simple possession of marijuana, and it adds to the action we’ve taken to lift barriers to housing, employment, small business loans, and so much more for tens of thousands of Americans.”

Even allowing for 60 days of public comment and review of a final rule by Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, marijuana’s rescheduling could be finalized before the presidential election. And even if it does not take effect before then, Biden is hoping the move will help motivate younger voters whose turnout could be crucial to his re-election. But he also had better hope those voters are not paying much attention to the practical consequences of rescheduling marijuana, which are much more modest than his rhetoric implies.

“Look, folks,” Biden says in the video, “no one should be in jail merely for using or possessing marijuana. Period. Far too many lives have been upended because of [our] failed approach to marijuana, and I’m committed to righting those wrongs.” Yet rescheduling marijuana will not decriminalize marijuana use, even for medical purposes. It will not legalize state-licensed marijuana businesses or resolve the growing conflict between federal prohibition and state laws that authorize those businesses. It will not stop the war on weed or do much to ameliorate the injustice it inflicts.

In accordance with a recommendation that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made last August, the DEA plans to move marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act, a list of completely prohibited drugs, to Schedule III, which includes prescription medications such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. Schedule I supposedly is reserved for drugs with a high abuse potential and no accepted medical applications that cannot be used safely even under a doctor’s supervision.

When Biden directed HHS to review marijuana’s legal status in October 2022, he noted that “we classify marijuana at the same level as heroin” and treat it as “more serious than fentanyl,” which “makes no sense.” On Thursday, he likewise noted that “marijuana has a higher-level classification than fentanyl and methamphetamine—the two drugs driving America’s overdose epidemic.”

Biden is right that marijuana’s current classification makes no sense, as critics have been pointing out for half a century and as HHS belatedly acknowledged in explaining the rationale for rescheduling. HHS found “credible scientific support” for marijuana’s use in the treatment of pain, nausea and vomiting, and “anorexia related to a medical condition.” It also noted that “the risks to the public health posed by marijuana are low compared to other drugs of abuse,” such as heroin (Schedule I), cocaine (Schedule II), benzodiazepines like Valium and Xanax (Schedule IV), and alcohol (unscheduled).

Keep reading

DEA Appears To Question Marijuana’s Medical Value Despite Rescheduling Recommendation

In the wake of the federal government’s marijuana rescheduling announcement last week that acknowledged the medical benefits of cannabis, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) on Thursday released a report that appears to question the legitimacy of state medical programs.

“Marijuana remains illegal at the federal level; it has been ‘legalized’ or ‘decriminalized’ at the state level for recreational use in 24 states and the District of Columbia, and for ‘medical’ use in 38 states and the District of Columbia,” the annual National Drug Threat Assessment says, appearing to call those state-level changes and the medical value of cannabis into question by putting scare quotes around key words.

That’s despite the fact that DEA recently agreed to a Department of Health and Human Services recommendation to move cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, acknowledging for the first time that cannabis has an accepted medical use in the U.S.

The comments make up only a small part of the 57-page annual report, which the agency said analyzes “illicit drug threats and trafficking trends endangering the United States.”

The top-level findings, according to a statement from DEA Administrator Anne Milgram, are that the country’s shift toward synthetic substances such as fentanyl and methamphetamine—which she blamed largely on international cartels—has caused unprecedented harm.

“The shift from plant-based drugs, like heroin and cocaine, to synthetic, chemical-based drugs, like fentanyl and methamphetamine, has resulted in the most dangerous and deadly drug crisis the United States has ever faced,” Milgram said. “At the heart of the synthetic drug crisis are the Sinaloa and Jalisco cartels and their associates, who DEA is tracking world-wide.”

“The suppliers, manufacturers, distributors, and money-launderers all play a role in the web of deliberate and calculated treachery orchestrated by these cartels,” her statement continued. “DEA will continue to use all available resources to target these networks and save American lives.”

In 2022, drug-related deaths killed 107,941 people in the United States, DEA said in its press release about the new assessment. “Fentanyl and other synthetic opioids are responsible for approximately 70% of lives lost,” it says, “while methamphetamine and other synthetic stimulants are responsible for approximately 30% of deaths.”

The agency press release doesn’t mention marijuana, though this year’s National Drug Threat Assessment itself does include some cannabis-related details.

Keep reading

Do dying people have a ‘right to try’ magic mushrooms? 9th Circuit weighs case

Do dying patients have a “right to try” illegal drugs such as psilocybin and MDMA if they might alleviate end-of-life suffering from anxiety and depression?

That question is now before one of the nation’s highest courts, with a Seattle-based palliative care physician appealing a U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration decision barring him from prescribing psilocybin to his late-stage cancer patients.

Dr. Sunil Aggarwal says he has a right to prescribe psilocybin—the hallucinogenic compound in “magic mushrooms”—under state and federal “right to try” laws, which give terminal patients access to experimental drug therapies before they are approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. More than 40 states, including Washington and California, have such laws in place, and Congress passed a federal version in 2018.

“I have patients who want to try psilocybin-assisted therapy for existential distress,” Aggarwal said in an interview with The Times. “And there are lots of studies that support that.”

The DEA has denied Aggarwal’s request, arguing that therapeutic use of psilocybin remains banned—even for terminal patients—under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, which lists the drug as a “Schedule I” narcotic with no recognized medical use. The agency said Aggarwal could only work with the drug if he received a license to do so as a researcher, not as a regular part of his palliative care practice.

The case is one of two Aggarwal now has pending before the 9th Circuit, each pitting the DEA’s law enforcement authority against state powers to regulate medicine. In the second case, Aggarwal is asking the DEA to simply reschedule psilocybin, making it available for therapy—not just research.

Physicians and medical experts across the country are closely watching the “right to try” case, and eight states and the District of Columbia have weighed in directly in support of Aggarwal.

In February, the state coalition filed a brief that accused the DEA of reaching far beyond its law enforcement role of preventing the illegal diversion of powerful narcotics. They said the DEA’s assertion that the Controlled Substances Act trumps state right-to-try laws represented a “threat to state sovereignty.”

Keep reading

Rescheduling Marijuana Does Not Address Today’s Central Cannabis Issue

The Justice Department yesterday confirmed that the Drug Enforcement Administration  (DEA) plans to move marijuana from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), a list of completely prohibited drugs, to Schedule III, which includes prescription medications such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids. The Associated Press notes that the change, which is based on an August 2023 recommendation by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that resulted from a review President Joe Biden ordered in October 2022, “would not legalize marijuana outright for recreational use.”

That is by no means the only thing rescheduling marijuana will not do. Biden wants credit for “marijuana reform,” which he hopes will help motivate young voters whose turnout could be crucial to his reelection. The announcement of the DEA’s decision seems designed to maximize its electoral impact. But voters should not be fooled: Although moving marijuana to Schedule III will facilitate medical research and provide a financial boost to the cannabis industry, it will leave federal pot prohibition essentially untouched.

Rescheduling marijuana will not resolve the conflict between the CSA and the laws of the 38 states that recognize cannabis as a medicine, 24 of which also allow recreational use. State-licensed marijuana businesses will remain criminal enterprises under federal law, exposing them to the risk of prosecution and forfeiture. While an annually renewed spending rider protects medical marijuana suppliers from those risks, prosecutorial discretion is the only thing that protects businesses serving the recreational market.

Even if they have state licenses, marijuana suppliers will be in the same legal position as anyone who sells a Schedule III drug without federal permission. Unauthorized distribution is punishable by up to 10 years in prison for a first offense and up to 20 years for subsequent offenses. That is less severe than the current federal penalties for growing or distributing marijuana, which include five-year, 10-year, and 20-year mandatory minimum sentences, depending on the number of plants or amount of marijuana. But distributing cannabis, with or without state permission, will remain a felony.

That reality suggests that banks will remain leery of providing financial services to state-licensed marijuana suppliers, which entails a risk of potentially devastating criminal, civil, and regulatory penalties. The dearth of financial services has forced many cannabis suppliers to rely heavily on cash, which is cumbersome and exposes them to a heightened risk of robbery. It also makes investment in business expansion difficult.

Although federal arrests for simple marijuana possession are rare, cannabis consumers likewise will still be committing crimes, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana. Under 21 USC 844, possessing a controlled substance without a prescription is a misdemeanor punishable by a minimum $1,000 fine and up to a year in jail. Moving marijuana to Schedule III will not change that law, which only Congress can do. Nor did President Joe Biden’s mass pardons for people convicted of simple marijuana possession under that statute, which apply only retrospectively, “decriminalize the use of cannabis,” as he promised to do during his 2020 campaign.

Keep reading

Marijuana Legalization Opponents Raise Money For Potential Lawsuit Against Federal Rescheduling Move

A day after the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) decision that marijuana will move to the less-restrictive Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act, a leading cannabis prohibition group sent an email to supporters asking for money to fuel its fight against the reform.

“SAM will oppose this change at every level, including, if necessary, pursuing legal action,” the group, Smart Approaches to Marijuana, wrote in the email on Wednesday.

An included link to what SAM describes as a “Rescheduling Legal Defense Fund” asks for one-time or monthly recurring donations of between $250 and $5,000, though supporters can also choose an “other” amount.

“Our new Rescheduling Legal Defense Fund will be used to support our challenges of marijuana laws and regulations, specifically marijuana’s Schedule III recommendation,” the donation page says.

SAM, one of the most outspoken organizations against legalizing marijuana, then cited its representatives’ multiple recent appearances in national news and print media.

“Let’s be clear: this does not mean marijuana is legalized—it will remain federally illegal,” SAM said in its fundraising email. “But, if implemented, moving marijuana to Schedule III would give Big Marijuana billions in tax write-offs as well as continue the normalization of high-potency THC drugs.”

SAM did not immediately provide more details about the possible legal action in response to a query from Marijuana Moment.

Keep reading

It Took Me Months To Get the ADHD Meds the DEA Says Are Overprescribed

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been warning that prescription stimulant abuse could be the next opioid epidemic. After a monthslong quest to get my hands on some legally, I can report back that the agency’s fears are not only overblown; they are hurting people who legitimately need medication.

Bloomberg reported last week that a senior DEA official saw the early signs of a drug abuse crisis in the increased demand for stimulants, which are commonly used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and narcolepsy:

“I’m not trying to be a doomsday-er here,” said Matthew Strait, deputy assistant administrator in the diversion control division said in an online seminar. But he compared the current situation with stimulants to the beginning of the opioid crisis and said “it makes me feel like we’re at the precipice of our next drug crisis in the United States.”

Among the factors Strait cited were stimulant abuse, the lack of standard guidelines for diagnosing ADHD, unscrupulous telehealth companies and internet advertisements, and more manufacturers making the drugs. Bloomberg reported that the agency is drafting regulations to restrict telehealth prescriptions.

I read Strait’s comments with a mixture of amusement and outrage, because this year I went through the laborious process of getting diagnosed and prescribed medication for adult ADHD.

I don’t remember when a doctor first diagnosed me with ADHD. It was probably in first or second grade. I have a vague memory of a doctor, not my regular pediatrician, asking me a bunch of questions. The doctor then explained in careful sentences that I had “attention deficit disorder.” (This was before the “H” was added.) I don’t remember what I thought back then about having a disorder. I don’t recall it being a blow to my self-esteem. I was precocious and unflappable. I liked being me, and this was just another thing about me. I had brown hair. I wore glasses. I had attention deficit disorder.

I wasn’t an idiot, though; I knew why I’d been sent to a special doctor. My teachers complained that I didn’t stay on task, and it was creating problems in the classroom.

I didn’t think there was anything unreasonable about being bored in school or fidgeting when the teachers refused to let me doodle, but I also knew time got away from me in strange ways. I often got lost in thought, staring into space while the rest of the world moved like a VHS tape on fast-forward. I forgot things constantly. Things I should remember to do, things I wanted and intended to do, obligations to friends and family. They all flitted out of my mind, making me seem thoughtless, lazy, and rude. Chores and homework piled up. Deadlines were missed. My desk drawers became stuffed with organizational notebooks and planners given to me by the well-meaning women in my life.

I struggled in college as the amount of long-term projects and research papers increased. I could watch myself fail classes, but I couldn’t seem to stop it from happening. When I was offered a newspaper fellowship that required dropping out of school, it was less an opportunity than an escape hatch.

Except for a few brief stints, I’ve gone through almost all of my life unmedicated. The last time was when I was living in Washington, D.C., in my mid-20s. I got an Adderall prescription filled by a doctor in a small, barely furnished office after a 5-minute interview. But that lasted only a few months. I kept forgetting to get the prescription refilled. I knew myself well enough by then to find this darkly amusing.

By my late 30s, I was no longer amused. I didn’t like myself anymore. I was tired of letting down people I cared about, sick of messing up at work because I was too scatterbrained, and filled with dread at the thought of spending the rest of my life like this.

Unfortunately, I live in a fairly remote area. I couldn’t find a psychiatrist anywhere near me who was in my insurance network, specialized in adult ADHD, or had gotten their license after the Reagan administration. But one referred me to a psychiatrist who offers telehealth appointments.

During the early stages of the COVID pandemic, the DEA temporarily lifted restrictions on doctors’ ability to write prescriptions for controlled drugs via telehealth. The agency announced last October that it was extending those policies through December.

While the DEA and Bloomberg warn that online appointments have allowed companies to push Adderall prescriptions to people who didn’t really need them, it was a godsend for me. My psychiatrist was thorough and professional. After an hour-long virtual intake session, she diagnosed me with moderate to severe ADHD. It turns out that taking a year to be able to remember what day the garbage can goes to the curb is pretty definitive. She also diagnosed me with mild anxiety, likely related to being a married adult who can’t remember what day the garbage truck comes.

That was the bad news. Next came more bad news: The psychiatrist was prescribing me generic Vyvanse, but there was a national shortage of the stimulants used in ADHD medicine.

Keep reading