Rescheduling hearing starts under cloud of allegations

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) administrative law tribunal’s preliminary hearing gets underway today on the U.S. Department of Justice’s proposal to reschedule cannabis. It starts under a cloud of allegations regarding the agency’s bias towards anti-cannabis factions.

Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II of the DEA is leading the hearing. Mulrooney has attempted to cull the list of participants in the hearing that the DEA provided in order to streamline it. He also tried to address the accusations that the DEA was loading the deck with anti-cannabis proponents.

That situation involved two of the pro-rescheduling parties — Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International who wanted to have the agency replaced from the decision-making process claiming a pattern of being against cannabis cannabis reform.

Those companies alleged that the DEA had improper communication with anti-legalization group Smart Approaches to Marijuana, or SAM, giving its president, Kevin Sabet. Both SAM and the DEA denied having any improper contacts and the judge characterized the request to remove the DEA as “unserious.”

He issued an order last week denying that request saying,

There is no question that the allegations raised by the EPM are distasteful and arguably unhelpful to the public’s perception that the proceedings will be transparent. That said, this tribunal is without authority to grant the supplementation and removal relief sought (the only relief sought) by the Movants. Accordingly, the Movant’s Ex Parte Motion must be, and herein is, DENIED.

However, Mulrooney did note that even if Sabet had contacted the DEA, it wouldn’t change how the hearing would proceed.

One of the issues that seems to have tilted the hand of the participants is the wording by the DEA of who could be included.

Law360 wrote, “DEA regulations require that any interested party participating in a drug rescheduling hearing must be “adversely affected or aggrieved” by the proposed rulemaking. As interpreted by the tribunal, this has resulted in the vast majority of pro-rescheduling participants being deemed not to have standing — although Judge Mulrooney allowed many of these parties to continue participating in the proceedings nonetheless.”

Law360 reported, “Only one pro-rescheduling participant, the industry trade organization National Cannabis Industry Association, or NCIA, was granted standing — and only on the narrow basis that the proposed rule could hurt some of its members’ interests. While the NCIA overall supported rescheduling, the group noted that the proposal could criminalize certain cannabis-derived compounds that are currently unscheduled, effectively making some of the NCIA members’ products illegal for the first time.

With roughly 19 approved participants and each gets 90 minutes to talk. Another participant can cross-examine that witness for 20 minutes. That could mean the hearing could last 18 hours. Though Mulrooney has expressed his desire to keep things moving along so he could potentially dismiss some participants.

The DEA will be live-streaming the hearing here.