A Democratic congresswoman has urged the Drug Enforcement Administration to “reject any arguments” that rescheduling cannabis under federal law will violate international treaty obligations. She also wants the agency to provide a list with all “outside partners”, who it has spoken to about the global implications of cannabis reclassification.
Sydney Kamlager-Dove, a California Democrat, sent a letter addressed to Administrator Anne Milgram, focusing on the discussion of treaties, in which prohibitionists insist that the U.S. is bound by decades-old international agreements on drug policies, which experts dispute.
Kamlager-Dove wrote: “I urge you to reject any arguments in support of keeping marijuana in Schedule I and Schedule II based upon U.S. Treaty Obligations.” She added that the treaties do not “require the U.S. keep marijuana in Schedule I and II, nor do they prevent the DEA accepting” the Schedule III reassignment recommendation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The congresswoman stated in a letter sent earlier in the month, but announced by her office in a Monday press release that “Cannabis must be completely removed from the Controlled Substances Act schedule.” “However I acknowledge that rescheduling cannabis is a historical first step in addressing the harms caused by the War on Drugs. This is why I would like to make sure that U.S. treaties are not used as a possible reason against rescheduling and de-scheduling pot.
“Rescheduling cannabis to Schedule III is a welcome move towards reducing the devastating effects that marijuana’s inclusion in the CSA caused. As a supporter of the removal of cannabis from the CSA I understand that rescheduling is a first step towards achieving decriminalization. I therefore ask you to follow HHS’s recommendations and reschedule the marijuana to Schedule III. I reject any arguments in support of keeping marijuana in Schedule I and Schedule II due U.S. Treaty Obligations.”
In 2016, DEA denied an earlier petition for marijuana rescheduling, noting, “in light of United States obligations pursuant to international drug control agreements, marijuana cannot placed in a more restrictive schedule than schedule II.”
A recent opinion by legal experts disputes this assessment. They argued, in fact, that moving cannabis to Schedule III would better support the country’s obligations under international law that regulate cannabis to protect public health and safety.
Kamlager-Dove’s new letter says: “As a supporter of the removal of marijuana in the CSA I recognize that rescheduling is an initial step towards achieving the ultimate decriminalization goal.” “Therefore, I request that you at least follow HHS recommendations to reschedule the marijuana to Schedule III, and reject any arguments in support of keeping marijuana in Schedule I and Schedule II due to U.S. Treaty commitments.”
In her letter, the congresswoman asked DEA to respond “at their earliest opportunity” to three questions.
- Does the DEA believe that treaty obligations prevent it from adopting HHS’s recommendation to move marijuana to Schedule III?
- Who has tried to influence DEA’s view on the applicable treaty obligations or the proposed reclassification? Please provide a list of all meetings DEA has had with external partners regarding this issue.
- Has the DEA consulted the U.S. Department of State, or any other expert agency outside of U.S. Department of Justice about treaty obligations and pending administrative processes to reconsider marijuana’s schedule I classification?
Rep. Andy Harris, R-MD, is among those who have raised concerns over treaty obligations that could prevent a move from Schedule I to Schedule III. raised this issue in a late-last month letter to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram. He claimed that any reclassification of marijuana that would put it outside of Schedule I and Schedule II “would be a violation” of the Single Convention. This refers to the 1961 United Nations Single Convention on Narcotic drugs.
A coalition of 12 Senators had pointed out in an letter sent to Milgram one week earlier that the UN had since revised its global cannabis scheduling policy and allowed member states such as Canada to legalize and control marijuana without penalties. These lawmakers urged DEA legalize marijuana fully.
In support of this, the authors of a recent legal opinion published by the Coalition for Cannabis Scheduling Reform have cited Canada and Uruguay as examples of international drug treaties that broadly support the regulation of drugs for safety, medical research, and applications.
The memo states that “Rescheduling Marijuana as Schedule III would promote the Treaties general goal to prioritize the health, safety and welfare of mankind and their specific goal to advance medical and scientific research on controlled substances.” “Similar concerns led Uruguay and Canada into full legalization of adult use (a move far beyond HHS/FDA Schedule III recommendations). The Treaty obligations of neither country were a barrier to this move.
The DEA has “previously relied on this flexibility to reschedule Epidiolex a Marijuana based drug”, which consists of purified CBD.
DEA has recently stated that is the “final authority” in rescheduling decisions. However, officials have not yet indicated the status of their review despite lawmakers’ requests.
While many legislators have urged DEA to accept HHS’ recommendation to move marijuana to Schedule III last week, Congressional Cannabis Caucus Co-chair Rep. Barbara Lee, (D-CA), told Marijuana Moment that she is “opposed” by the modest reform. She argued that this could set the nation back “another fifty years” on the road to federal legalization.
The Biden administration was also recently pressed to move marijuana to Schedule III by two coalitions representing military veterans and law enforcement–including a group that counts DEA’s Milgram among its members.
Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-OR, the founding co-chair of the Cannabis Caucus, has also urged DEA for more information on its own ongoing review. This includes what the “planned deadline” to finish is and if it will consider the fact that several states have already legalized marijuana.
The correspondence was in response to a recent statement from DEA that they have “final authority” over the rescheduling decisions–which, itself, was a response to a letter sent by Blumenauer and other bipartisan legislators.
HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra stated last month that had “communicated” to DEA its “position” regarding marijuana rescheduling and continued to provide additional information in order to help with the final decision.
Before HHS released a trove documents regarding its cannabis recommendation, a group of Democratic state attorneys general urged DEA to proceed with federal marijuana rescheduling. They called the policy change a ‘public safety imperative.
In a second letter, sent in December, 29 former U.S. Attorneys urged the Biden administration not to include cannabis on Schedule I.
In the same month, six U.S. governors–Colorado. Illinois, New York. New Jersey, Maryland, and Louisiana-sent a message to Biden , urging the administration to reschedule cannabis by the end last year.
Six former DEA directors and five former White House Drug Czars have sent a letter to the Attorney General and current DEA Administrator expressing their opposition to the recommendation of the federal health agency to reschedule cannabis . The letter also included a questionable statement about the relationship between criminal penalties and drug schedules, which could have exaggerated the impact of incremental reform.
The DEA and Office of National Drug Control Policy directors under both major parties’ presidents are among the signatories.
A coalition of Republican lawmakers, meanwhile separately, urged DEA “reject” top federal health agency’s recommendation to reschedule cannabis and keep it instead in the most restricted category under the CSA.
According to a recent survey, about 13 of marijuana users said they would return to the illegal market in case cannabis was rescheduled as a prescription-only drug and made available legally.
A recent survey revealed that Joe Biden could gain significant political benefits if marijuana were rescheduled as per his administrative directive. Biden does not directly control the outcome.
He has regularly praised his 2022 scheduling order, as well a mass pardon that he granted to people who had committed federal marijuana possession crimes. In December , he issued a new and expanded pardon declaration. The Justice Department has begun issuing certificates for those who applied in the second round.
According to one pardoned person, the Vice President Kamala Harris’s office has been contacting people who have received a cannabis-pardon to ensure that the certification process at Justice Department is proceeding smoothly. They also engage in broader conversations about cannabis policy reform.
Separately FDA recently highlighted its scientific review of marijuana which led the agency recommend rescheduling. This process involved a thorough analysis of research as well as looking at hundreds and hundreds of social media posts to see how users described cannabis’s therapeutic effects.
Below, you can read the letter from the Congresswoman to DEA regarding marijuana scheduling and international agreements:
Marijuana retailers give customers the chance to round up purchases in order to fund legalization efforts
Photo by Mike Latimer.
The post A Congresswoman Tells DEA to ‘Reject any Argument’ that Marijuana Reclassification Would Violate International Treaties first appeared on Marijuana Moment.
