John SchroyerAny cannabis industry stakeholders hoping for more intel on the rescheduling process from a congressional questioning of the Drug Enforcement Administration chief on Tuesday morning were sorely disappointed, when the hearing only resulted in a brief verbal jousting between the DEA czar and a few lawmakers.
DEA Administrator Anne Milgram refused to answer questions from a Congressional subcommittee on Tuesday morning when asked about the agency’s recently revealed move to reschedule marijuana as a less-dangerous controlled substance, citing her need to respect the integrity of the process.
“Since DEA is ultimately the decider of scheduling and rescheduling, and the DEA administrator is in that role, it would be inappropriate for me to make comments about this process or parts of that process,” Milgram told a House Appropriations Subcommittee.
Rather, she spent the bulk of the hearing focusing on the DEA’s efforts to combat the threats of illicit fentanyl and trafficking by Mexican and Chinese gangs, as Tuesday was National Fentanyl Awareness Day.
Milgram said she had been advised by DEA counsel that she “should not be engaged in a conversation about” marijuana rescheduling with lawmakers as the process is ongoing, and replied “Yes, sir” when one congressman said he believed she was prohibited from discussing the process by federal law.
But when pressed by committee members, Milgram confirmed that the rescheduling process is underway.
“Under the Controlled Substances Act, there’s a formal rulemaking process for scheduling or rescheduling controlled substances. That process is ongoing. The next step in that process will be a notice of proposed rulemaking, and then an opportunity for public comment,” Milgram said when asked by Democratic U.S. Rep. Dutch Ruppensberger of Maryland about cannabis rescheduling.
Despite Milgram’s avoidance of the topic, several members – including Ruppensberger – took the opportunity to weigh in themselves on marijuana reform, which lay bare some of the political hurdles and talking points marijuana rescheduling may yet face.
Though Ruppensberger urged Milgram to “balance” states’ rights with federal enforcement of marijuana, saying that his state’s marijuana industry “is working well,” some of the other committee members weren’t as supportive of making cannabis more accessible for consumers.
Alabama Republican U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt cited a study that found marijuana use was linked to an “elevated risk of psychotic conditions, including psychosis, depression, anxiety” and more, and asserted that the U.S. is going through a “mental health crisis” that could be exacerbated by marijuana rescheduling.
“There’s many of us in Washington and in the Congress … who are very concerned about that. And we hope this is something that is not done,” Aderholt told Milgram about the rescheduling proposal.
Milgram declined to respond, again saying it would be “inappropriate” for her to weigh in.
Milgram also refused to get into a political discussion about the origins of the rescheduling move when pressed by U.S. Rep. Andrew Clyde, a Georgia Republican, who wanted to know if the decision to move on rescheduling was made by the White House, the DEA, or Attorney General Merrick Garland.
“I’m asking, where’s it coming from? Is it coming from the DEA? Is it coming from the attorney general? Is it coming from the White House office of OMB? Where’s it coming from?” Clyde said to Milgram during the hearing.
“Again, as the agency that will be the ultimate decider, I’m not going to engage in conversations about issues that could be part of this conversation,” Milgram replied.
Clyde shot back, “Marijuana is a very, very dangerous drug, okay. Not as dangerous as some of the others we’ve talked about here. But It’s certainly much more dangerous than what you see regularly that people partake of, like alcohol.”
