Public Comments Sought on Marijuana Rescheduling

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The U.S. public is finally getting a chance to comment on the federal government’s historic decision to reclassify marijuana from a Schedule I substance with a “high potential for abuse” to a less restrictive Schedule III drug with “moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence.”

After months of foot dragging, the Justice Department published a notice in the Federal Register today giving the public 60 days to comment on the proposed rescheduling. Written comments must be submitted or postmarked on or before July 22. Online comments can be made here.

Every step in this process has been fraught with delays. And there may be more.

The Food and Drug Administration completed a review last August – nearly a year after it was requested by President Biden -- finding “credible scientific support” for marijuana’s rescheduling. But the FDA report was not made public until January, after a lawsuit was filed by two pro-cannabis lawyers seeking its release when the agency didn’t respond to requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Another four months passed before the Justice Department, which oversees the Drug Enforcement Administration, submitted to the Federal Register a notice about the proposed rescheduling. Since the DEA is charged with enforcing the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and determines how drugs are scheduled, public notices involving the CSA are almost always signed by the DEA administrator.

This one, however, is signed by Attorney General Merrick Garland, not DEA Administrator Anne Milgram – a sign that her agency is not yet on board with marijuana’s rescheduling.

“DEA has not yet made a determination as to its views of the appropriate schedule for marijuana,” Garland wrote. “The CSA vests the Attorney General with the authority to schedule, reschedule, or decontrol drugs… The Attorney General has delegated that authority to the DEA Administrator, but also retains the authority to schedule drugs under the CSA in the first instance.”

According to an Associated Press report, Milgram told her staff in March that marijuana’s rescheduling “had been taken over” by Garland and the DOJ. The DEA wanted more time for studies to determine whether marijuana has an accepted medical use, a request that was rejected.

Former DEA Administrator Tim Shea believes the rescheduling process was hijacked by DOJ for political reasons.

“If she (Milgram) had supported it she would have signed it and sent it in,” Shea told the AP. “DEA was opposed to this and the politics entered and overruled them. It’s demoralizing. Everybody from the agents in the streets to the leadership in DEA knows the dangers this brings.”   

Asked recently during a congressional hearing what her views are on marijuana. Milgram ducked the question.

“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 said.

‘Evidence Supports Marijuana for Pain’

Reclassifying marijuana as a Schedule III substance – in the same category as codeine and ketamine – may be historic, but it’s not the full “legalization” that many cannabis supporters have been calling for.  

Under the CSA, legal access to Schedule III substances requires a prescription from a licensed doctor that is filled at a licensed pharmacy. Any new medical marijuana products would also have to go through a lengthy and costly clinical trial process to assess their safety and effectiveness. Even if they pass that test, they would likely only be approved by FDA for certain conditions.  

Garland’s notice in the Federal Register is largely based on the FDA’s 2023 review, which states there is good evidence that marijuana is helpful in treating chronic pain and mixed evidence it could be useful in relieving nausea, anxiety, epilepsy and PTSD.

“FDA’s review of the available information identified mixed findings of effectiveness across indications, ranging from data showing inconclusive findings to considerable evidence in favor of effectiveness, depending on the source. The largest evidence base for effectiveness exists for marijuana use within the pain indication (in particular, neuropathic pain). Numerous systematic reviews concluded that there exists some level of evidence supporting the use of marijuana for chronic pain,” Garland wrote.

As for marijuana’s potential for abuse, Garland cited findings that marijuana poses less of a health risk than illicit drugs and even some legal medications such as oxycodone and benzodiazepines.

“The rank order of the comparators in terms of greatest adverse consequences typically ranked heroin, benzodiazepines, and cocaine first or in immediately subsequent positions, with marijuana in a lower place in the ranking,” Garland wrote.

“For overdose deaths, marijuana is always in the lowest ranking among comparator drugs. These evaluations demonstrate that there is consistency across databases, across substances, and over time. HHS thus concluded that although abuse of marijuana produces clear evidence of a risk to public health, that risk is relatively lower than that posed by most other comparator drugs.”

The opening of a public comment period does not mark the end of the rescheduling process. The DEA/DOJ will need time to review and evaluate thousands of comments, which will be followed by an administrative hearing and a final ruling that is subject to presidential review. Even then, the final rule has to be published in the Federal Register, followed by a 30 or 60-day wait period before the rule takes effect. 

During that process, and until a final rule is published, marijuana remains a schedule I controlled substance that is illegal under federal law. About three-quarters of states have already legalized marijuana for medical or recreational purposes.