Marijuana Moments is asking a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge to reconsider his decision hearings on the Trump administration’s cannabis deregulation proposal begin next week and features only the opponents of the reform as invited participants.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julis last week issued a preliminary order setting out the rules and timelines for the marijuana reorganization proceeding, recognizing at the same time that “the national public interest in this matter favors a policy of transparency” and, at the same time, specifying that “the hearing will not be televised, live or otherwise.”

As a result, people who want to see the historic cannabis reform process must go directly to Arlington, Virginia, by court order.

In a letter to Julius on Tuesday, Marijuana Moment counsel Joseph Bondy noted that the DEA had previously authorized, then canceled the hearing process, the Biden administration’s proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to the Controlled Substances (CSA) Schedule III.

“That prior decision was correct. The public interest rationale for contemporary access has not diminished,” Bondy wrote. “If the DEA believes that security, witness management, or operational concerns require a more restrictive access regime, those concerns should be identified and addressed through narrow requirements rather than a categorical ban.”

“Arlington’s limited physical seating is not a meaningful substitute for a live broadcast. Marijuana Moments, like much of the press and public following federal cannabis policy nationally, cannot rely on the few available seats as a practical way to observe and report on the hearing. This is precisely why the DEA’s advance live broadcast was important: it allowed them to follow these directives without physically obstructing the venue. burdening security, or making anyone a party.”

“In a proceeding of this public importance, and in light of the DEA’s prior direct directive, the public hearing is not publicly accessible if the case is based on limited physical attendance,” Marijuana Moment’s attorney wrote to the DEA judge. “Delayed access to transcripts is no substitute for timely observation. The press reports events as they unfold. The public evaluates government action in real time. And in a proceeding of this magnitude, transparency is not a courtesy. It’s a guarantee.”

“For a large public audience seeking serious coverage of federal cannabis policy, Marihuana Moment is an important channel through which the public can understand these proceedings.”

The letter makes clear that Marihuana Moments “does not seek to participate as a party, present evidence, examine witnesses, present proposed findings, or alter the schedule of merits” and “seeks only temporary public and press access to an administrative hearing of recognized national public interest.”

Bondy asked Julius for an answer by Thursday.

—
Marijuana Moment’s journalism is made possible by readers like you, who value this work enough to support us monthly pledges on Patreon. If you rely on our reports to stay informed of important developments in cannabis, please help us do this becoming a permanent subscriber today.

Backing us at the $25/month level, you’ll have access to our Bill Tracker so you don’t miss any important marijuana legislation in your state.
—

Meanwhile, he is also a lawyer A representative of a major cannabis reform organization is calling for the DEA to reconsider decision to participate in the hearing as an interested party.

The National Organization for Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), which represents the interests of people who use cannabis, filed an “emergency petition for reconsideration” through Bondy on Friday, saying “the public interest will be significantly harmed if the registry ignores the consumer perspective.”

The DEA made the announcement last week Only select participants—and opponents of reform—have been invited to the marijuana redistricting hearing to participate, and some of them have filed a lawsuit trying to block the reform. Supporters of the reform who expressed their intention to participate were not invited.

“NORML’s rejection, if not addressed immediately, will deprive NORML and the cannabis consumers it represents of meaningful participation in hearing proceedings, the presentation of witnesses, the designation of exhibits, cross-examination, legal briefs, and any other proceedings necessary to complete a complete record,” wrote Bondy, NORML director Terrance as chairman of the DEA’s board of directors. “Prejudice is immediate. It cannot be cured after the hearing is closed.”

According to several rejection letters seen by Marijuana Moment from cannabis reform advocates, the DEA said they do not meet the definition of “interested person” to participate because they “would not be harmed or harmed by any rule or proposed rule that may be issued.”

NORML said in its request for reconsideration, however, that “DEA’s denial is based on a flawed premise: that NORML has not been harmed or prejudiced by the proposed rule because NORML allows marihuana to be removed from Schedule I and Schedule III.

“That is not NORML’s position. NORML supports delisting from schedule I. But NORML does not support schedule III as the final correct federal treatment of marijuana,” Bondy wrote. “NORML’s position is that marijuana should be removed from the CSA schedules and regulated under a specific federal framework that addresses public health, consumer safety, product integrity, youth prevention, truthful labeling, testing, access to research, impaired driving policy, diversion, state-regulated market realities, and illegal displacement.”

The lawyer wrote that the injury to marijuana’s Schedule III status “is not a mere ideological desperation.”

“NORML members would remain subject to federal controlled substance status and the legal consequences that flow from it. Adult consumers who legally participate in state-regulated markets would be excluded from consistent federal recognition,” Bondy said. “Schedule III would keep illegal federal cannabis activity outside of federally authorized medical, research, or registrar channels. It would continue to cause federal-state conflict, public confusion, stigma, side effects, and harm to consumer safety.”

The hearing it will start on June 29 and end before July 15.

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche in April He issued an order that immediately reclassified the state’s licensed medical cannabisas well as marijuana products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) under Schedule I through Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

According to a separate order signed by the acting attorney general, the upcoming hearing will include Class III marijuana.

In order to be considered for participation in the hearing, the parties had to submit requests, indicating their interest in the procedure, the claims or issues they want to hear and their position on these issues.

“The purpose of the hearing is to ‘receive factual evidence and expert opinion’ on whether marijuana should be transferred to Schedule III of the controlled substance list,” Blanche’s initial statement in April said.

The attorney general also selected an administrative law judge (ALJ) to oversee the proceedings.

“The ALJ’s authority includes the power to hold conferences to simplify or determine the issues at the hearing or to consider other matters that may assist in the expeditious resolution of the hearing; to require the parties to state their position in writing; to sign and issue subpoenas; to compel the production of documents and materials to the extent necessary to conduct the hearing; to examine witnesses; to direct, exclude, or testify; the Rule on Procedural Matters and the President’s DEA Hearing Procedures and Administrative Procedure Actions allowed under the law, Blanch wrote.

Preliminary hearing process on the marijuana redistricting process initiated by the Biden administration It was halted last year amid allegations of improper communications and witness selection.

the current The marijuana redistricting process is being challenged in several ways which have been upheld by a federal Court of Appeals. those pieces of State attorneys general have filed lawsuits against cannabis reform, Opponents of marijuana legalization and a a cannabis-based biopharmaceutical corporation.

Meanwhile, the reorganization of state-licensed medical cannabis is already having a major impact.

The Congressional Research Service published a report on the current rescheduling of cannabis Certified patients with medical marijuana from state licensed dispensaries are now eligible for Class III. “The order appears to allow end users to use marijuana medically without a CSA prescription,” he says.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has published a Draft update to a gun purchase form to recognize the legal status of medical marijuana in the reprogramming. The revised section of the question states that only the “recreational use or possession of marijuana” is federally prohibited, omitting the prior form’s mention of medical cannabis.

The US Treasury and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) said they plan to issued new tax guidelines for the marijuana industry after reprogramming. The reform will benefit state-licensed marijuana businesses by allowing them to take federal tax deductions that are currently prohibited under IRS Code Section III, known as Section 280E.

Even the DEA, which has long opposed cannabis legalization and accused the Biden administration of stalling the initiative in the reorganization process, has done so. It launched a registration process for legal marijuana businesses in the state to take advantage of the federal benefits that come with the reform.

The Department of Transport, on the other hand, issued guidelines stating this use Legal medical cannabis in the state is still no excuse for truck drivers to test positive for drugspilots and other safety-sensitive personnel.

A congressional committee recently Federal officials voted to block further steps to reschedule cannabis.

read it the letter Marijuana Moment’s attorney to the DEA judge below: