Connecticut State Official Withdraws From DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Hearings Amid ‘Behind-The-Scenes Shenanigans’

A Connecticut state agency is withdrawing from the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) marijuana rescheduling hearings, owing to a lack of faith in the process amid administrative “shenanigans.”

The Connecticut Office of the Cannabis Ombudsman (OCO), along with My Doc App, which is a medical cannabis company that facilitates patient recommendations, submitted a notice of withdrawal to the DEA administrative law judge’s (ALJ) office on Thursday, simply stating that they “no longer wish to participate in these proceedings, and therefore, respectfully withdraw.”

While the DEA hearings on the proposal to move cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) have been delayed, this latest development could further complicate the matter. Most designated participants selected for the hearings represented anti-rescheduling interests, and so this leaves even fewer voices supporting the reform.

“Though it was the honor of a lifetime and the culmination of a forty-year advocacy career to be named a Designated Participant, OCO has withdrawn from the DEA Cannabis Rescheduling proceedings,” Connecticut Cannabis Ombudsman Erin Kirk told Marijuana Moment on Friday.

“The behind-the-scenes shenanigans between the DEA and only certain parties caused us to lose faith in the process, and with our limited resources, it was no longer in the best interest of Connecticut patients to continue,” she said. “Our patients deserve better, and we look forward to continuing the fight for clean medicine, covered by insurance like other prescriptions, and further research into the many palliative uses of this life-changing plant.”

This comes about a month after DEA ALJ John Mulrooney notified former DEA Administrator Anne Milgram that the ball is back in the department’s court with respect to the marijuana rescheduling proposal, providing notice of a request for leave to file appeal that he granted last month in the hearing proceedings.

Mulrooney explained how several pro-rescheduling parties had requested a leave to file an interlocutory appeal amid allegations that certain agency officials conspired with anti-rescheduling witnesses who were selected for the hearing.

The judge ultimately granted the appeal motion, canceling scheduled hearings on the proposed cannabis rescheduling rule that had been set to begin on January 21.

The appeal came after he denied a motion that sought DEA’s removal from the rescheduling proceedings altogether, arguing that it is improperly designated as the chief “proponent” of the proposed rule given the allegations of ex parte communications with anti-rescheduling witnesses that “resulted in an irrevocable taint” to the process.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department told a federal court last month that it should pause a lawsuit challenging DEA’s marijuana rescheduling process after Mulrooney canceled the upcoming administrative hearings.

In the background, the judge last month also condemned DEA over its “unprecedented and astonishing” defiance of a key directive related to evidence it is seeking to use in the marijuana rescheduling proposal.

At issue is DEA’s insistence on digitally submitting tens of thousands of public comments it received in response to the proposed rule to move cannabis to Schedule III.

Mulrooney hasn’t been shy about calling out DEA over various procedural missteps throughout this rescheduling process.

For example, in December he criticized the agency for making a critical “blunder” in its effort to issue subpoenas to force Food and Drug Administration (FDA) officials to testify in hearings—but he allowed the agency to fix the error and ultimately granted the request.

Relatedly, a federal judge also recently dismissed a lawsuit seeking to compel DEA to turn over its communications with the anti-cannabis organization.

Meanwhile, Mulrooney recently denied a cannabis research company’s request to allow it to add a young medical marijuana patient and advocate as a witness in the upcoming rescheduling hearing.

Also, one of the nation’s leading marijuana industry associations asked the judge to clarify whether it will be afforded the opportunity to cross-examine DEA during the upcoming hearings on the cannabis rescheduling proposal.

Further, a coalition of health professionals that advocates for cannabis reform recently asked that the DEA judge halt future marijuana rescheduling hearings until a federal court is able to address a series of allegations they’re raising about the agency’s witness selection process.

The rescheduling proceedings have generated significant public interest. While moving marijuana to Schedule III wouldn’t federally legalize it, the reform would free up licensed cannabis businesses to take federal tax deductions and remove certain research barriers.

Meanwhile, two GOP senators introduced a bill on Thursday that would continue to block marijuana businesses from taking federal tax deductions under Internal Revenue Service (IRS) code 280E—even if it’s ultimately rescheduled.

Beyond the hearing delays and withdrawal of key designated participants, another complicating factor is the change in leadership at DEA under the Trump administration.

Acting Administrator Derek Maltz subscribes to the “gateway drug” theory for marijuana and believes most people living in states that have legalized cannabis will continue to obtain it from illicit sources such as cartels due to high taxes in regulated markets, for example.

—
Marijuana Moment is tracking hundreds of cannabis, psychedelics and drug policy bills in state legislatures and Congress this year. Patreon supporters pledging at least $25/month get access to our interactive maps, charts and hearing calendar so they don’t miss any developments.

Learn more about our marijuana bill tracker and become a supporter on Patreon to get access.
—

In a prehearing statement submitted in November, DEA previewed the testimony its two agency witnesses plan to provide at the upcoming hearing—without clarifying where it stands on the rescheduling proposal.

While the initial preliminary hearing happened last week, the merit-based proceedings were delayed until at least early 2025 after Mulrooney notified DEA that it provided insufficient information about the 25 selected witnesses that Milgram submitted.

Separately, the DEA judge has also denied a request from a cannabis and psychedelics researcher to postpone the upcoming rescheduling hearing over the agency’s alleged “improper blocking” of witnesses, while arguing that the process should be halted at least until the Trump administration comes into power so it can review the rulemaking.

Mulrooney also rejected a veterans group’s petition to participate in the rescheduling hearing, which the organization called a “travesty of justice” that excludes key voices that would be affected by the potential policy change. That group has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to intervene on its behalf.

Trump’s White House Budget Director Says Marijuana Is A ‘Gateway Drug’ And Pushed To Roll Back State Legalization

The post Connecticut State Official Withdraws From DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Hearings Amid ‘Behind-The-Scenes Shenanigans’ appeared first on Marijuana Moment.