Public comment on proposal in US to reschedule marijuana – by John Coleman (ex DEA)

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR – JOHN COLEMAN

To Whom It May Concern:

As a former DEA assistant administrator for operations and current president of Drug
Watch International, Inc. a 501c3 non-profit global organization of unpaid volunteers
dedicated to reducing drug abuse in the world through education, prevention, and
treatment, I wish to submit the following public comment in opposition to the rescheduling
of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, as described in a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM), issued by U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on May 16,
2024, and published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2014.

Synopsis of Our Grounds in Opposition:

The Summary of the Attorney General’s NPRM provides the following rationale for proposing
rescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA):
The Department of Justice (‘‘DOJ’’) proposes to transfer marijuana from schedule
I of the Controlled Substances Act (‘‘CSA’’) to schedule III of the CSA, consistent
with the view of the Department of Health and Human Services (‘‘HHS’’) that
marijuana has a currently accepted medical use as well as HHS’s views about
marijuana’s abuse potential and level of physical or psychological dependence.

Speaking on behalf of the members of Drug Watch International, Inc., we disagree with the
rationale offered by the Attorney General in support of rescheduling marijuana. While our specific
objections will be addressed in greater detail below, it suffices here to state that procedures for
drug scheduling, rescheduling, and removing drugs and other substances from scheduling are
actions defined by federal statute, specifically, Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-513), also known as the Controlled Substances
Act (CSA), U.S. Code, Section 801, et seq.

In sum, the justification cited by the Attorney General in the NPRM for rescheduling marijuana 

does not comport with the statutory requirements of the CSA, specifically at 21 U.S.C. § 811 & § 812, 

for rescheduling controlled substances.

The view of HHS, as mentioned in the NPRM, that marijuana has a currently accepted medical
use (CAMU) is inaccurate and is based solely on redefining court-tested, statutorily-based, and
longstanding approved methods for determining CAMU. These methods are derived from the
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and the CSA, not from or based on popular appeal, and
they are intended to evaluate the safety and efficacy of medicinal drugs submitted to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) for approval. The proposed action of the Attorney General, as
described in the NPRM, would set aside statutes and regulations intended to protect public health
and public safety to accommodate political constituents and the profiteers of a cannabis industry
that already has seriously harmed many Americans – especially, as we will show, children and
young adults. The modest medicinal benefits that some purport marijuana to have pale by
comparison with the significant risks posed by this powerful intoxicant.

Throughout the NPRM, DEA’s consistent response to the HHS analyses is to suggest a need to
consider additional information. We interpret the DEA’s carefully nuanced wording to mean that
the agency has misgivings as to the appropriateness of rescheduling marijuana. This, added to the
NPRM’s seeking of comments on the practical consequences of rescheduling marijuana, reflects,
we believe, the rank and file’s uncertainty with this radical proposal.

Of additional note is that the Attorney General – not the DEA Administrator, the Attorney General’s
lawful delegate for drug scheduling actions – signed the NPRM as “A.G. Order No. 5931-2024.”3
The Department’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released a slip opinion that was published by
the Department at the same time as this order.

This opinion begins with the following sentence:

“The approach that the Drug Enforcement Administration currently uses to determine whether a
drug has a ‘currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States’ under the Controlled
Substances Act is impermissibly narrow.” [emphasis added]

The OLC opinion is essential in this discussion because everything else – mainly, the scheduling
recommendation of the HHS Assistant Secretary and the Attorney General’s decision to accept it
– depends on redefining the heretofore accepted and agreed-upon meaning of the expression,
“currently accepted medical use” (CAMU) to mean something other than what Congress intended.
CAMU, we will show, is a specific criterion in the CSA that separates a Schedule I controlled
substance from a controlled substance in any of the other four schedules. We will show that the
convenient redefinition of CAMU by HHS, OLC, and the Attorney General is not only arbitrary
and capricious, but also contrary to pertinent provisions of the CSA and FDCA.

In this public comment, we will show that the proposal to reschedule marijuana is without merit,
conflicts with specific provisions of the CSA and the FDCA, and sacrifices the safety and efficacy
of the nation’s medicinal drug supply to satisfy a political agenda of the President to benefit the
commercial cannabis industry. The misgivings expressed by the DEA, along with the overt
political contrivances of OLC to support the President’s wishes, lead us to conclude that bringing
this proposal to a Final Rule would not be done by carefully considering statutory requirements –
as the law requires – but, instead, by furthering a political goal in a way that is arbitrary, capricious,
an abuse of statutory intent as well as an abuse of agency discretion. For these reasons and more,
we believe that this proceeding should be halted and a Final Rule should not be issued to reschedule
marijuana.

NDPA EXPLANATORY: GUIDANCE TO JOHN COLEMAN’S FULL COMMENT:

To access Mr Coleman’s full document:

  1. Click on the link below.
  2. An image  – the front page of the full document will appear.
  3. Click on the image to open the full document.

Public Comment.06.10.24

Source: John Coleman, formerly with the DEA (USA) – authored these comments.

Back to top of page

Powered by WordPress