{"id":17626,"date":"2024-07-28T17:09:08","date_gmt":"2024-07-28T16:09:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/?p=17626"},"modified":"2024-10-05T15:12:40","modified_gmt":"2024-10-05T14:12:40","slug":"public-comment-on-proposal-in-us-to-reschedule-marijuana-by-john-coleman-ex-dea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/2024\/07\/public-comment-on-proposal-in-us-to-reschedule-marijuana-by-john-coleman-ex-dea\/","title":{"rendered":"Public comment on proposal in US to reschedule marijuana – by John Coleman (ex DEA)"},"content":{"rendered":"

OPENING STATEMENT BY THE AUTHOR – JOHN COLEMAN<\/strong><\/p>\n

To Whom It May Concern:<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a former DEA assistant administrator for operations and current president of Drug
\nWatch International, Inc. a 501c3 non-profit global organization of unpaid volunteers
\ndedicated to reducing drug abuse in the world through education, prevention, and
\ntreatment, I wish to submit the following public comment in opposition to the rescheduling
\nof marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III, as described in a Notice of Proposed
\nRulemaking (NPRM), issued by U.S. Attorney General Merrick B. Garland on May 16,
\n2024, and published in the Federal Register on May 21, 2014.<\/p>\n

Synopsis of Our Grounds in Opposition:<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Summary of the Attorney General\u2019s NPRM provides the following rationale for proposing
\nrescheduling marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA):
\nThe Department of Justice (\u2018\u2018DOJ\u2019\u2019) proposes to transfer marijuana from schedule
\nI of the Controlled Substances Act (\u2018\u2018CSA\u2019\u2019) to schedule III of the CSA, consistent
\nwith the view of the Department of Health and Human Services (\u2018\u2018HHS\u2019\u2019) that
\nmarijuana has a currently accepted medical use as well as HHS\u2019s views about
\nmarijuana\u2019s abuse potential and level of physical or psychological dependence.<\/p>\n

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

In sum, the justification cited by the Attorney General in the NPRM for rescheduling marijuana\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

does not comport with the statutory requirements of the CSA, specifically at 21 U.S.C. \u00a7 811 & \u00a7 812,\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

for rescheduling controlled substances.<\/em><\/p>\n

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

Throughout the NPRM, DEA\u2019s consistent response to the HHS analyses is to suggest a need to
\nconsider additional information. We interpret the DEA\u2019s carefully nuanced wording to mean that
\nthe agency has misgivings as to the appropriateness of rescheduling marijuana. This, added to the
\nNPRM\u2019s seeking of comments on the practical consequences of rescheduling marijuana, reflects,
\nwe believe, the rank and file\u2019s uncertainty with this radical proposal.<\/p>\n

Of additional note is that the Attorney General \u2013 not the DEA Administrator, the Attorney General\u2019s
\nlawful delegate for drug scheduling actions \u2013 signed the NPRM as \u201cA.G. Order No. 5931-2024.\u201d3
\nThe Department\u2019s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) released a slip opinion that was published by
\nthe Department at the same time as this order.<\/p>\n

This opinion begins with the following sentence:<\/p>\n

\u201cThe approach that the Drug Enforcement Administration currently uses to determine whether a
\ndrug has a \u2018currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States\u2019 under the Controlled
\nSubstances Act is impermissibly narrow.\u201d [emphasis added]<\/p>\n

The OLC opinion is essential in this discussion because everything else \u2013 mainly, the scheduling
\nrecommendation of the HHS Assistant Secretary and the Attorney General\u2019s decision to accept it
\n\u2013 depends on redefining the heretofore accepted and agreed-upon meaning of the expression,
\n\u201ccurrently accepted medical use\u201d (CAMU) to mean something other than what Congress intended.
\nCAMU, we will show, is a specific criterion in the CSA that separates a Schedule I controlled
\nsubstance from a controlled substance in any of the other four schedules. We will show that the
\nconvenient redefinition of CAMU by HHS, OLC, and the Attorney General is not only arbitrary
\nand capricious, but also contrary to pertinent provisions of the CSA and FDCA.<\/p>\n

In this public comment, we will show that the proposal to reschedule marijuana is without merit,
\nconflicts with specific provisions of the CSA and the FDCA, and sacrifices the safety and efficacy
\nof the nation\u2019s medicinal drug supply to satisfy a political agenda of the President to benefit the
\ncommercial cannabis industry. The misgivings expressed by the DEA, along with the overt
\npolitical contrivances of OLC to support the President\u2019s wishes, lead us to conclude that bringing
\nthis proposal to a Final Rule would not be done by carefully considering statutory requirements \u2013
\nas the law requires – but, instead, by furthering a political goal in a way that is arbitrary, capricious,
\nan abuse of statutory intent as well as an abuse of agency discretion. For these reasons and more,
\nwe believe that this proceeding should be halted and a Final Rule should not be issued to reschedule
\nmarijuana.<\/p>\n

NDPA EXPLANATORY: GUIDANCE TO JOHN COLEMAN’S FULL COMMENT:<\/p>\n

To access Mr Coleman’s full document:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Click on the link below.<\/li>\n
  2. An image\u00a0 – the front page of the full document will appear.<\/li>\n
  3. Click on the image to open the full document.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Public Comment.06.10.24<\/a><\/p>\n

    Source: John Coleman, formerly with the DEA (USA) – authored these comments.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[30,14,19],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17626","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-cannabis-marijuana","category-social-affairs","category-usa"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17626","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17626"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17626\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17626"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17626"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/drugprevent.org.uk\/ppp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17626"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}