What event gets publicly announced first? Does the HHS/FDA determination get announced publicly before the DEA sets the proposed rule? Also, how long does it usually take between the HHS/FDA determination and the DEA proposed rule?
I disagree on the "accepted medical use". The state data will simply show an extremely high safety profile for some state programs, or all of them for all I know. This quote from 1977 is what I base my thinking on.
If the DEA said marijuana could be moved to Schedule II without any accepted medical use in 1977, then it could be moved to any schedule today without having any accepted medical use. The only reason Schedule II was mentioned in that case is because of the treaties. But, that was 1977 and that specific treaty was amended in 2020 by removing marijuana from Schedule IV. I won't claim I know if that makes any difference, but Schedule II is still better than Schedule I any day. We don't want Schedule II because of 26 U.S.C. 280E, but it has nothing to do with what we want. It has to do with what the DEA can do without violating a treaty obligation. If the DEA is going to allow public comment before any final decision, then anyone can weigh in on what schedule, if any, would be sufficient to meet DEA's obligation under the treaty.
A further clarification on timeline.
What event gets publicly announced first? Does the HHS/FDA determination get announced publicly before the DEA sets the proposed rule? Also, how long does it usually take between the HHS/FDA determination and the DEA proposed rule?
I disagree on the "accepted medical use". The state data will simply show an extremely high safety profile for some state programs, or all of them for all I know. This quote from 1977 is what I base my thinking on.
1977 NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 749 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
several substances listed in CSA Schedule II, including poppy straw, have no currently accepted medical use
marihuana could be rescheduled to Schedule II without a currently accepted medical use
If the DEA said marijuana could be moved to Schedule II without any accepted medical use in 1977, then it could be moved to any schedule today without having any accepted medical use. The only reason Schedule II was mentioned in that case is because of the treaties. But, that was 1977 and that specific treaty was amended in 2020 by removing marijuana from Schedule IV. I won't claim I know if that makes any difference, but Schedule II is still better than Schedule I any day. We don't want Schedule II because of 26 U.S.C. 280E, but it has nothing to do with what we want. It has to do with what the DEA can do without violating a treaty obligation. If the DEA is going to allow public comment before any final decision, then anyone can weigh in on what schedule, if any, would be sufficient to meet DEA's obligation under the treaty.
And, these:
NORML v. DEA, 559 F.2d 735, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
cannabis and cannabis resin could be rescheduled to CSA Schedule II consistent with the Single Convention
Grinspoon v. DEA, 828 F.2d 881, 886 (1st Cir. 1987)
Congress did not intend “accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” to require a finding of recognized medical use in every state
Marijuana Rescheduling Petition, DEA Docket No. 86-22, Sept. 6, 1988, pp. 58-59
Marijuana, in its natural form, is one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man.
Great piece, very insightful! As a journalist in the psychedelic space, cannabis is often in my peripheral.