Inside DEA Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing: Key Takeaways, Part 1

The Drug Enforcement Administration has made public the full transcripts from its 11-day marijuana rescheduling hearing. The 2,533 pages of transcripts are the public record of the federal government’s case for moving cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III.

The hearing has officially wrapped up on July 15, and the central question of whether marijuana should be moved to Schedule III remains.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek C. Julius said on the closing day that the tribunal obtained “thousands of pages” of evidence. Now, Judge Julius must issue a recommended decision, which, according to him, will not be the final ruling.

“My recommendation will not be the final decision in this case,” he said. He added he would “thoroughly consider and evaluate all the evidence presented.”

Parties are called to file exceptions to his recommendation once it is issued, before the DEA administrator ultimately decides the agency’s final position.

So, what stood out most over the 11 days?

Day 1 of the hearing outlined the federal government’s core case for Schedule III.  FDA official Dr. Dominic Chiapperino said marijuana has an accepted medical use for pain, some forms of anorexia, and nausea and vomiting caused by chemotherapy. The official also said the FDA still considers Schedule III the most appropriate classification. The FDA’s review found that marijuana generally caused less harm than many of the drugs it was compared with, while deaths from marijuana alone were described as very rare.

Day 2 focused less on legalization and more on what it means for cannabis to be considered a legitimate medicine. One of the key points was that marijuana would not have met the federal government’s traditional standard for an accepted medical use. An FDA official said the two-part test used in the 2023 federal rescheduling review was less strict than the agency’s traditional five-part test. The newer test also did not exist when federal officials began reviewing marijuana in late 2022.

Day 3 of the DEA marijuana rescheduling proceeding featured Dr. Corey Burchman, the government’s pain-management witness, who testified that marijuana can help chronic-pain patients reduce or stop using opioids. He said about 15% to 25% of the 200–400 patients he transitioned to cannabis stopped using opioids altogether, while most of the others continued using both.

Day 4 focused on how moving marijuana to Schedule III could affect workplace drug testing and the cannabis industry. Opponents warned that the change could create problems for the federal drug-testing system used for millions of workers, because current rules are largely based on Schedule I and II drugs.

“The federal drug testing affects anywhere from 7 to 9 million employees, and making marijuana Schedule III will prohibit federal drug testing for all those employees,” David Evans, representing the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association, said during the July 2 hearing.

He urged the DEA to address the issue before finalizing the rule. “In my opinion and the opinion of NDASA, the NPRM [Notice of Proposed Rulemaking] should be discarded until this issue is effectively addressed,” Evans said.

Day 5 featured Harvard addiction expert Bertha Madras, who criticized state-licensed cannabis products as lacking the standardized dosing, purity, and composition required of FDA-approved medicines. She also linked rising THC potency to the commercialization of cannabis.

“The more potent, the greater high, the more tolerance, the more addiction, the more users, the more profit,” she said.

Yet, she also testified that marijuana does not suppress breathing in the way opioids do.

“Marijuana will not kill you with an overdose,” Madras said while also acknowledging that more than 50,000 studies on marijuana exist and that researchers can reach different conclusions from the scientific evidence.

Day 6 of the DEA hearing raised a surprising issue around marijuana-impaired driving.

A witness opposing rescheduling said that detecting THC in drivers does not necessarily mean impairment, while criticizing data that show increased THC-positive drivers after legalization.

“You should expect to have an increase in THC presence in the drivers, even if THC had absolutely no effect on impairment,” DUID Victim Voices Founder Ed Wood said. “So, they proved nothing.”