DEA Rescheduling Hearing Continues with Testimony from Anti-Weed Group

As the Drug Enforcement Administration continues its hearing on federal cannabis rescheduling, Smart Approaches to Marijuana is preparing to outline its opposition. The organization, which has long positioned itself as a public health watchdog, is expected to focus on youth access, addiction risks, and procedural objections to the government’s scientific review. 

SAM joined NDASA and other opponents in a lawsuit to block federal rescheduling with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and today’s testimony is likely to reflect the same themes raised in that lawsuit. Although SAM presents itself as a nonpartisan research group, cannabis reform advocates have questioned its tactics and funding for years, arguing that the organization often frames legalization in alarmist terms.

Public Health Concerns

In a court filing, SAM argues that cannabis poses significant risks to public health, particularly for adolescents and young adults. The group cites research linking heavy use to mental health issues, impaired driving, and addiction. SAM maintains that moving marijuana to Schedule III would signal federal acceptance of a product it views as harmful and would complicate efforts to manage the consequences of expanded access. The organization is expected to tell the DEA that rescheduling could increase public confusion about the safety of cannabis products and weaken prevention strategies.

Youth Access And Addiction

SAM’s anticipated testimony will emphasize concerns about youth exposure. The group argues that legalization has normalized cannabis use and made products more visible to minors. According to the filing, adolescent access increases the likelihood of addiction and long‑term health impacts. SAM is expected to claim that rescheduling would accelerate these trends by reducing perceived risk and making it harder for states and families to limit youth use.

Procedural Objections

SAM also challenges the government’s scientific review. In the lawsuit, the organization argues that federal agencies relied on incomplete or flawed evidence when evaluating cannabis for Schedule III. SAM maintains that the review process did not fully account for public health data, addiction research, or youth‑use trends. The group is expected to urge the DEA to reject the rescheduling order and conduct a more comprehensive evaluation before making any changes to federal policy.

Concerns About SAM’s Policy Influence

While SAM is but one of the rescheduling opponents slated to participate in the hearing, the group’s input may be influential. Kevin Sabet, SAM president and CEO, served as a drug policy advisor to three presidential administrations, both Democratic and Republican, and he has the ear of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.

Cannabis policy reform advocates, however, have raised questions about SAM’s tactics and funding. Paul Armentano, deputy director of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML), believes policymakers and the public should reject SAM as a trusted source of information about cannabis policy.

“Smart Approaches to Marijuana is an advocacy organization. They have a clear bias, and they present data that is either supportive of their bias or they cherry-pick data to try to imply that the evidence is supportive of their bias,” Armentano said in an interview with High Times last year. “But they’re not honest brokers in this discussion. They are a special interest group, so they ought to be treated as such. And I fear that oftentimes policymakers, reporters, editors, and others treat them as if they are an unbiased source, as opposed to a special interest group with a clear-cut agenda that is willing to bend the facts in their favor when necessary to support that agenda.”

The DEA’s rescheduling hearing is scheduled to continue through July 15, giving SAM and other opponents additional opportunities to present their concerns as the agency weighs the future of federal cannabis regulation.