Colorado officials are claiming bias after the DEA excluded them from critical marijuana rescheduling hearings while allowing anti-cannabis states like Nebraska and Tennessee to participate. A recent filing alleges the agency’s actions undermine a fair and balanced process.
Colorado’s Exclusion Sparks Controversy
Colorado, the first state to legalize adult-use marijuana sales over a decade ago, has been sidelined in the ongoing hearings regarding the rescheduling of marijuana under federal law. In a filing submitted Monday to DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge John Mulrooney II, two pro-cannabis organizations argued that the DEA’s decision reflects bias that disqualifies the agency from overseeing the proceedings.
The filing, brought by Village Farms International and Hemp for Victory, highlighted the DEA’s rejection of Colorado’s September request to join the hearings. The decision has raised eyebrows, especially since states with no regulated cannabis industries, like Nebraska and Tennessee, were granted a seat at the table.
“This process is stacked against pro-rescheduling voices,” the filing alleges, accusing the DEA of obstructing transparency and fairness.
Evidence of Bias and Conflicts of Interest
Village Farms and Hemp for Victory presented a range of claims pointing to DEA misconduct, including:
- Anti-Rescheduling Talking Points: The DEA’s January 2 filing reportedly mirrored arguments from anti-cannabis groups, emphasizing marijuana’s “high abuse potential” and questioning its medical use.
- Exclusion of Colorado’s Input: The DEA dismissed Colorado’s request to present evidence, while cooperating with states like Tennessee, which actively oppose rescheduling.
- Undisclosed Communications: Allegations include undisclosed coordination between the DEA and anti-rescheduling groups, potentially influencing the proceedings.
One striking example in the filing is the DEA’s collaboration with the Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America, which critics argue represents a conflict of interest given its alignment with anti-marijuana policies.
Colorado Governor’s Concerns Ignored
Governor Jared Polis of Colorado had personally written to DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on September 30, urging the inclusion of Colorado in the hearings. Polis argued that Colorado’s decade of regulated marijuana sales provided valuable data on public health and safety outcomes.
In his letter, Polis warned that excluding Colorado could lead to federal rescheduling decisions that ignore real-world evidence, risking the stability of state-regulated cannabis frameworks and tax revenue systems.
However, the DEA did not respond to the letter, according to the filing. Instead, the agency referenced Colorado multiple times in its January 2 document, painting the state’s regulatory system in a negative light.
“The exclusion of Colorado highlights a deeply flawed process,” the filing states. “The DEA is determined to marginalize pro-rescheduling voices while amplifying anti-cannabis sentiment.”
A Tilted Playing Field?
The DEA’s handling of the hearings has drawn sharp criticism. Michael DeGiglio, CEO of Village Farms, called the process “a sham orchestrated by the DEA” to prevent marijuana from being moved from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3 of the Controlled Substances Act.
Legal representatives for Village Farms and Hemp for Victory have also accused the DEA of stalling and undermining rescheduling efforts. The January 2 filing reportedly introduced evidence and testimony from two anti-cannabis witnesses but failed to give participants sufficient time to review the material.
The filing further revealed that over 100 requests to participate in the hearings were rejected without explanation, including Colorado’s.
The Stakes for Marijuana Rescheduling
If marijuana is moved to Schedule 3, it could have significant implications for the cannabis industry. A lower classification would ease federal restrictions, making it easier for businesses to access banking and tax deductions. It would also align marijuana’s classification with other drugs deemed to have medical value despite some abuse potential.
However, critics argue that the DEA’s current approach undermines the science-driven and inclusive process needed for a balanced decision.
- Bias Against Pro-Rescheduling Voices: Evidence suggests the DEA’s selection process favored states and organizations opposed to cannabis reform.
- Potential Conflict of Interest: Collaboration with anti-cannabis groups raises questions about the agency’s impartiality.
- Exclusion of Critical Data: Colorado’s unique experience with legal cannabis could provide vital insights, yet it was disregarded.
What’s Next?
The hearings, which began in January, are set to continue into March. Village Farms and Hemp for Victory are urging Judge Mulrooney to delay the proceedings until the DEA discloses its communications with anti-rescheduling groups. They also demand that the agency clarify its stance on rescheduling marijuana.
Critics warn that the DEA’s approach could have lasting consequences for federal cannabis policy, potentially delaying reform efforts for years.
The next phase of hearings will determine whether these claims of bias and exclusion gain traction—or if they fall on deaf ears. One thing is certain: the debate over marijuana rescheduling is far from over.