DEA Rescheduling Hearing Sees Opposition Witnesses Undercut Prohibitionist Arguments on Cannabis

The recent U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) hearing on cannabis rescheduling took an unexpected turn when several key witnesses, called by opponents of reform, provided testimony that contradicted their own side’s arguments. According to High Times, every non-government participant selected for the hearing opposed moving cannabis out of Schedule I, yet cross-examinations revealed significant admissions supporting the case for Schedule III. The hearing, which closed its record earlier this month, sets the stage for post-hearing briefs and transcript corrections due by August 17, while a parallel court battle over the same issue unfolds

A pivotal moment came when Humboldt County Sheriff William Honsal, brought in by Nebraska, Idaho, and Indiana to argue that legal cannabis increases crime, acknowledged under cross-examination that regulated cannabis markets can actually aid law enforcement. Honsal clarified that most cannabis diverted to other states originates from unlicensed producers, not the legal sector, undermining the states’ claim that legalization fuels criminal activity. This echoed Honsal's earlier remarks in 2019, when he told local officials that illegal grows were falling, describing it as 'what we call a win.'

The opposition’s challenges extended beyond crime arguments. One of their lead experts, Harvard’s Dr. Bertha Madras, reportedly conceded during cross-examination that cannabis meets the statutory requirements for Schedule III placement. This admission, corroborated by multiple sources present at the hearing, could significantly impact the tribunal’s decision, although the full context awaits the release of the official transcript. Meanwhile, Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye, a DEA pharmacologist, stood by the agency’s traditional five-part test for medical use, contending that cannabis does not meet the criteria for currently accepted medical use under that framework

The heart of the legal battle now centers on which standard should govern the scheduling decision: the DEA’s longstanding five-part test or the Health and Human Services' two-part inquiry. The Justice Department previously determined that exclusive reliance on the five-part test is too narrow, yet the opposition’s strongest argument hinges on preserving it. As the hearing unfolded, much of the opposition’s testimony drifted toward issues like youth exposure and potency, which, while relevant to abuse potential, did not directly address the government’s core claim that cannabis has accepted medical use and a risk profile consistent with Schedule III

Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius will review post-hearing briefs and transcript corrections before issuing a non-binding recommended decision. From there, DEA Administrator Terrance Cole will make the agency’s final determination, with no set timeline for either step. Meanwhile, the D.C. Circuit Court is considering consolidated legal challenges to the April rescheduling order, signaling that judicial review will likely play a decisive role in the ultimate outcome

OG Lab notes that the hearing’s unexpected admissions and legal debates could accelerate policy changes for cannabis in the U.S. While the opposition sought to block reform, their own witnesses have complicated the narrative, potentially paving the way for broader acceptance of cannabis as a Schedule III substance. The next milestones to watch are the August 17 briefing deadline and the awaited recommendation from Judge Julius