Landrew
Bluelighter
A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge has denied a motion to remove the agency from its role in an upcoming marijuana rescheduling hearing—though he sharply criticized responses from DEA and a prohibitionist group over an allegation that they unlawfully communicated during the cannabis rulemaking process.
With the initial rescheduling hearing set for next week, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney has been addressing multiple motions from interested parties, largely centering around witness participation in the proceedings.
But one motion from two designated participants—Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International—made an especially bold assertion: It alleged DEA effectively conspired with Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), an anti-cannabis group that was selected to serve as a witness. And that alleged ex parte communication, coupled with DEA’s apparent indecision over the proposed rule, should be grounds to remove the agency as the designated “proponent” of the rescheduling rule.
Mulrooney had already indicated that it’s statutorily beyond ALJ authority to take that action, and he formally denied the motion on Wednesday.
“There is no question that the allegations raised by the [ex parte motion (EPM)] are distasteful and arguably unhelpful to the public’s perception that the proceedings will be transparent,” the order says. “That said, this tribunal is without authority to grant the supplementation and removal relief sought (the only relief sought) by the Movants.”
Read More:
www.marijuanamoment.net
With the initial rescheduling hearing set for next week, DEA Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) John Mulrooney has been addressing multiple motions from interested parties, largely centering around witness participation in the proceedings.
But one motion from two designated participants—Hemp for Victory and Village Farms International—made an especially bold assertion: It alleged DEA effectively conspired with Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), an anti-cannabis group that was selected to serve as a witness. And that alleged ex parte communication, coupled with DEA’s apparent indecision over the proposed rule, should be grounds to remove the agency as the designated “proponent” of the rescheduling rule.
Mulrooney had already indicated that it’s statutorily beyond ALJ authority to take that action, and he formally denied the motion on Wednesday.
“There is no question that the allegations raised by the [ex parte motion (EPM)] are distasteful and arguably unhelpful to the public’s perception that the proceedings will be transparent,” the order says. “That said, this tribunal is without authority to grant the supplementation and removal relief sought (the only relief sought) by the Movants.”
Read More:
DEA Judge Won’t Remove Agency From Marijuana Rescheduling Hearing, But Raises Concerns About Alleged Unlawful Contact With Prohibitionists
A Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) judge has denied a motion to remove the agency from its role in an upcoming marijuana rescheduling hearing—though he sharply criticized responses from DEA and a prohibitionist group over an allegation that they unlawfully communicated during the cannabis...
www.marijuanamoment.net
