3 GOP Senators Tell DEA Not to Reschedule Cannabis

A trio of Republican lawmakers in the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations sent a letter March 27 to the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) arguing that rescheduling cannabis would violate an international treaty.

The letter (below) was led by former presidential candidate Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who was joined by fellow U.S. Sens. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, and Pete Ricketts, R-Neb., in calling on DEA Administrator Anne Milgram to reject a recommendation from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to reclassify cannabis to Schedule III under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).

The senators argue that the DEA has a duty under the CSA to ensure compliance with U.S. treaty obligations under the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, and therefore a decision on rescheduling cannabis should not be driven by the “favored policy” of President Joe Biden—who directed the rescheduling review—but rather based on “proven facts and scientific evidence” as well as the international treaty obligations.

“Marijuana is controlled under the Single Convention—which is not surprising given its known dangers and health risks—and the United Nation’s International Narcotics Control Board (INCB) has fiercely criticized efforts to legalize marijuana in other countries as a violation of the treaty,” the senators wrote.

The trio went on to cite a February 2024 article published in the Journal of the American Heart Association that referenced a study in which researchers found that adults who used cannabis daily had 25% higher odds of having a heart attack and 42% higher odds of stroke than people who didn’t use cannabis at all.

However, the senators failed to mention that the study had “several limitations,” including that cardiovascular conditions and cannabis use were self-reported, making them potentially subject to recall bias (errors in memory), according to a news release on the data. Also, the study’s authors did not have health data measuring survey participants’ medical records, such as baseline lipid or blood pressure profiles, and the data they collected were for only a single point in time for the participants, according to the release.

The three senators also called attention to the DEA’s past reliance on Single Convention treaty obligations to reject a previous rescheduling attempt that was initiated by cannabis law reform advocacy organization NORML. Specifically, in 1975, DEA Administrative Law Judge Lewis Parker ruled that cannabis could only be reclassified to Schedule II in order to abide by treaty obligations.

RELATED: Behind DEA’s 1975 Admission That Rescheduling Cannabis Does Not Violate International Treaty

Despite Parker’s court findings, then-DEA Acting Administrator Henry S. Dogin based his denial of NORML’s rescheduling petition on a letter that stated there “is currently no acceptable medical use of marihuana in the United States.” And after years of appeals, DEA based its final order denying NORML’s rescheduling petition on that same “no currently accepted medical use” basis.

But one distinction between then and now is that Food and Drug Administration officials determined in 2023 that cannabis does in fact have currently accepted medical use in the U.S., which led to HHS’s recommendation for Schedule III.

RELATED: DEA’s 5-Factor Test Makes Rescheduling Cannabis Impossible

Still, the three U.S. senators wrote, “It is important that the DEA continues to follow the law and abide by our treaty commitments.”

Accordingly, they requested that Milgram respond to five questions by April 12:

1. In 2016, the DEA under the Obama Administration declined to remove marijuana from schedule I and acknowledged the limitations of rescheduling marijuana under section 811(d) of the CSA and the Single Convention, concluding that “in accordance with section 811(d)(1), DEA must place marijuana in either schedule I or schedule II.”
   1. Does the DEA still hold the position that marijuana must be a schedule I or II drug to comply with section 811(d) and the United States’ treaty obligations? If not, why has the DEA changed its position?
2. The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has also stated that “several requirements imposed by the Single Convention would not be met if cannabis and cannabis resin were placed in CSA schedule III, IV or V.”
   1. Does the DEA believe the United States’ obligations under the Single Convention can be met if marijuana is placed in schedule III, even though the D.C. Circuit stated otherwise?
3. In the course of conducting its official review of HHS’ rescheduling recommendation, is the DEA consulting with the Department of State about the United States’ treaty obligations under the Single Convention regarding marijuana and any diplomatic implications of a rescheduling decision?
4. Has the DEA consulted with key counterdrug partner nations about our shared obligations under the Single Convention and their views regarding a potential rescheduling by the United States?
5. What impact would a potential failure by the United States to uphold its treaty obligations have on our ability to ensure other countries continue to enforce their own drug controls under the Single Convention—including for deadly narcotics like fentanyl?