• Free Speech & Social Media
      • Privacy & Surveillance
      • Transparency & Democracy
    • Litigation
    • Research
      • Events
      • Reading Rooms
      • Blog
      • Video
      • Podcasts
      • The Knight Institute
      • Board
      • Staff
      • Visiting Scholars
      • Work With Us
      • Support Us
      • Contact
      • Press Room

Reading Room Document

Questions Related to the Potential Rescheduling of Marijuana

The approach that the Drug Enforcement Administration currently uses to determine whether a drug has a “currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States” under the Controlled Substances Act is impermissibly narrow. An alternative, two-part inquiry proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services is sufficient to establish that a drug has a “currently accepted medical use” even if the drug would not satisfy DEA’s current approach. Under 21 U.S.C. § 811(b), a recommendation by HHS that a drug has or lacks a “currently acceptable medical use” does not bind DEA. In contrast, the scientific and medical determinations that underlie HHS’s “currently acceptable medical use” recommendation are binding on DEA, but only until the initiation of formal rulemaking proceedings to schedule a drug. Once DEA initiates a formal rulemaking, HHS’s determinations no longer bind DEA, but DEA must continue to accord HHS’s scientific and medical determinations significant deference, and the CSA does not allow DEA to undertake a de novo assessment of HHS’s findings at any point in the process. Neither the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs nor the CSA requires marijuana to be placed into Schedule I or II of the CSA. Both the Single Convention and the CSA allow DEA to satisfy the United States’ international obligations by supplementing scheduling decisions with regulatory action, at least in circumstances where there is a modest gap between the Convention’s requirements and the specific restrictions that follow from a drug’s placement on a particular schedule. As a result, DEA may satisfy the United States’ Single Convention obligations by placing marijuana in Schedule III while imposing additional restrictions pursuant to the CSA’s regulatory authorities.

April 11, 2024

The OLC's Opinions

Opinions published by the OLC, including those released in response to our FOIA lawsuit

Issues

Free Speech & Social Media

Free Speech & Social Media

Featured

A Free Speech View on the “Free Speech” Executive Order

    

Privacy & Surveillance

Privacy & Surveillance

Featured

Knight Institute and SMU Law Clinic Seek Immediate Release of Records Related to Texas School’s Use of Surveillance Technology

Say surveillance systems in schools undermine students’ privacy and expressive rights, government should release related public records

Transparency & Democracy

Transparency & Democracy

Featured

Knight Institute Seeks Immediate Release of Special Counsel’s Report on Trump’s Mishandling of Classified Documents

Says the public has a First Amendment “right of access” to the document

 

Events

Surveillance Ascendant, Democracy in Free Fall

Surveillance Ascendant, Democracy in Free Fall

A convening addressing the threats to speech and privacy enabled by commercial surveillance in our quickly shifting democratic landscape

 

Learn More

Sign up for news about First Amendment events, research, and litigation

  • Issues

    • Free Speech & Social Media
    • Privacy & Surveillance
    • Transparency & Democracy
  • Litigation
  • Research
  • Public Education

    • Events
    • Reading Rooms
    • Blog
    • Video
    • Podcasts
  • About
  • Press Room
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

© 2021 Knight First Amendment Institute. Design by Point Five. Development by Tierra Innovation. Icons by Leandro Castelao.

2020 Webby Award Winner for Law Website