Federal Hashish Roundup: Nixon, DEA, Tobacco-Hemp . . . and the DOOBIE Act (*sigh*)


Final week, I wrote a round-up put up on Oregon hashish. This week, I believed I’d drop a line on the federal happenings. That are fairly a number of.

The Nixon tapes

This was a enjoyable piece of reports, unearthed by Minnesota hashish lobbyist Kurtis Hanna. Ernesto Londoño then broke the story on September 14th for the New York Occasions, which you’ll be able to learn right here. In brief, Nixon conceded that marijuana “will not be significantly harmful,” regardless of calling the plant “public enemy No. 1” solely two years prior. And he opined that punishments ought not be so critical for possession of the plant.

I say this information is “enjoyable” as a result of it’s extra attention-grabbing than stunning and I doubt it can have a lot impression. Nixon was a imply previous liar, and one with an animus towards sure teams of individuals. I additionally don’t suppose this revelation will persuade the vocal, diminishing minority of prohibitionists to alter their minds. I prefer it anyway, particularly as hashish historical past nerd. We had been proper!

DEA embraces two-step assessment for marijuana rescheduling

This one is vital, in my view. It pertains to the strategy of research DEA should undertake when figuring out whether or not a drug, together with marijuana (and psilocybin, and some other verboten substance), has a “at present accepted medical use.” In April, the Division of Justice’s Workplace of Authorized Counsel (OLC) put DEA in a field on this one, explaining that the previous, five-part take a look at was “impermissibly slim.” OLC thus endorsed the two-part take a look at. On September 17th, DEA assented to the take a look at for Schedule I assessment.

The 2-part take a look at bodes properly for DEA’s rulemaking, now underway, to maneuver marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III of the federal Managed Substances Act. How do we all know? Nicely, the Schedule I stans don’t prefer it, for starters. It’s because, underneath two-part assessment, a drug can have at present accepted medical use: a) even when that drug hasn’t been accredited by FDA, and b) even when the drug wouldn’t go DEA’s scrapped five-part take a look at. So, extra runway.

DOOBIE Act on the way in which?

I’m embarrassed even having to sort that. However sure, some Congressperson named a federal hashish invoice the “DOOBIE Act,” sadly. With a press launch and every thing.

This proposal would prohibit federal businesses from denying safety clearance and employment to individuals just because they’ve used marijuana. In my studying of the precise invoice, these businesses may nonetheless ding an applicant for previous marijuana use, however they couldn’t “base a suitability dedication . . . solely on the previous use of marijuana by the person.” The phrase “solely” must go.

As a result of this invoice applies solely to “Govt businesses” underneath 5 U.S. Code § 105, it additionally wouldn’t have prohibited, say, Joe Biden from doing his “doobie” staffers soiled, which he positively did.

FDA will get the nod on tobacco-hemp

I just like the Congressional Analysis Service (CRS) and infrequently ship individuals thataway. On September 16th, CRS printed a brand new report titled “Authorized Impact of Marijuana Rescheduling on FDA’s Regulation of Hashish.” Listed here are my extraordinarily condensed takeaways:

  1. FDA can authorize tobacco merchandise containing hemp-derived cannabinoids (though it hasn’t but). It’s because hemp will not be a managed substance.
  2. Marijuana, even at Schedule III, would nonetheless be banned as a tobacco additive (and possibly at all times might be). It’s because FDA would want to approve particular hashish medicines first, and it by no means does that for botanical medication.

Right here now we have a type of cognitively dissonant outcomes usually seen with the hashish plant. As a studying of legislation it is sensible, however as to coverage it’s nonsense. You may thank Richard Nixon and different hashish heels for that.

Leave a Reply