Misplaced Pages

#158841

84-590: The Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act , also known as the MORE Act , is a proposed piece of U.S. federal legislation that would deschedule cannabis from the Controlled Substances Act and enact various criminal and social justice reforms related to cannabis , including the expungement of prior convictions. Introduced by Jerry Nadler on May 28, 2021, the House of Representatives passed

168-516: A House Rules Committee hearing. On March 30, the Rules Committee cleared the bill for a House floor vote with amendments related to immigration, studies on workplace and traffic safety, and security clearances. On April 1, the bill passed in the House on a 220–204 vote. As of May 6, 2024: In August 2020, on the behalf of a long list of civil rights and drug policy activist groups, Vanita Gupta sent

252-528: A select committee but became a standing committee for the 31st and 32nd Congresses (1849–1853). In 1853, the panel reverted to being a select committee and remained one until 1880. From 1880 to the revolt against Speaker Joseph Gurney Cannon in March 1910, the Speaker of the House also served as Chairman of the Rules Committee. Beginning in 1999 with the chairmanship of Republican David Dreier of California ,

336-518: A 228–164 majority, mostly along party lines, marking the first time a chamber of Congress approved legislation to end federal marijuana prohibition . 222 Democrats voted for the bill, while Cheri Bustos , Henry Cuellar , Conor Lamb , Dan Lipinski , Chris Pappas , and Collin Peterson were the six Democrats voting against. 158 Republicans voted against the bill, while Matt Gaetz , Brian Mast , Tom McClintock , Denver Riggleman , and Don Young were

420-492: A considerable void in our knowledge of the plant and the effects of the active drug contained in it, our recommendation is that marijuana be retained within schedule I at least until the completion of certain studies now underway to resolve the issue. In 1972, the National Commission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse released a report favoring decriminalization of cannabis. The Nixon administration took no action to implement

504-568: A controlled substance." The Secretary's findings on scientific and medical issues are binding on the DEA. The HHS Secretary can even unilaterally legalize cannabis: "[I]f the Secretary recommends that a drug or other substance not be controlled, the Attorney General shall not control the drug or other substance." 21 U.S.C.   § 811(b) . Unless an international treaty requires controlling

588-404: A debate and a vote by the full House upon being reported by the Rules Committee. If a "special rule" resolution providing for consideration of a bill is passed, then such bill must be considered the House at such a time and under such limitations as the resolution has set. In practice, a bill can get to a floor vote only if a "special rule" resolution providing for its consideration is passed (unless

672-641: A drug be controlled, the Attorney General is required to "issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations" without regard to scientific or medical findings, per 21 U.S.C.   § 811d . Under the United Nations ' Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs , cannabis and cannabis resin were traditionally classified under Schedule IV (treaty's most strictly controlled category of drugs ) since 1961. However, in 2020, world nations voted to lower

756-555: A drug has an accepted medical use. The DEA claims that cannabis has no accepted medical use because it does not meet all of these criteria: These criteria are not binding; they were created by DEA and may be altered at any time. Judicial deference to agency decisions is what has kept them in effect, despite the difference between these and the statutory criteria. Cannabis is one of several plants with unproven abuse potential and toxicity that Congress placed in Schedule I. The DEA interprets

840-467: A federal excise tax on marijuana starting at 10 percent and rising to 25 percent by the fifth year, which would be in addition to the state and local taxes and additional taxes and regulations. Proponents of cannabis legalization are skeptical that this or similar bills will pass as so called "Liberty Republicans", such as Massie who would support cannabis legalization, have expressed that they will not support legislation that broadens government authority over

924-449: A letter to Democratic congressional leaders calling for a vote on the act. The letter states that "In the face of the evolving COVID-19 pandemic and a growing national dialogue on unjust law enforcement practices , marijuana reform as a modest first step at chipping away at the War on Drugs is more relevant and more pressing than ever before." On June 1, 2021, Amazon 's consumer CEO announced

SECTION 10

#1732876254159

1008-515: A letter to colleagues, confirmed that the vote would occur by the end of September. This was later delayed until later in the year as a result on needing to focus on COVID-19-related spending . Following the November 2020 elections , Hoyer announced the bill would get a floor vote in December. Following debate on the House floor on December 3, a vote was scheduled for December 4, when the bill passed with

1092-473: A medical study performed by Quiggle on over 10,000 chronically ill and terminally ill patients' use of medical marijuana in Southern California. This study provided conclusive evidence that medical marijuana provided a safer and alternative application to many current pharmaceutical products available for patients, especially those with cancer and HIV/AIDS. The "Mary Lou Eimer Criteria" were instrumental in

1176-592: A number of delivery routes that were not considered by the institute, such as transdermal , sublingual, and even rectal administration, in addition to vaporizers , which release cannabis' active ingredients into the air without burning the plant matter. A study published in the March 1, 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences stated that "there are virtually no reports of fatal cannabis overdose in humans" and attributed this safety to

1260-432: A substance, especially when that use may result in harmful consequences such as failure to fulfill major obligations at work or school, physical risk-taking, or even substance-related legal problems, are indicative of a substance's abuse potential. Cannabis could be rescheduled either legislatively , through Congress, or through the executive branch . Congress has so far rejected all bills to reschedule cannabis. However, it

1344-472: A substance, the Attorney General must, in finding whether the drug meets the three criteria for placement in a particular schedule, consider the following factors: The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961 is the main international treaty establishing international law provisions related to marijuana. It was ratified by the United States in 1967. When a treaty ratified by the U.S. mandates that

1428-405: A very partisan fashion, advancing "special rule" resolutions to the floor on straight party line votes in nearly all cases. The Rules Committee was formed on April 2, 1789, during the first Congress. However, it had nowhere near the powerful role it has today. Instead, it merely proposed general rules for the House to follow when debating bills (rather than passing a special rule for each bill), and

1512-407: Is concerned with the proposed classification of marijuana. It is presently classed in schedule I(C) along with its active constituents, the tetrahydrocannibinols and other psychotropic drugs. Some question has been raised whether the use of the plant itself produces "severe psychological or physical dependence" as required by a schedule I or even schedule II criterion. Since there is still

1596-431: Is conclusive proof of its low potential for abuse: The Secretary disagrees with Mr. Gettman's assertion that "[t]he accepted contemporary legal convention for evaluating the abuse potential of a drug or substance is the relative degree of self-administration the drug induces in animal subjects." As discussed above, self-administration tests that identify whether a substance is reinforcing in animals are but one component of

1680-586: Is dangerous enough to merit Schedule I status. The dispute was based on differing views on both how the Act should be interpreted and what kinds of scientific evidence are most relevant to the rescheduling decision. The Act provides a process for rescheduling controlled substances by petitioning the Drug Enforcement Administration . The first petition under this process was filed in 1972 to allow cannabis to be legally prescribed by physicians. The petition

1764-408: Is evidence of its "high potential for abuse," despite the drug's lack of physiological addictiveness: [P]hysical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors to consider in determining a substance's abuse potential. A large number of individuals using marijuana on a regular basis and the vast amount of marijuana that is available for illicit use are indicative of widespread use. In addition, there

SECTION 20

#1732876254159

1848-442: Is evidence that marijuana use can result in psychological dependence in a certain proportion of the population. The Department of Justice (DOJ) also considers the fact that people are willing to risk scholastic, career, and legal problems to use cannabis to be evidence of its high potential for abuse: Throughout his petition, Mr. Gettman argues that while many people "use" cannabis, few "abuse" it. He appears to equate abuse with

1932-471: Is for bills reported from committees to be considered in the Rules Committee, which then passes a so-called "special rule" (a resolution allowing for consideration of a bill, establishing how long and under what rules the full body will debate the proposition). A "special rule" resolution (also known simply as a "rule") is privileged under the Standing Rules of the House, meaning it is immediately subject to

2016-623: Is further undisputed that the drug has at least some potential for abuse sufficient to warrant control under the CSA, the drug must remain in schedule I. In such circumstances, placement of the drug in schedules II through V would conflict with the CSA since such drug would not meet the criterion of "a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States." 21 USC 812(b). Therefore, even if one were to assume, theoretically, that your assertions about marijuana's potential for abuse were correct (i.e., that marijuana had some potential for abuse but less than

2100-558: Is not unheard of for Congress to intervene in the drug scheduling process; in February 2000, for instance, the 105th Congress, in its second official session, passed Public Law 106-172 , also known as the Hillory J. Farias and Samantha Reed Date-Rape Drug Prohibition Act of 2000 , adding GHB to Schedule I. On June 23, 2011, Rep. Barney Frank and Rep. Ron Paul introduced H.R. 2306 , legislation that would completely remove cannabis from

2184-464: Is to come up with special rules, to help or obstruct the chances of legislation reported to it. The Rules Committee issues the following types of "special rule" resolutions: Most "special rule" resolutions offer time for "general debate" before any amendment consideration begins (it is also possible for the rules committee to issue a rule for "general debate" only and later issue a second rule for amendment consideration) and allow for one motion to send

2268-1009: Is virtually non-existent compared to that of heroin or cocaine, cannabis lacks the high abuse potential required for inclusion in Schedule I or II. Gettman also states: "The acceptance of cannabis' medical use by eight ( now thirty-eight and DC ) states since 1996 and the experiences of patients, doctors, and state officials in these states establish marijuana's accepted medical use in the United States." Specifically, Alabama , Alaska , Arizona , Arkansas , California , Colorado , Connecticut , Delaware , Florida , Georgia , Hawaii , Illinois , Iowa , Kentucky , Louisiana , Maine , Maryland , Massachusetts , Michigan , Minnesota , Mississippi , Missouri , Montana , New Hampshire , Nevada , New Jersey , New Mexico , New York , North Dakota , Ohio , Oklahoma , Oregon , Pennsylvania , Puerto Rico , Rhode Island , South Dakota , Tennessee , Utah , Vermont , Virginia , Washington , Washington DC , and West Virginia , have enacted legislation allowing

2352-530: The American College of Physicians called for a review of cannabis's Schedule I classification in its position paper titled "Supporting Research into the Therapeutic Role of Marijuana" It stated therein: "Position 4: ACP urges an evidence-based review of marijuana's status as a Schedule I controlled substance to determine whether it should be reclassified to a different schedule. This review should consider

2436-567: The Controlled Substances Act to mean that if a drug with even a low potential for abuse — say, equivalent to a Schedule V drug — has no accepted medical use, then it must remain in Schedule I: When it comes to a drug that is currently listed in Schedule I, if it is undisputed that such drug has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and a lack of accepted safety for use under medical supervision, and it

2520-518: The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws , has argued that cannabis does not fit each of the three statutory criteria for Schedule I. Gettman believes that "high potential for abuse" means that a drug has a potential for abuse similar to that of heroin or cocaine . Gettman argues further that since laboratory animals do not self-administer cannabis, and because cannabis' toxicity

2604-586: The U.S. Department of Justice initiated 2024 rulemaking to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act . The majority of 2024 public comments supported descheduling, decriminalizing, or legalizing marijuana at the federal level. Schedule I is the only category of controlled substances not allowed to be prescribed by a physician. Under 21 U.S.C.   § 812 , drugs must meet three criteria in order to be placed in Schedule I: In 1970, Congress placed cannabis into Schedule I on

Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

2688-651: The dopamine -producing areas of the brain". Other studies, summarized in Gettman's 1997 report Dopamine and the Dependence Liability of Marijuana , showed that cannabis has only an indirect effect on dopamine transmission. This suggested that cannabis' psychoactive effects are produced by a different mechanism than addictive drugs such as amphetamine , cocaine , ethanol , nicotine , and opiates . The National Institute on Drug Abuse , however, continued to publish literature denying this finding. For instance, NIDA claims

2772-545: The fraction of votes needed in the House to close debate and vote on a bill. In 1880, the modern Rules Committee began to emerge from the reorganization of the House Committees. When the Republican Party took over the House in the election of 1880, they quickly realized the power that the Rules Committee possessed. One member, Thomas Brackett Reed ( R - Maine ), used a seat on the Rules Committee to vault himself to

2856-402: The majority party will usually be very keen on controlling it tightly. While most House committees maintain membership in a rough proportion to the full chamber (if the majority party controls 55% of the House, it will tend to have 55% of committee seats), membership on the Rules Committee is disproportionately in favor of the majority party. Furthermore, the rules committee typically operates in

2940-509: The "high potential for abuse" commensurate with schedules I and II), marijuana would not meet the criteria for placement in schedules III through V since it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States—a determination that is reaffirmed by HHS in the attached medical and scientific evaluation. The Department of Health and Human Services rejects the argument that laboratory animals' failure to self-administer cannabis

3024-480: The Act of 2021 had less GOP support. Thomas Massie (R-KY), a supporter of cannabis legalization, criticized the bill stating that it would create "new marijuana crimes" with each violation punishable by up to five years in prison and a $ 10,000 fine. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) proposed the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act that would, in addition to legalizing cannabis, implement

3108-557: The Controlled Substances Act gives the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), as the successor agency of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare , great power over rescheduling decisions. After the DEA accepts the filing of a petition, the agency must request from the HHS Secretary "a scientific and medical evaluation, and his recommendations, as to whether such drug or other substance should be so controlled or removed as

3192-610: The Court issued a decision clarifying that the Controlled Substances Act requires a full scientific and medical evaluation and the fulfillment of the rescheduling process before treaty commitments can be evaluated ( NORML v. DEA 559 F.2d 735 ). On October 16, 1980, the Court ordered the government to start the scientific and medical evaluations required by the NORML petition ( NORML v. DEA Unpublished Disposition, U.S. App. LEXIS 13100 ). Meanwhile, some members of Congress were taking action to reschedule

3276-625: The Speaker grants a vote on suspension of the rules , which requires two-thirds of votes cast in order to pass). Consideration by the full body can occur in one of two forums: the Committee of the Whole , or on the floor of the full House of Representatives itself. Different traditions govern whether the Committee of the Whole or the House itself will debate a given resolution, and the Rules Committee generally sets

3360-493: The Speakership, and gained so much power that he was referred to as " Czar Reed". In the 1890s and 1900s, Reed and his successor, Joseph Gurney Cannon (R- Illinois ) used the Rules Committee to centralize the power of the Speakership. Although their power to place members in committees and perform other functions was limited by a forced rule change in 1910, the Rules Committee retained its power. However, it ceased to function as

3444-477: The U.S. federal level may be fast-tracked after the change in treaty scheduling, on these grounds. In 1972 the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) petitioned the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs (BNDD) (now the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)) to transfer cannabis to Schedule II so that it could be legally prescribed by physicians. The BNDD declined to initiate proceedings on

Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act - Misplaced Pages Continue

3528-499: The advice of Assistant Secretary of Health Roger O. Egeberg . His letter to Harley O. Staggers , Chairman of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce , indicates that the classification was intended to be provisional: Dear Mr. Chairman: In a prior communication, comments requested by your committee on the scientific aspects of the drug classification scheme incorporated in H.R. 18583 were provided. This communication

3612-407: The amount of speaking time assigned on each bill or resolution. If the leadership wants a bill pushed forward quietly, for instance, there might be no debate time scheduled; if they want attention, they might allow time for lengthy speeches in support of the bill. Between control over amendments, debate, and when measures will be considered, the Rules Committee exerts vast power in the House. As such,

3696-515: The basis of their interpretation of U.S. treaty commitments. In 1974, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled against the government and ordered them to process the petition ( NORML v. Ingersoll 497 F.2d 654). The government continued to rely on treaty commitments in their interpretation of scheduling-related issues concerning the NORML petition. In 1977,

3780-401: The bill back to its committee of origination, with or without instructions for how to modify the bill. Such resolutions may also include necessary authority for district work periods, and may waive or modify certain points of order or rules of the house if desired by the committee, and the committee is also allowed to self-execute amendments right in the rule rather than delegating this ability to

3864-742: The bill for the second time on April 1, 2022. Provisions of the act include: According to USA Today , "[t]he trust funds the Act would create include the Community Reinvestment Grant, which would provide funding for services such as job training, re-entry services and legal aid; the Cannabis Opportunity Grant, which would provides funds to assist small businesses in the pot industry; and the Equitable Licensing Grant, which minimizes barriers to gain access to marijuana licensing and employment for those most impacted by

3948-567: The bill would reduce the deficit by almost $ 3 billion over ten years. Matching bills were introduced to the House of Representatives by Jerry Nadler and to the Senate by Kamala Harris on July 23, 2019. At the time, Harris was a 2020 Democratic Party candidate for U.S. president. The act was passed with a 24–10 majority by the House Judiciary Committee following markup on November 20, 2019. Only two Republicans voted in favor. This

4032-484: The chairman of the Rules Committee became a member of the elected Republican leadership, appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives . Howard W. Smith of Virginia is the longest-serving chairman (1955–1967) since the committee's founding. David Dreier of California is the youngest chairman of the Rules Committee, assuming the position at the age of 46. He is also the longest-serving chairman (1999-2007, 2011–2013) since 1967. Louise Slaughter of New York

4116-433: The committee from 12 members to 15, to decrease the power of the arch-conservative chairman, Howard W. Smith (D- Virginia ). The bill passed, 217 votes to 212. However, it was only partially successful; the Rules Committee continued to block legislation including civil rights and education bills. In the 1970s, however, the Rules Committee was firmly under the command of the Speaker once again. As before, its primary role

4200-518: The company's support for the bill and that it would no longer test non-transportation workers for cannabis use. Amazon also announced that it would use its "public policy team" (lobbying resources) to back the bill. On June 4, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights published a letter urging Congress to pass the bill. In comparison to the first iteration of the MORE Act in 2019/2020,

4284-468: The drug legislatively. In 1981, the late Rep. Stuart McKinney introduced a bill to transfer cannabis to Schedule II. It was co-sponsored by a bipartisan coalition of 84 House members, including prominent Republicans Newt Gingrich ( GA ), Bill McCollum ( FL ), John Porter ( IL ), and Frank Wolf ( VA ). After the bill died in committee, Rep. Barney Frank began annually introducing nearly identical legislation. All of Frank's bills have suffered

SECTION 50

#1732876254159

4368-486: The drug on July 13, 1986 ( DEA 51 FR 17476-78 ). The disparate treatment of cannabis and the expensive, patentable Marinol prompted reformers to question the DEA's consistency. In the summer of 1986, the DEA administrator initiated public hearings on cannabis rescheduling. The hearings lasted two years, involving many witnesses and thousands of pages of documentation. On September 6, 1988, DEA Chief Administrative Law Judge Francis L. Young ruled that cannabis did not meet

4452-524: The federal schedules, limiting the federal government's role to policing cross-border or interstate transfers into states where it remains illegal. The Controlled Substances Act also provides for a rulemaking process by which the United States Attorney General can reschedule cannabis administratively. These proceedings represent the only means of legalizing medical cannabis without an act of Congress. Rescheduling supporters have often cited

4536-504: The five Republicans voting in favor. The sole Libertarian in the House, Justin Amash , also voted for the bill. Nadler reintroduced the bill to Congress on May 28, 2021, with some changes. On September 30, 2021, the House Committee on the Judiciary referred the bill for a vote by the House. On March 24, it was scheduled to be considered for a House floor vote sometime the following week, pending

4620-590: The following in its youth publication The Science Behind Drug Abuse : In January 1997, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct a review of the scientific evidence to assess the potential health benefits and risks of cannabis and its constituent cannabinoids . In 1999, the IOM recommended that medical cannabis use be allowed for certain patients in

4704-413: The forum under which a proposition will be debated and the amendment/time limitations for every measure, too. For instance, there might be a limit on the number or types of amendments (proposed changes to the bill). Amendments might only be allowed to specific sections of the bill, or no amendments might be allowed at all. Besides control over amendments, the rule issued by the Rules Committee also determines

4788-410: The full house floor. Resolutions electing members: H.Res. 14 (Chair), H.Res. 15 (Ranking Member), H.Res. 56 (R), H.Res. 57 (D), H.Res. 1133 (R) The Rules Committee operates with two subcommittees, one focusing on legislative and budget matters and one focusing on the internal operations of the House. Source: Full membership The Committee on Rules was created as

4872-574: The government's own facility at the University of Mississippi. Advocates of marijuana legalization argue that the budgetary impact of removing cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act and legalizing its use in the United States could save billions by reducing government spending for prohibition enforcement in the criminal justice system. Additionally, they argue that billions in annual tax revenues could be generated through proposed taxation and regulation. Jon Gettman , former director of

4956-541: The issuance of the Cole Memorandum, which has set federal guidelines over states with medical marijuana laws and has urged the federal government to reschedule marijuana to a Class IV or Class V controlled substance based on the results of the Quiggle Study. In 1992, DEA Administrator Robert Bonner promulgated five criteria, based somewhat on the Controlled Substances Act's legislative history, for determining whether

5040-839: The legal criteria of a Schedule I prohibited drug and should be reclassified. He declared that cannabis in its natural form is "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man. (T)he provisions of the (Controlled Substances) Act permit and require the transfer of marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule II". Then-DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young's determination. Lawn said he decided against rescheduling cannabis based on testimony and comments from numerous medical doctors who had conducted detailed research and were widely considered experts in their respective fields. Later Administrators agreed. "Those who insist that marijuana has medical uses would serve society better by promoting or sponsoring more legitimate research," former DEA Administrator Robert Bonner opined in 1992. This statement

5124-572: The lengthy petition review process as a reason why cannabis is still illegal. The first petition took 22 years to review, the second took 7 years, the third was denied 9 years later. A 2013 petition by two state governors is still pending. The United States Code , under Section 811 of Title 21 , sets out a process by which cannabis could be administratively transferred to a less-restrictive category or removed from Controlled Substances Act regulation altogether. The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) evaluates petitions to reschedule cannabis. However,

SECTION 60

#1732876254159

5208-452: The level of physical dependence and toxicity resulting from cannabis use. Thus, he appears to be arguing that a substance that causes only low levels of physical dependence and toxicity must be considered to have a low potential for abuse. The Secretary does not agree with this argument. Physical dependence and toxicity are not the only factors that are considered in determining a substance's abuse potential. The actual use and frequency of use of

5292-559: The low density of cannabinoid receptors in areas of the brain controlling breathing and the heart. Gettman claims that the discovery of the cannabinoid receptor system in the late 1980s revolutionized scientific understanding of cannabis' effects and provided further evidence that it does not belong in Schedule I. In 2003, the United States government patented cannabinoids, including those in marijuana that cause users to get "high" (such as THC ) based on these chemicals' prevention of trauma- and age-related brain damage. In January 2008,

5376-473: The medical use of cannabis by their citizens. A minimum of 4 million patients are currently using medical cannabis legally in these states. In his petition, Gettman also argues that cannabis is an acceptably safe medication. He notes that a 1999 Institute of Medicine report found that "except for the harms associated with smoking , the adverse effects of marijuana use are within the range of effects tolerated for other medications." He points out that there are

5460-525: The other committees, it does not go straight to the House floor, because the House, unlike the United States Senate , does not have unlimited debate and discussion on a bill. Instead, what may be said and done to a bill is strictly limited. This limitation is performed by the Rules Committee. When a bill is reported out of another committee with legislative jurisdiction, it is placed on the appropriate House Calendar for debate. Common practice, though,

5544-467: The personal project of the Speaker, as it had originally; instead, as the seniority system took root, it was captured by a coalition of conservative Democrats and Republicans. This state of affairs would continue until the 1960s. In 1961, Speaker Sam Rayburn (D- Texas ), acting on the wishes of the new President John F. Kennedy and the Democratic Study Group , introduced a bill to enlarge

5628-504: The petitioners claimed that cannabis did not have the "high potential for abuse" required for Schedule I or Schedule II status. They based their claims on studies of the brain's cannabinoid receptor system conducted by the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) between 1988 and 1994. In particular, they claim that a 1992 study by M. Herkenham et al., "using a lesion-technique, established that there are no cannabinoid receptors in

5712-511: The recommendation, however. Rescheduling proponents argue that cannabis does not meet the Controlled Substances Act 's strict criteria for placement in Schedule I and so the government is required by law to permit medical use or to remove the drug from federal control altogether. The US government, on the other hand, until the August 2023 HHS determination to the contrary , maintained that cannabis

5796-552: The regulation of the plant. Removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act In the United States , the removal of cannabis from Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act , the category reserved for drugs that have "no currently accepted medical use", is a proposed legal and administrative change in cannabis-related law at the federal level. After being proposed repeatedly since 1972,

5880-450: The representative of the United States in discussions and negotiations relating to the proposal". However, "[s]cheduling pursuant to international treaty obligations does not require the factual findings that are necessary for other administrative scheduling actions, and may be implemented without regard to the procedures outlined for regular administrative scheduling." For this reason, some have argued that changes in cannabis scheduling at

5964-589: The same fate, though, without attracting more than a handful of co-sponsors. On October 18, 1985, the DEA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to transfer "Synthetic Dronabinol in Sesame Oil and Encapsulated in Soft Gelatin Capsules" — a pill form of Δ - tetrahydrocannabinol , the main psychoactive component of cannabis, sold under the brand name Marinol — from Schedule I to Schedule II ( DEA 50 FR 42186-87 ). The government issued its final rule rescheduling

6048-477: The scheduling status of marijuana to the less-restrictive Schedule I . The decision became legally-effective worldwide in April 2021, taking "cannabis and cannabis resin" out of Schedule IV to leave it only in Schedule I. After "cannabis and cannabis resin" have been removed from Schedule IV, further steps to reschedule or deschedule marijuana (such as taking it out of the treaty's Schedule I) would now require amendment of

6132-432: The scientific assessment of the abuse potential of a substance. Positive indicators of human abuse liability for a particular substance, whether from laboratory studies or epidemiological data, are given greater weight than animal studies suggesting the same compound has no abuse potential. The Food and Drug Administration elaborates on this, arguing that the widespread use of cannabis, and the existence of some heavy users,

6216-509: The scientific findings regarding marijuana's safety and efficacy in some clinical conditions as well as evidence on the health risks associated with marijuana consumption, particularly in its crude smoked form." From 2008 to 2012, the American Patients Rights Association, in cooperation with Medical Marijuana expert Kim Quiggle, lobbied the federal government over what is now known as the "Mary Lou Eimer Criteria" based on

6300-406: The short term, and that preparations of isolated cannabinoids be developed as a safer alternative to smoked cannabis. The IOM also found that the gateway drug theory was "beyond the issues normally considered for medical uses of drugs and should not be a factor in evaluating the therapeutic potential of marijuana or cannabinoids." House Rules Committee When a bill is reported out of one of

6384-457: The so-called war on drugs." States would maintain their own laws regarding the substance, including whether to legalize it locally. Due to reduced law enforcement activity and prison costs associated with marijuana-related crimes, the bill would reduce federal expenditures by hundreds of millions of dollars, according to the New York Times. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that

6468-522: The treaty. The principal features of the international legal regime of Schedule I are: In the United States , 21 U.S.C. § 811(d)(2)(B) of the Controlled Substances Act states that if the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs proposes rescheduling a drug, the HHS Secretary "shall evaluate the proposal and furnish a recommendation to the Secretary of State which shall be binding on

6552-593: The use of medical marijuana. At a congressional hearing in June 2014, the deputy director for Regulatory Programs at the FDA said the agency was conducting an analysis on whether marijuana should be downgraded, at the request of the DEA. In August 2016 the DEA reaffirmed its position and refused to remove Schedule I classification. However, the DEA announced that it will end restrictions on the supply of marijuana to researchers and drug companies that had previously only been available from

6636-451: Was based on scientific studies, yet with one exception, none could identify, under oath, the scientific studies they relied on," DEA Administrator Thomas A. Constantine remarked in 1995. On May 20, 1980, Representative Sam Neal (D-NC) convened hearings on Schedule I drugs. On July 10, 1995, Jon Gettman and High Times Magazine filed another rescheduling petition with the DEA. This time, instead of focusing on cannabis' medical uses,

6720-430: Was dissolved after proposing these general rules. These general rules still have a great impact on the tone of the House floor today. The Rules Committee, for a long time, lay dormant. For the first fifty years of its existence, it accomplished little beyond simply reaffirming these rules, and its role was very noncontroversial. On June 16, 1841, it made a major policy change, reducing from 2 ⁄ 3 to 1 ⁄ 2

6804-567: Was in 2002, but it was denied by the DEA in July 2011. Subsequently, medical cannabis advocacy group Americans for Safe Access filed an appeal, Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration in January 2012 with the District of Columbia Circuit , which was heard on 16 October 2012 and denied on 22 January 2013. As of April 2023, 38 states, 3 territories, and Washington, D.C. have legalized

6888-530: Was quoted by the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) in its membership drives. In 1994, the D.C. Court of Appeals finally affirmed the DEA Administrator's power to overrule Judge Young's decision ( Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA. 15 F.3d 1131 ). The petition was officially dead. "Each of the doctors testifying on behalf of NORML claimed that his opinion

6972-569: Was the first time in history a congressional committee approved a bill to end federal marijuana prohibition. The legislation was scheduled for a hearing by the House Energy and Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Health on January 15, 2020, titled "Cannabis Policies For The New Decade". According to a message released by Majority Whip Jim Clyburn 's (D-SC) office, the House would vote on the bill in September 2020. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer , in

7056-437: Was ultimately denied after 22 years of court challenges, but a synthetic pill form of cannabis's psychoactive ingredient, THC , was rescheduled in 1986 to allow prescription under schedule II. In 1999, it was again rescheduled to allow prescription under schedule III. A second petition, based on claims related to clinical studies, was denied in 2001. The most recent rescheduling petition filed by medical cannabis advocates

#158841