DEA Resists Witness Request in June 29 Marijuana Hearing as 7 Opponents Win Participation
Updated
Updated · Marijuana Moment · Jun 24
DEA Resists Witness Request in June 29 Marijuana Hearing as 7 Opponents Win Participation
1 articles · Updated · Marijuana Moment · Jun 24
Summary
DEA told Smart Approaches to Marijuana it will not call pharmacologist Luli Akinfiresoye in next week’s rescheduling hearing, pushing the prohibitionist group to seek a subpoena if it wants her testimony on cannabis harms.
Agency lawyers said SAM must proceed under Touhy regulations and warned requested material could be blocked by the Privacy Act or law-enforcement privilege, complicating efforts to use Akinfiresoye’s earlier anti-cannabis report.
That report, filed for a now-canceled Biden-era hearing, linked cannabis to psychosis, depression, cognitive impairment, bronchitis and dependence, and criticized non-FDA-approved medical marijuana products used under state laws.
The procedural fight lands days before the June 29-July 15 hearing, where DEA has admitted only 7 parties—all reform opponents—while excluding supporters despite serving as the formal proponent of moving marijuana to Schedule III.
Transparency is also under dispute: Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julis barred livestreaming, leaving in-person attendance in Arlington as the only live access, a decision Marijuana Moment has asked him to reverse.
Why is the DEA shielding its own expert from testifying on cannabis harms at a pivotal hearing?
Why is a federal hearing on marijuana's future excluding all supporters of reform from testifying?
How will a split legal schedule for marijuana create a practical maze for businesses and patients?
The 2026 DEA Cannabis Rescheduling: Bias, Legal Showdown, and Implications for U.S. Policy
Overview
The upcoming DEA hearing on cannabis rescheduling, set for June 29 to July 15, 2026, has sparked major controversy due to concerns about fairness and transparency. Critics highlight that the DEA only invited witnesses opposed to rescheduling, excluding reform advocates and raising doubts about the hearing’s impartiality. Further, the decision to ban livestreaming and require in-person attendance in Arlington, Virginia, limits public access and scrutiny. These actions have led many to question the legitimacy of the process, as the combination of biased witness selection and restricted transparency undermines public trust in the DEA’s decision-making.