![](https://christianactionleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/plants-1024x683.jpg)
By L.A. Williams
Christian Action League
May 10, 2024
The Biden administration’s plan to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III — a category reserved for drugs with accepted medical uses and low to moderate potential for dependence — is fraught with risks, says the Rev. Mark Creech, executive director of the Christian Action League.
“It may be misconstrued by the public as a tacit approval of its safety, potentially triggering an uptick in usage,” Creech said after the April 30 announcement of the potential change. “Let’s be clear: marijuana is not without its harms, a fact well-established by scientific scrutiny.”
Creech is far from alone in opposing such a reclassification of the drug that studies now show leads to addiction in 20 percent to 30 percent of users.
Dr. Kevin Sabet, president of Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), and a White House drug policy advisor to presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton, says that the Administration “unilaterally reversed decades of precedent despite volumes of data confirming marijuana’s harmfulness.”
“A drug can be taken off Schedule I only if it has accepted medical use — raw, crude marijuana has never passed safety and efficacy protocols. A drug isn’t medicine because it’s popular,” Sabet says.
“Politics and industry influence have loomed over this decision from the very beginning,” he added, pointing out that the Department of Health and Human Services failed to provide the public with the scientific basis for its recommendation to reschedule. He said they redacted key information about their internal process, “intentionally limiting transparency on such a major decision impacting public health.”
Further, Sabet says that based on sources inside the DEA, he is fully confident that Anne Milgram, administrator of the Drug Enforcement Agency, did not sign the order requesting that the drug be rescheduled.
“Milgram should be commended for standing up for science and truth over the profit-driven pot industry. Her courage will show she was on the right side of history,” Sabet wrote in a statement released this week. “This unprecedented action by the Attorney General reflects a process poisoned by political considerations and conducted with a pre-determined outcome.”
Milgram politely sidestepped questions about marijuana on Tuesday while testifying before the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies about the proposed fiscal 2025 DEA budget.
“Under the Controlled Substances Act, there’s a formal rulemaking process for scheduling or rescheduling controlled substances. That process is ongoing. The next step in that process will be a notice of proposed rulemaking, and then an opportunity for public comment,” she told lawmakers. “Because DEA is involved very much in that scheduling process and the DEA administrator is personally involved in it, it would be inappropriate for me to comment on it at this time.”
Talking points released by SAM last week point out that the science around marijuana hasn’t changed since the last time the DEA looked at scheduling.
“If anything, we have more evidence pointing to the potentially addictive nature of marijuana,” reads the SAM document. “The DEA’s denial of rescheduling petition from 2016 is still completely accurate.”
Sabet said studies and data have linked THC drugs with addiction, psychosis, schizophrenia, depression, anxiety, suicidality, and IQ loss. Nonetheless, the recommendation to loosen restrictions on the psychoactive drug moved forward with the signature of Dr. Rachel Levine, assistant secretary for health for HHS, the agency which recommended the move, after which the DEA completed its review. According to the Controlled Substances Act, the Attorney General has the final say regarding scheduling substances.
Many view the Administrations’ effort to push the change through in an election year as an attempt to win over the main purveyors of the pot industry, namely younger voters.
Creech says it is young people that could suffer most from the proposed change.
“Lowering the classification of marijuana will send a dangerous message to youth that it is both permissible and minimally risky. This could not only increase usage among younger individuals but also potentially escalate the likelihood of progression to more dangerous substances,” he says.
Creech also noted substantial concerns regarding the impact of rescheduling on law enforcement and public health, explaining that a shift in marijuana’s legal status could severely complicate efforts to regulate drug use, undermining existing drug enforcement policies and placing additional strains on healthcare systems.
SAM has announced that it intends to oppose the Attorney General’s decision in the rule-making process and to challenge any final rescheduling decision in court.
To be clear, marijuana would still be considered an illegal drug under Schedule III. State legalization laws would still be out of compliance with federal law. And marijuana would be able to be legally administered only via an FDA-approved prescription.