The DEA's 'Four Decades of Impeding and Rejecting Science'

C-SPANC-SPANYesterday I noted the Drug Enforcement Administration's irrational opposition to hemp cultivation, which many countries manage to allow without legalizing marijuana. One of the DEA's main arguments against hemp is that it can be used to conceal marijuana—a fear that makes little sense when you understand that the last thing a marijuana grower wants is to ruin his crop's potency by allowing it to be pollinated by hemp plants. A new report from the Drug Policy Alliance (DPA) and the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS) reviews five other examples of the DEA's science-defying positions: its decision to ban MDMA, its rejection of three petitions seeking to move marijuana out of the most restrictive schedule of the Controlled Substances Act, and its defense of the federal government's monopoly on the production of cannabis for research.

In 1984, just two years after the DEA became aware that MDMA, a.k.a. Ecstasy, had become popular as a party drug, the agency announced its intent to ban it. That decision became final in 1986, despite the objections of psychiatrists and psychologists (including Nathaniel Branden) who said MDMA had great potential as a psychotherapeutic tool and should either remain unscheduled or be placed in a category less restrictive than Schedule I, a classification that makes all use illegal. DEA Administrative Law Judge Francis Young agreed, recommending that MDMA be placed in Schedule III. DEA Administrator John Lawn overruled Young, arguing (as the report puts it) that "MDMA need not have caused any actual harm to be placed in Schedule I" because "the potential for abuse was sufficient."

That same year, Young issued another decision that Lawn rejected. In response to a petition that was originally filed by the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws in 1972, Young recommended that marijuana be moved out of Schedule I, a category supposedly reserved for drugs with a "high potential for abuse" that have "no currently accepted medical use" and are so dangerous that they cannot be used safely, even under medical supervision. Calling marijuana "one of the safest therapeutically active substances known to man," Young said it did not fit the criteria for Schedule I. After Lawn overrode Young in 1989, the DEA rejected two other rescheduling petitions in 2001 and 2009, based on a loose definition of abuse potential and a strict definition of medical use. Since those terms are not defined by the CSA, the courts have given the agency a great deal of leeway in deciding where marijuana belongs. 

Even as the DEA cites inadequate evidence of marijuana's medical utility as a reason to keep it in Schedule I, it obstructs studies aimed at providing such evidence by restricting the supply of cannabis for research. The only legal source is the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is stingy with its stash (unless you are trying to show how dangerous marijuana is) and cannot provide high-quality cannabis or a variety of strains. "No other Schedule I drug is available from only a single governmental source for research purposes," the DPA/MAPS report notes. "The DEA has licensed privately funded manufacturers of methamphetamine, LSD, MDMA, heroin, cocaine, and virtually all other controlled substances."

That situation, DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Bittner concluded in a 2007, makes no sense. "NIDA's system for evaluating requests for marijuana has resulted in some researchers who hold DEA registrations and requisite approval from [HHS and FDA] being unable to conduct their research because NIDA has refused to provide them with marijuana," she wrote. "I therefore find that the existing supply is not adequate." Bittner ruled in favor of a MAPS-supported application from University of Massachusetts at Amherst plant scientist Lyle Craker, who wanted permission to grow marijuana for research. Michele Leonhart—the same bureaucrat who rejected the third rescheduling petition, refuses to say whether marijuana is less hazardous than heroin, and views the flying of a hemp flag flew over the Capitol as the low point of her career—overrode Bittner's ruling. Shortly after that decision, which Leonhart made as acting administrator, Barack Obama appointed her to head the agency, a job she retains despite publicly criticizing her boss and resisting his policies.

The DEA does not simply make scientifically dubious decisions against the recommendations of administrative law judges. It takes its own sweet time in doing so:

The DEA took 16 years to issue a final decision to the first marijuana rescheduling petition, five years for the second, and nine years for the third. In two of the three cases, it took multiple lawsuits to force the agency to act. Similarly, in the case of a researcher seeking an independent supply of marijuana for research purposes, it took the DEA 12 years—and another lawsuit—to deny the request.

The agency acts with a lot more alacrity when it wants to ban something, as illustrated by its decision to schedule MDMA. The report notes that the agency moved even faster to ban synthetic cannabinoids and stimulants in response to fears of ersatz pot and "bath salts." Is it possible that the agency in charge of prosecuting the war on drugs harbors a bias in favor of adding chemicals to the list of enemies? 

Based on the DEA's track record of "impeding and rejecting science," DPA and MAPS say "responsibility for determining drug classifications and other health determinations should be completely removed from the DEA and transferred to another agency, perhaps even a non-governmental entity such as the National Academy of Sciences." They add that "the DEA should be ordered to end the federal government's unjustifiable monopoly on the supply of research-grade marijuana available for federally approved research." While the first reform would require action by Congress, the second could be accomplished unilaterally by a president who supposedly is committed to disentangling science from politics.

Reason TV recently interviewed MAPS President Rick Doblin:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • tarran||

    That's why when I rise to power, they get the boats!

    Scaphism, also known as the boats, was an ancient Persian method of execution designed to inflict torturous death...

    The intended victim was stripped naked and then firmly fastened within the interior space of two narrow rowing boats ... joined together one on top of the other with the head, hands and feet protruding. The condemned was forced to ingest milk and honey to the point of developing a severe bowel movement and diarrhea, and more honey would be poured on him to attract insects, with special attention devoted to the eyes, ears, mouth, genitals, and anus. In some cases, the executioner would mix milk and honey and pour that mixture all over the victim. He would then be left to float on a stagnant pond or be exposed to the sun. The defenseless individual's feces accumulated within the container, attracting more insects which would eat and breed within his exposed flesh, which—pursuant to interruption of the blood supply by burrowing insects—became increasingly gangrenous. The individual would be lying there naked, covered from head to toe in milk, honey, and their own feces. The feeding would be repeated each day in some cases to prolong the torture, so that fatal dehydration or starvation did not occur. Death, when it eventually occurred, was probably due to a combination of dehydration, starvation and septic shock. Delirium would typically set in after a few days.
  • Almanian!||

    "MDMA Anything we decide is bad, mmkay, need not have caused any actual harm to be placed in Schedule I" because "the potential for abuse was sufficient."

    Drugs r bad, mmmkay? Because FUCK YOU, that's why.

    God, I hate the US government.

  • ||

    Anything we decide is bad, mmkay

    The DEA has fucked itself with Schedule I. Rather than putting stuff in there that might actually be dangerous or regulating dangerous uses of safe stuff, they just crammed it full of stuff.

    Personally, anabolic steroids were an early libertarian eye-opener for me. People who had done nothing other than try to get in better shape were being punished for using one type of steroid responsibly while other steroids with similar actions and side effects (like estriol) were lauded.

  • Almanian!||

    And now Chrome doesn't work, and IE does.

    FUCK YOU, REASON! FUCK!

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    Chrome hasn't been working for me. Firefox yes.

  • Almanian!||

    Well, they are the "Drug Enforcement Agency, doncha know.

    And you can't spell "Enforcement" without force.

    Sooo.....again. Fuck you - that's why.

  • Anomalous||

    They're the Derp Encouragement Agency, also.

  • Almanian!||

    You can't spell "Derp" without "derp", that's fersure.

  • Tonio||

    Yeah, next time someone says "the science is settled" I'm going to respond "yeah, like the DEA?".

  • BakedPenguin||

    While I typically hate most political posturing, I think the path to get MDMA rescheduled is by promoting it's potential as a therapeutic agent for PTSD.

    Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Our soldiers deserve nothing less.

    Fuckin' sweet!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Thank you for your service. Here's a glow stick.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Thank you for your service. Here's a glow stick.

  • LarryA||

    Our soldiers deserve nothing less.
    Pretty much what they're getting from the VA.

  • Medical Physics Guy||

    TIL Nathaniel Branden liked rolling.

  • Jackand Ace||

    "Impeding and rejecting science."

    Well, Jacob, there have been some funny headlines here at Reason in the past, that yours is the funniest.

  • Rich||

    The only legal source is the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which ... cannot provide high-quality cannabis

    "Cannot" or "*will* not"?

    No wonder "today's pot is much more potent".

  • pan fried wylie||

    unless you are trying to show how dangerous marijuana is

    Still waiting for that groundbreaking study....

  • LarryA||

    Is it possible that the agency in charge of prosecuting the war on drugs harbors a bias in favor of adding chemicals to the list of enemies?
    Surely not. I mean, why would they make more work for themselves?
    [hurl]

    Based on the DEA's track record of "impeding and rejecting science," DPA and MAPS say "responsibility for determining drug classifications and other health determinations should be completely removed from the DEA and transferred to another agency, perhaps even a non-governmental entity such as the National Academy of Sciences." They add that "the DEA should be ordered to end the federal government's unjustifiable monopoly on the supply of research-grade marijuana available for federally approved research."
    Way too complicated. Based on the DEA's track record it should be eliminated. With extreme prejudice.

  • RSteeb||

    "Schedule I Cannabis" is a damned lie. Cannabis should have been de-scheduled when the Shafer Commission submitted its report, and again upon Judge Young's ruling. Unless the DEA is planning to invade Colorado, there is but one rational course:

    Cannabis shall be removed from CSA "Schedule I", and placed in "CSA Subchapter I, Part A, §802. Definitions, paragraph (6)", appended to the list "distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco", where it will STILL be the least-toxic in the category [by several orders of magnitude].

    In other words, EXEMPT from CSA scheduling.

    Anything short of THAT is UNACCEPTABLE.

    http://www.deadiversion.usdoj......sc/802.htm

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement