April, 30 2024, 03:12pm EDT

Biden’s DEA Proposes to Reschedule Marijuana Rather than Decriminalize It, Advocates Say Marijuana Must Be Descheduled
Today, the Associated Press reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is proposing rescheduling marijuana from a Schedule I drug, the most restrictive class, to a Schedule III drug, a less restrictive class. Under this proposed shift, marijuana criminalization would continue at the federal level and most penalties, including those for simple possession, would continue as long as marijuana remains anywhere on the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). On the 2020 campaign trail, then-candidate Biden repeatedly pledged to decriminalize marijuana and expunge related criminal records – identifying these issues as barriers to racial equity. However, the DEA’s proposal would leave most of the harms and racial disparities associated with criminalization unaddressed.
“Supporting federal marijuana decriminalization means supporting the removal of marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act, not changing its scheduling” said Cat Packer, Director of Drug Markets and Legal Regulation. “We all deserve a federal framework for marijuana that upholds the health, wellbeing, and safety of our communities – particularly Black communities who have borne the brunt of our country’s racist enforcement of marijuana laws. Rescheduling marijuana is not a policy solution for federal marijuana criminalization or its harms, and it won’t address the disproportionate impact that it has had on Black and Brown communities.”
Packer continued: “The individuals, families and communities adversely impacted by federal marijuana criminalization deserve more. Workers in the marijuana industry, people who use marijuana, all of us deserve more. Congress and the Biden Administration have a responsibility to take actions now to bring about marijuana reform that meaningfully improves the lives of people who have been harmed by decades of criminalization. Descheduling and legalizing marijuana the right way isn’t just good policy, it’s popular with voters, too.”
A majority of American voters support marijuana legalization and comprehensive reform, according to a Data for Progress poll. Policymakers, health professionals and criminal justice advocates agree that marijuana must be removed from the CSA and coupled with comprehensive Congressional legislative reform to address racial disparities, reduce harm, and move toward a federal marijuana policy and regulatory framework that benefits all communities. Descheduling has also amassed significant support in Congress, with Representatives Blumenauer (D-OR), Joyce (R-OH), Lee (D-CA), and Mast (R-FL) leading their Congressional colleagues in two letters (in December 2022 and October 2023) to the DEA calling for descheduling marijuana, and Senator Warren (D-MA) leading eleven of her colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-OH), urging President Biden’s Administration to remove marijuana from the CSA.
The Drug Policy Alliance and its coalition partners at United for Marijuana Decriminalization (UMD) plan to launch an ambitious outreach effort to encourage community members to tell President Biden and the DEA that marijuana must be descheduled once the public comment period is open. Members of the public will be able to submit comments in support of descheduling in response to the DEA’s proposal through a simple online form. During the brief, time-limited public comment period, UMD aims to solicit a historic number of public comments through extensive outreach to stakeholders, particularly those who have been harmed by marijuana criminalization, inviting participation in the public process and emphasizing the need for marijuana descheduling.
To end federal marijuana criminalization and create marijuana laws grounded in health, safety, and racial equity, the Drug Policy Alliance, fellow advocates, and Congressional leaders are calling on the DEA to deschedule marijuana by fully removing it from the CSA. While descheduling is critical to eliminating the ongoing harms of federal criminalization, marijuana reform can also take place through Executive Orders and Congressional legislation. President Biden can come closer to fulfilling his promise to end marijuana criminalization by taking immediate action to mitigate the harms of marijuana prohibition in people’s lives.
Additionally, Congressional legislation should provide relief from previous marijuana convictions, restore rights and benefits to people impacted by marijuana criminalization, reinvest in communities disproportionately harmed by criminal enforcement. Additionally, Congressional legislation should create a regulatory framework rooted in equity that prioritizes public health, workplace safety, and fair economic opportunities for small businesses. The House of Representatives has twice passed the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement (MORE) Act, a comprehensive descheduling bill with extensive criminal justice reform and community reinvestment. In 2022, the Senate introduced the Cannabis Administration and Opportunity Act (CAOA), the most comprehensive Congressional descheduling bill to date.
Rep. Barbara Lee (CA):
“While the rescheduling of marijuana is a historic step in the right direction, anything short of descheduling falls woefully short of remedying the harms of the current system and the failed racist War on Drugs,” said Rep. Lee. “Rescheduling would allow for the criminal penalties for recreational and medical marijuana use to continue – disproportionately impacting Black and Brown communities. The criminalization of marijuana is also increasingly out of step with state law and public opinion. We need full descheduling and to pass the MORE Act – which I proudly co-lead – as a solution for equitable comprehensive marijuana reform rooted in racial and restorative justice.”
Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (NY):
“Descheduling marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act is not just a social justice issue; it’s an economic, medical, and public safety issue. Since marijuana was classified as a Schedule I substance during the war on drugs, countless lives have been torn apart, and individuals in primarily Black and brown communities have been targeted for nonviolent cannabis-related offenses,” said Senator Gillibrand. “Studies show that legalizing marijuana could help reduce violence in international drug trafficking and generate billions of dollars for the economy. The vast majority of Americans agree that marijuana should be legalized – that’s why I’m calling on the Attorney General and the Drug Enforcement Administration to swiftly deschedule marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.”
Rep. Jerry Nadler (NY):
“While rescheduling marijuana is an important step, we must go further. It is time to end the prohibition and criminalization of marijuana at the federal level. That’s why I have introduced the Marijuana Opportunity Reinvestment and Expungement Act, or the MORE Act, which would not only decriminalize marijuana under federal law, but it would also expunge federal marijuana convictions and encourage states to do the same. The bill would also establish a fund to support programs assisting those communities who were most directly harmed by the War on Drugs and ensure that they have equal access to the benefits of decriminalization.”
Amber Senter, Co-Founder, Board Chair, and Executive Director, Supernova Women:
“There’s no doubt that the United States government recognizing cannabis has medicinal benefits is anything short of historic. Advocates have worked tirelessly for decades to reach this moment, banding together as patients, caregivers, social justice activists, and community members. However rescheduling cannabis to Schedule 3 is not enough. People will continue to be criminalized and punished for possessing and consuming cannabis, risking employment, housing, benefits and more. Workers in the cannabis industry will run the risk of federal prosecution for simply going to work and trying to provide for themselves and their families. Patients using cannabis as medicine through legal or state medical programs will also run the risk of federal criminalization by simply choosing a less harmful way to cope with pain from debilitating medical conditions. The war on drugs will continue to rage on, destroying lives and families as it’s done for decades. As a business owner in cannabis, I recognize the much-needed tax relief that rescheduling cannabis to Schedule 3 will bring. However, we cannot continue to allow some to capitalize from cannabis while others, primarily black and brown people, continue to be punished with their lives ruined. We must deschedule cannabis and stop criminalization for a medically beneficial plant.”
Chelsea Higgs Wise, Executive Director, Marijuana Justice:
“Since prohibiting marijuana there has been a targeted enforcement that has left communities of color disproportionately harmed at the individual, familial and community level. Rescheduling only brings benefits to businesses through tax relief, while our loved ones are left with the guarantee of repetitive surveillance, imprisonment, and collateral consequences. Any federal reform must directly address the disproportionate enforcement Black families continue to face. Presidential pardons are important but for true repair, we must continue to demand for marijuana to be descheduled along with people released and records expunged.”
Michelle Rutter Friberg, Director of Government Affairs, National Cannabis Industry Association:
“While rescheduling marijuana to Schedule III will undoubtedly provide much needed tax relief to cannabis businesses, the Biden Administration and Congress must act to deschedule marijuana and remove it from the Controlled Substances Act entirely. Only descheduling marijuana will harmonize federal law with the 37 states with some form of legal cannabis commerce, allow for the implementation of sensible regulations on hemp and marijuana derived products, and create a level playing field for small and minority owned businesses in the industry.”
Dr. Rachel Knox, MD, MBA, Board Chair, Association for Cannabis Health Equity and Medine (ACHEM):
“Cannabis must be removed from the Controlled Substances Act. From inception, its scheduling has been public health enemy #1, as it has underpinned decades of racist and classist provocation, perpetuating systemic harms directly linked to generational poverty and escalating health disparities in marginalized communities. Rescheduling does nothing to unravel this framework and, in fact, will allow it to continue unchecked. The only remedy to this chronic threat is descheduling, the swift overhaul of discriminatory cannabis policies across all sectors, and thoughtful regulation of diverse cannabis markets with standards rooted in science and social justice.”
Lt. Diane Goldstein (Ret.), Executive Director, Law Enforcement Action Partnership:
“As the failed policies of marijuana prohibition continue to drag on and waste law enforcement resources, the DEA’s move to reschedule marijuana to a less restrictive class would simply not go far enough,” she said. “It would not end federal marijuana criminalization and would do little to rectify the harms of the current system, in which an arrest record can lead to fewer employment opportunities, limited housing options, and obstacles to obtaining loans, all of which make people more, not less, disposed to crime and further drug use. The only way to end this unnecessary criminalization and its harms is to completely remove marijuana from the Controlled Substances Act.”
Dasheeda Dawson, Chair, Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition and Founding Director, Cannabis NYC:
“The time for descheduling cannabis is not just a matter of policy; it’s an imperative for justice and equity. Rescheduling would undermine the hard-fought progress made by cannabis equity and policy reform leaders like the Cannabis Regulators of Color Coalition, jeopardizing the livelihoods and futures of those entrepreneurs and communities disproportionately affected by past criminalization. We cannot afford to backtrack on our commitment to repair the harm inflicted by outdated policies. Descheduling is not just about legality; it’s about rectifying historic injustices and ensuring a fair and inclusive future for all.”
Weldon Angelos, President & Co-Founder, The Weldon Project:
”As an advocate for ending federal marijuana prohibition, I acknowledge that the DEA’s decision to reschedule marijuana as a Schedule 3 substance is a significant step – but it’s far from the inevitable ultimate destination where marijuana is no longer treated as contraband in America’s failed war on drugs. Only the complete descheduling of marijuana will begin to dismantle the barriers of a nationwide criminal ban and ensure that no further damage is inflicted after decades of misguided federal policies. As we navigate this pivotal moment, our actions must be bold and unequivocal to ensure justice and equity for all those who have suffered under the weight of prohibition. If our ultimate goals are to liberate and restore American communities, now is not the time to settle for half measures or, worse yet, to declare victory and pretend like everything’s been solved. It hasn’t.”
Background:
38 states have laws that allow for medical cannabis use and 24 states have laws that allow for adult recreational cannabis use. Despite these reforms at the state level – as long as marijuana is a scheduled substance under the CSA, the repercussions of federal marijuana criminalization will continue – even for conduct that is authorized under state law. Individuals could still face criminal penalties, including mandatory minimum sentences, for personal use and distribution. Additionally, under a Schedule III classification, people with marijuana-related convictions could still lose access to federal housing and food benefits, or even face deportation. According to the ACLU, over 80% of people sentenced for federal marijuana charges were Black or Latino. This is a clear indication that maintaining federal criminalization in any form will perpetuate racially discriminatory policing and enforcement.
The Drug Policy Alliance is the nation's leading organization promoting drug policies grounded in science, compassion, health and human rights.
(212) 613-8020LATEST NEWS
US Led 'Unprecedented' Surge in Global Military Spending in 2024
"As governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come," said one expert.
Apr 28, 2025
Military spending worldwide soared to $2.718 trillion last year, meaning it "has increased every year for a full decade, going up by 37% between 2015 and 2024," according to an annual report released Monday.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) has tracked conflict, disarmament, and weapons for nearly six decades. Its 2024 spending report states that "for the second year in a row, military expenditure increased in all five of the world's geographical regions, reflecting heightened geopolitical tensions across the globe."
In a Monday statement, Xiao Liang, a researcher with the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, highlighted that "over 100 countries around the world raised their military spending in 2024."
"It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War."
"This was really unprecedented... It was the highest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War," Liang told Agence France-Press, while acknowledging that there may have been larger jumps during the Cold War but Soviet Union data is not available.
Liang warned that "as governments increasingly prioritize military security, often at the expense of other budget areas, the economic and social trade-offs could have significant effects on societies for years to come."
The United States—whose Republican lawmakers are currently cooking up a plan to give even more money to a Pentagon that's never passed an audit—led all countries, with $997 billion in military spending. The report points out that the U.S. not only allocated "3.2 times more than the second-largest spender," but also "accounted for 37% of global military expenditure in 2024 and 66% of spending by North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) members."
In the second spot was China, with an estimated $314 billion in spending. Nan Tian, director of the SIPRI Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program, raised the alarm about spending in Asia.
"Major military spenders in the Asia-Pacific region are investing increasing resources into advanced military capabilities," said Tian. "With several unresolved disputes and mounting tensions, these investments risk sending the region into a dangerous arms-race spiral."
In third place was Russia, with an estimated $149 billion in spending. Russia remains at war after launching a full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022. Rounding out the top five were Germany ($88.5 billion) and India ($86.1 billion).
They were followed by the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, France, Japan, South Korea, Israel, Poland, Italy, and Australia. The report says that "together, the top 15 spenders in 2024 accounted for 80% of global military spending ($2,185 billion) and for 79% of the total increase in spending over the year. All 15 increased their military spending in 2024."
"The two largest year-on-year percentage increases among this group were in Israel (+65%) and Russia (+38%), highlighting the effect of major conflicts on spending trends in 2024," the publication continues. Israel has been engaged in a U.S.-backed military assault on the Gaza Strip—globally condemned as genocide—since October 2023.
"Russia once again significantly increased its military spending, widening the spending gap with Ukraine," noted SIPRI researcher Diego Lopes da Silva. "Ukraine currently allocates all of its tax revenues to its military. In such a tight fiscal space, it will be challenging for Ukraine to keep increasing its military spending."
Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday announced an upcoming three-day truce to celebrate the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe. In response, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy called for an immediate monthlong cease-fire.
All NATO members boosted military spending last year, which SIPRI researcher Jade Guiberteau Ricard said was "driven mainly by the ongoing Russian threat and concerns about possible U.S. disengagement within the alliance."
"It is worth saying that boosting spending alone will not necessarily translate into significantly greater military capability or independence from the USA," the expert added. "Those are far more complex tasks."
Another SIPRI researcher, Lorenzo Scarazzato, highlighted that "for the first time since reunification Germany became the biggest military spender in Western Europe, which was due to the €100 billion special defense fund announced in 2022."
"The latest policies adopted in Germany and many other European countries suggest that Europe has entered a period of high and increasing military spending that is likely to continue for the foreseeable future," Scarazzato said.
As for the Middle East, SIPRI researcher Zubaida Kari said that "despite widespread expectations that many Middle Eastern countries would increase their military spending in 2024, major rises were limited to Israel and Lebanon."
In addition to slaughtering at least tens of thousands of Palestinians in Gaza over the past nearly 19 months, Israel has killed thousands of people in Lebanon while allegedly targeting the political and paramilitary group Hezbollah. Kari said that elsewhere in the region, "countries either did not significantly increase spending in response to the war in Gaza or were prevented from doing so by economic constraints."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Not Just for the Battlefield: Rights Group Warns of Dystopian World Where Killer Robots Reign
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," according to the author of the report.
Apr 28, 2025
In a report published Monday, a leading human rights group calls for international political action to prohibit and regulate so-called "killer robots"—autonomous weapons systems that select targets based on inputs from sensors rather than from humans—and examines them in the context of six core principles in international human rights law.
In some cases, the report argues, an autonomous weapons system may simply be incompatible with a given human rights principle or obligation.
The report, co-published by Human Rights Watch and Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, comes just ahead of the first United Nations General Assembly meeting on autonomous weapons systems next month. Back in 2017, dozens of artificial intelligence and robotics experts published a letter urging the U.N. to ban the development and use of killer robots. As drone warfare has grown, those calls have continued.
"To avoid a future of automated killing, governments should seize every opportunity to work toward the goal of adopting a global treaty on autonomous weapons systems," said the author behind the report, Bonnie Docherty, a senior arms adviser at Human Rights Watch and a lecturer on law at Harvard Law School's International Human Rights Clinic, in a statement on Monday.
According to the report, which includes recommendations on a potential international treaty, the call for negotiations to adopt "a legally binding instrument to prohibit and regulate autonomous weapons systems" is supported by at least 129 countries.
Drones relying on an autonomous targeting system have been used by Ukraine to hit Russian targets during the war between the two countries, The New York Timesreported last year.
In 2023, the Pentagon announced a program, known as the Replicator initiative, which involves a push to build thousands of autonomous drones. The program is part of the U.S. Defense Department's plan to counter China. In November, the watchdog group Public Citizen alleged that Pentagon officials have not been clear about whether the drones in the Replicator project would be used to kill.
A senior Navy admiral recently toldBloomberg that the program is "alive and well" under the Department of Defense's new leadership following U.S. President Donald Trump's return to the White House.
Docherty warned that the impact of killer robots will stretch beyond the traditional battlefield. "The use of autonomous weapons systems will not be limited to war, but will extend to law enforcement operations, border control, and other circumstances, raising serious concerns under international human rights law," she said in the statement
When it comes to the right to peaceful assembly under human rights law, which is important in the context of law enforcement exercising use force, "autonomous weapons systems would be incompatible with this right," according to the report.
Killer robots pose a threat to peaceful assembly because they "would lack human judgment and could not be pre-programmed or trained to address every situation," meaning they "would find it challenging to draw the line between peaceful and violent protesters."
Also, "the use or threat of use of autonomous weapons systems, especially in the hands of abusive governments, could strike fear among protesters and thus cause a chilling effect on free expression and peaceful assembly," per the report.
Killer robots would also contravene the principle of human dignity, according to the report, which establishes that all humans have inherent worth that is "universal and inviolable."
"The dignity critique is not focused on the systems generating the wrong outcomes," the report states. "Even if autonomous weapons systems could feasibly make no errors in outcomes—something that is extremely unlikely—the human dignity concerns remain, necessitating prohibitions and regulations of such systems."
"Autonomous weapon systems cannot be programmed to give value to human life, do not possess emotions like compassion that can generate restraint to violence, and would rely on processes that dehumanize individuals by making life-and-death decisions based on software and data points," Docherty added.
In total, the report considers the right to life; the right to peaceful assembly; the principle of human dignity; the principle of nondiscrimination; the right to privacy; and the right to remedy.
The report also lists cases where it's more ambiguous whether autonomous weapons systems would violate a certain right.
The right to privacy, for example, protects individuals from "arbitrary or unlawful" interferences in their personal life. According to the report, "The development and use of autonomous weapons systems could violate the right because, if they or any of their component systems are based on AI technology, their development, testing, training, and use would likely require mass surveillance."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Absolute Insanity': Right-Wing Activist Asks If Trump Will Suspend Habeas Corpus to Expel More Migrants
"Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution," said one policy expert.
Apr 28, 2025
With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.
On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.
"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."
O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.
"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.
His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.
The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.
"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."
Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.
Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.
O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.
One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.
The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Postreported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular