Lawyers Eric Berlin and Darren Weiss Discuss Cannabis Industry Rescheduling
The TDR Three Key Takeaways regarding Eric Berlin Discusses Cannabis Industry Rescheduling:
- “I believe Shane Pennington said it best; the rumors of the death of rescheduling are greatly exaggerated,” stated Eric Berlin.
- Darren Weiss pointed out that anti-legalization groups are stalling to delay decisions until a potential Trump administration.
- Eric Berlin emphasized, “The courts need not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law, regardless of that ambiguity.”
The Supreme Court decision overturning the Chevron defense has sparked significant discussion within the cannabis industry, raising concerns about its impact on the ongoing rescheduling process. In yesterday’s episode of “Trade to Black” podcast, host Shadd Dales discussed these issues with legal experts Eric Berlin from Dentons and Darren Weiss, President of Verano Holdings, who is also a lawyer and previously served as Verano general counsel.
“I believe Shane Pennington said it best; the rumors of the death of rescheduling are greatly exaggerated,” stated Eric Berlin, addressing widespread concerns about the Supreme Court’s decision. Despite the ruling, Berlin emphasized that the rescheduling process would continue largely unaffected. He further clarified, “The courts need not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law, regardless of that ambiguity. That is under the Administrative Procedures Act.”
Darren Weiss echoed this sentiment, noting, “The impact on the rescheduling efforts is quite minimal, and in fact, it can be helpful both with the current rescheduling and as it relates to additional challenges to the extent that we hit a schedule three or otherwise.”
The rescheduling of cannabis hinges on scientific and factual evaluations conducted by agencies like the FDA and HHS. Berlin explained, “The present evaluation of marijuana discusses the scientific and medical information relative to each of the eight factors, presents findings in the three required areas, abuse potential, commonly accepted medical uses, and safety independence liability, and makes a recommendation.” Weiss elaborated, stating, “Not only do the courts need to defer to the factual and scientific findings of the FDA, the DEA does as well.”
The cannabis industry is poised to maintain its momentum despite potential legal hurdles. Weiss highlighted the strategy of anti-legalization groups: “What the groups opposed to rescheduling are doing is trying to delay as much as they can, hoping that this gets into a Trump administration and they feel they have a better chance.” However, the industry’s progress is underpinned by strong public support and significant demographic trends favoring legalization.
Berlin pointed out, “The majority of Americans have access to safe cannabis in their home state. Rescheduling is about creating a program that really, as it relates to the product, has more to do with research and pharmaceutical and drug development.”
As the industry faces these challenges, unity and persistence remain crucial. Berlin stressed the importance of clear, evidence-based policies and ongoing education for the public and policymakers. “This conversation has nothing, at least very little, to do with the actual rescheduling process. It would only potentially impact litigation that occurs afterward, that’s filed in the court, that asks the court to consider what the executive agencies have done.” Weiss added, “We need to be a more unified voice in all this. It takes work every day. We need to keep doing what we need to do.”
Despite the noise and obstruction attempts, the cannabis industry’s trajectory towards legalization is steadfast. The legal, scientific, and public support structures are strong, ensuring that progress continues. “The train if getting faster everyday,” Berlin asserted, driven by a combination of legal acumen, scientific evidence, and public demand.
The industry must continue to advocate for rational and beneficial cannabis regulations, ensuring safe, legal, and affordable access. As Berlin succinctly put it, “The courts need not defer to an agency’s interpretation of the law, regardless of that ambiguity.”
