Connect with us

Published

on

The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is considering whether it will reclassify marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), as the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) recommended last August. This week a dozen Democratic senators recommended that the DEA go further by completely removing marijuana from the CSA’s schedules. Their argument is sound as a matter of policy but legally shaky because the CSA incorporates international treaty obligations in a way that bars the DEA from taking that step.

Since 1970, marijuana has been listed in Schedule I of the CSA, a category supposedly reserved for substances with “a high potential for abuse” that have “no currently accepted medical use” and cannot be used safely even under a doctor’s supervision. The DEA has consistently rejected petitions asking it to reclassify marijuana, citing advice from HHS. But last August, in response to an October 2022 directive from President Joe Biden, who said marijuana’s Schedule I status “makes no sense,” HHS reversed its longstanding position.

Departing from the DEA’s usual approach, HHS took into account clinical experience with marijuana in the 38 states that allow medical use, scientific evidence in support of certain therapeutic applications, and the relative hazards of marijuana compared to “other drugs of abuse.” It noted that “the vast majority of individuals who use marijuana are doing so in a manner that does not lead to dangerous outcomes to themselves or others.” HHS concluded that the DEA should move marijuana to Schedule III, which includes prescription drugs such as ketamine, Tylenol with codeine, and anabolic steroids.

For good reason, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (DMass.), Sen. John Fetterman (DPa.), and 10 of their colleagues, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (DN.Y.), think that change does not go far enough. Rescheduling marijuana, they say in a letter they sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland and DEA Administrator Anne Milgram on Monday, “would mark a significant step forward” but “would not resolve the worst harms of the current system.” They urge the DEA to “deschedule marijuana altogether,” noting that its prohibition “has had a devastating impact on our communities and is increasingly out of step with state law and public opinion.”

Unsurprisingly, that recommendation was welcomed by drug policy reformers. But it goes beyond what the CSA authorizes the DEA to do.

Generally speaking, the CSA gives the attorney general the authority to schedule, reschedule, and deschedule drugs in consultation with HHS. The attorney general historically has delegated that function to the DEA, which is part of the Justice Department. But the CSA includes an explicit limitation on the executive branch’s discretion that complicates any attempt to unilaterally deregulate marijuana.

“If control [of a subtance] is required by United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on October 27, 1970,” Section 811(d)(1) of the CSA says, “the Attorney General shall issue an order controlling such drug under the schedule he deems most appropriate to carry out such obligations” (emphasis added). In that situation, the decision to place or keep a drug in one of the CSA’s schedules is mandatory, and it is to be made “without regard” to the “findings” and “procedures” ordinarily required to schedule a substance.

The United States is a signatory to the U.N. Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, which requires strict control of cannabis. “If a Party permits the cultivation of the cannabis plant for the production of cannabis or cannabis resin,” it says, “it shall apply thereto the system of controls” specified for “the control of the opium poppy.” The treaty does not apply to “the cultivation of the cannabis plant exclusively for industrial purposes,” and it allows regulated medical use, as with opiates. But the obligations it imposes, which restrict the DEA’s scheduling decisions under the CSA, are inconsistent with decontrolling marijuana and treating it like alcohol and nicotine.

Warren et al. acknowledge the problem raised by the interaction between the CSA and the Single Convention. In 2016, they note, “the DEA considered its international treaty obligations a bar to rescheduling marijuana to anything less restrictive than Schedule II.” But since then, they say, “cannabis has been rescheduled under international lawa change that the United States and the World Health Organization supported, in light of ‘the legitimate medical use’ of certain cannabis products.”

In 2020, the senators note, cannabis was removed from the Single Convention’s “most restrictive schedule” (confusingly, Schedule IV). It remains in a category (also confusingly, Schedule I) that “requires countries to limit the drug’s use to only ‘medical and scientific purposes.'” But “deschedul[ing] marijuana altogether,” as the senators are urging the DEA to do, would flout that requirement. In addition to “cannabis and cannabis resin,” the Single Convention’s Schedule I includes drugs such as opium, heroin, fentanyl, morphine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, and cocaine, all of which are listed in the CSA’s Schedule I or Schedule II.

In support of their argument that treaty obligations are not an obstacle to administrative descheduling of marijuana, the senators cite a September 2023 legal analysis by the Boston-based law firm Foley Hoag. But that analysis actually undermines Warren et al.’s argument.

Foley Hoag notes that the Single Convention requires signatories to “tightly control cannabis, most similarly to the CSA’s Schedule I or Schedule II.” The main issue, it emphasizes, is not what the treaty demands but what the CSA allows.

“Several commentators have largely dismissed concerns regarding the Attorney General’s ability (via the DEA) to reschedule cannabis below Schedule II,” Foley Hoag notes. “After all, we’ve already violated it through our permissive approach to states’ rights to establish and regulate their own medical and adult-use markets. Moreover, several signatories to the UN Single Convention (including Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Luxembourg, South Africa, Thailand, and others) have legalized adult use cannabis or have otherwise decriminalized possession and/or home cultivation in clear violation of the Single Convention. After all, the Single Convention seems to lack any enforcement mechanism. So, it’s no big deal, right? RIGHT?”

Wrong, Foley Hoag says: “Treaty compliance is not the issue. At least not theprimaryissue. The issue iscompliance with domestic law. The key question is whether the Attorney General, via the DEA, can or will be able to reschedule cannabis to Schedule III given that the UN Single Convention is effectively incorporated into the CSAa federal statute passed by Congress that the Executive Branch must follow.”

Back in 1977, Foley Hoag notes, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit emphasized that Section 811(d)(1) “circumscribes the Attorney General’s scheduling authority.” That provision “enables him to place a substance in a CSA schedulewithout regard to medical and scientific findingsonly to the extent that placement in that schedule is necessary to satisfy United States international obligations,” the appeals court said. “Had the provision been intended to grant him unlimited scheduling discretion with respect to internationally controlled substances, it would have authorized him to issue an order controlling such drug ‘under the schedule he deems most appropriate,'” full stop.

Note that Foley Hoag was addressing the issue of whether the DEA can legally move marijuana to Schedule III. The objections it raises apply with even more force to the question of whether the DEA can “deschedule marijuana altogether.”

In a 2020 brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to overrule the DEA’s position that marijuana belongs in Schedule I, attorneys Matthew Zorn and Shane Pennington argued that the CSA violates the constitutional separation of powers. The statute “transfers a quintessential legislative powerthe power to execute teatiesto the Attorney General,” they wrote. And in doing so, they said, it fails to provide an “intelligible principle to choose among schedules,” as required by the Supreme Court’s delegation precedents. “The Attorney General has no discretion to override the floor dictated by an unelected international body,” Zorn and Pennington noted. “But he has unfettered discretion to schedule above that point. Even if these two handoffs could stand independently, together they plainly violate established Separation of Powers norms.”

Even as they argued that the CSA is unconstitutional in these respects, Zorn and Pennington conceded that the attorney general “has no discretion” under the statute to ignore the Single Convention’s demands. In fact, their constitutional argument hinged on that point.

Zorn still does not see how the DEA can do what Warren et al. are asking without violating the CSA. “This is like asking the President to jump 20 feet in the air,” he says in an email.

The senators are right that moving marijuana to Schedule III would leave many problems unresolved. That step would facilitate medical research by removing regulatory requirements that are specific to Schedule I. It also would relieve a crippling tax burden on state-licensed marijuana businesses under Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code. But those businesses would remain criminal enterprises in the eyes of the federal government, subject to felony charges and civil forfeitureconsequences they currently avoid only thanks to prosecutorial discretion and an annually renewed congressional spending rider that is limited to medical marijuana. They would still have difficulty obtaining financial services from institutions that are keen to avoid the risk of civil, regulatory, and criminal penalties.

Placing marijuana in Schedule III would not even make it legally available as a prescription medicine, which would require approval of specific products that meet the Food and Drug Administration’s onerous requirements for proving safety and efficacy. Nor would it restore the Second Amendment rights of cannabis consumers, who would still be barred from possessing firearms as “unlawful user[s]” of a controlled substance. And as Warren et al. note, “non-citizens could still be denied naturalization and green cards, and even deported, based on most marijuana offenses.”

The only way to solve all of these problems is to repeal the federal ban on marijuanaa move that 70 percent of Americans favor, according to the latest Gallup poll. But the power to do that lies with Congress, not the DEA.

Continue Reading

Politics

Pakistan allocates 2,000MW power for Bitcoin mining and AI centers

Published

on

By

Pakistan allocates 2,000MW power for Bitcoin mining and AI centers

Pakistan allocates 2,000MW power for Bitcoin mining and AI centers

Pakistan has allocated 2,000 megawatts of surplus electricity exclusively for Bitcoin mining and artificial intelligence centers.

The move is part of a broader digital transformation plan spearheaded by the Pakistan Crypto Council and backed by the Ministry of Finance, according to a May 25 report by local news outlet 24NewsHD TV Channel.

In the first phase, the government plans to channel excess power into AI infrastructure and crypto mining operations. Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb said the decision is expected to attract billions in foreign investment while generating high-tech employment across the country.

The initiative’s second phase will introduce access to renewable energy for mining operations, aiming to balance growth with environmental responsibility.

Related: Trump-backed World Liberty Financial partners with Pakistan Crypto Council

Pakistan unveils tax incentives to attract investors

Per the report, interest from international Bitcoin (BTC) miners and AI firms has already picked up. Officials confirmed that multiple foreign delegations have visited Pakistan in recent months to explore potential partnerships.

To further incentivize investment, the Ministry of Finance announced a package of tax incentives for AI centers and duty exemptions for Bitcoin miners.

Bilal Bin Saqib, CEO of Pakistan’s Crypto Council, reportedly welcomed the development, calling it a “turning point” for the country’s digital economy.

Saqib claimed that with clear regulations and a transparent framework, Pakistan could emerge as a significant player in the global crypto and AI sectors.

Saqib first proposed using the country’s runoff energy to fuel Bitcoin mining at the Crypto Council’s inaugural meeting on March 21.

The meeting included lawmakers, the Bank of Pakistan’s governor, the chairman of Pakistan’s Securities and Exchange Commission (SECP), and the federal information technology secretary.

Related: Pakistan proposes compliance-based crypto regulatory framework — Report

Pakistan creates Digital Asset Authority

On May 21, Pakistan’s Ministry of Finance endorsed the creation of a dedicated body to regulate blockchain-based financial infrastructure in the country.

The Pakistan Digital Assets Authority (PDAA) will serve as a regulatory body to oversee licensing and regulating exchanges, custodians, wallets, tokenized platforms, stablecoins, and decentralized finance applications.

The PDAA will also be tasked with tokenizing national assets and government debt, facilitating monetization of Pakistan’s surplus electricity through regulated Bitcoin mining, and helping startups build blockchain-based solutions at scale.

Pakistan ranked highly in Chainalysis’ 2024 crypto adoption index, coming in ninth, mainly due to strong retail adoption and transactions at centralized services.

Pakistan allocates 2,000MW power for Bitcoin mining and AI centers
Pakistan ranked highly in Chainalysis’ 2024 crypto adoption index, coming in 9th. Source: Chainalysis

Data from Statista also shows Pakistan’s crypto market is “experiencing rapid growth,” estimating the number of crypto users to amount to over 27 million by 2025, out of a population of 247 million.

Magazine: Bitcoin bears eye $69K, CZ denies WLF ‘fixer’ rumors: Hodler’s Digest, May 18 – 24

Continue Reading

Politics

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords

Published

on

By

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords

A Manhattan crypto investor is facing serious charges after allegedly kidnapping and torturing an Italian man in a disturbing bid to extract access to digital assets.

John Woeltz, 37, was arraigned on Saturday in Manhattan criminal court following his arrest on Friday. He stands accused of holding a 28-year-old Italian man captive for weeks inside a luxury townhouse in Soho, reportedly rented for $30,000 per month.

According to police reports cited by The New York Times, the victim arrived in the US on May 6 and was allegedly abducted by Woeltz and an accomplice.

The attackers are said to have stolen the man’s passport and electronic devices before demanding the password to his Bitcoin (BTC) wallet. When he refused, the suspects allegedly subjected him to prolonged physical abuse.

Crypto investor charged with kidnapping, torturing an Italian for passwords
Source: Mario Nawfal

Related: Violent crypto robberies on the rise: Six attacks that targeted investors

Crypto victim beaten, electroshocked

The victim described being beaten, shocked with electricity, assaulted with a firearm and even dangled from the upper floors of the five-story building.

He also told police that Woeltz used a saw to cut his leg and forced him to smoke crack cocaine. Threats were also reportedly made against his family.

Photographic evidence found inside the property, including Polaroids, appears to support claims of sustained abuse. The victim managed to escape on Friday and alert authorities, leading to Woeltz’s arrest.

Woeltz was charged with four felony counts, including kidnapping for ransom, and entered a plea of not guilty. Judge Eric Schumacher ordered him to be held without bail. He is expected back in court on May 28.

A 24-year-old woman was also taken into custody on Friday in connection with the incident. However, she was seen walking freely in New York the next day, and no charges against her were found in the court’s online database.

Authorities have yet to clarify the relationship between the suspect and the victim or whether any cryptocurrency was ultimately stolen.

Related: Crypto crime goes industrial as gangs launch coins, launder billions — UN

Crypto executives turn to bodyguards

Executives and investors in the crypto industry are increasingly seeking personal security services as kidnapping and ransom cases surge, especially in France.

On May 18, Amsterdam-based private firm Infinite Risks International reported a rise in requests for bodyguards and long-term protection contracts from high-profile figures in the space.

French authorities have responded by introducing enhanced protections for crypto entrepreneurs and their families, including security briefings and priority access to police assistance.

This comes amid a recent surge in kidnappings and ransom attempts. David Balland, the co-founder of hardware wallet company Ledger, was kidnapped in January 2025 and held for ransom for several days before being rescued by French police.

In May 2024, the father of an unnamed crypto entrepreneur was freed from a ransom attempt after French law enforcement officials raided the location in a Paris suburb where the individual was being held hostage by organized criminals.

Magazine: Bitcoiner sex trap extortion? BTS firm’s blockchain disaster: Asia Express

Continue Reading

Business

Gail’s backer plots rare move with bid for steak chain Flat Iron

Published

on

By

Gail's backer plots rare move with bid for steak chain Flat Iron

A backer of Gail’s bakeries is in advanced talks to acquire Flat Iron, one of Britain’s fastest-growing steak restaurant chains.

Sky News has learnt that McWin Capital Partners, which specialises in investments across the “food ecosystem”, has teamed up with TriSpan, another private equity investor, to buy a large stake in Flat Iron.

Restaurant industry sources said McWin would probably take the largest economic interest in Flat Iron if the deal completes.

They added that the two buyers were in exclusive discussions, with a deal possible in approximately a month’s time.

The valuation attached to Flat Iron was unclear on Sunday.

Flat Iron launched in 2012 in London’s Shoreditch and now has roughly 20 sites open.

The chain is solidly profitable, with its latest accounts showing underlying profits of £5.7m in the year to the end of August.

It already has private equity backing in the form of Piper, a leading investor in consumer brands, which injected £10m into the business in 2017.

Flat Iron was founded by Charlie Carroll, who retains an interest in it, but the company is now run by former Byron restaurant boss Tom Byng.

Houlihan Lokey, the investment bank, has been advising Flat Iron on the process.

McWin has reportedly been in talks to take full control of Gail’s while TriSpan’s portfolio has included restaurant operators such as the Vietnamese chain Pho and Rosa’s, a Thai food chain.

A spokesman for McWin declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Trending