WASHINGTON, D.C. / ACCESS Newswire / August 20, 2026 / MMJ International Holdings, Inc. ("MMJ") today identified three sharply different perspectives emerging as the federal marijuana-rescheduling proceeding approaches a recommendation from Chief Administrative Law Judge Derek Julius.
From the sidelines, advocates are celebrating what they describe as a historic reversal: the federal government's drug enforcement arm defending marijuana rescheduling and calling its opponents' challenge meritless.
From the courtroom, however, the question is whether the Government carried its burden on the complete record-and whether Schedule III can be reconciled with DEA's own scientists, enforcement intelligence and public statements.
"An advocate may view DEA's brief as a victory, but a judge does not decide a case from the sidelines," said Duane Boise, Chief Executive Officer of MMJ International Holdings. "Judge Julius must examine the testimony, evidentiary gaps and statutory requirements. Government lawyers may advocate for Schedule III. They cannot make the Government's conflicting record disappear."
THE ADVOCATE'S VIEW: A HISTORIC REVERSAL
Marijuana advocates have characterized the Government's post-hearing brief as a milestone.
After decades of enforcing marijuana's Schedule I status, DEA's litigating position now supports transferring marijuana to Schedule III and rejects arguments advanced by Smart Approaches to Marijuana, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, several states and other opponents.
The Government relies heavily on a 2024 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel opinion concluding that DEA's traditional five-part test for determining currently accepted medical use was impermissibly narrow.
OLC determined that an alternative two-part HHS inquiry could establish accepted medical use by examining widespread experience among licensed healthcare practitioners under state programs and credible scientific support for at least one medical use.
The Government also relies on HHS's comparison of marijuana's abuse potential, dependence liability and withdrawal profile with substances in Schedules I, II and III.
From the advocate's perspective, the brief represents a striking change in federal marijuana policy.
But advocacy is only one perspective.
THE POLICE PERSPECTIVE: IT IS NOT ALWAYS "JUST WEED"
On August 17, 2026-the day final post-hearing briefs were due-WAVE reported that the Clarksville Police Department defended its seizure of 44 pounds of marijuana against criticism that officers were pursuing "just weed."
Police acknowledged that drugs causing death remain their principal priority. They nevertheless warned that it would be irresponsible to ignore violence associated with marijuana trafficking, citing cases in which marijuana and violence went "hand in hand."
The report did not identify the marijuana's source or establish any connection to a state-licensed operation. It nevertheless illustrates how law enforcement encounters marijuana policy: through bulk shipments, illicit commerce, cash and associated violence.
DEA's 2025 National Drug Threat Assessment presents a broader concern. It warned that Chinese transnational criminal organizations dominate domestic marijuana cultivation and distribution, with most grow sites located in states where cannabis is legal.
The assessment did not state that most sites were licensed or that every state system was ineffective. But DEA should explain how its proposed classification and reliance on state medical-marijuana activity account for the diversion environment identified by its own enforcement personnel.
THE COURTROOM PERSPECTIVE: A BRIEF IS NOT A DECISION
The Government's post-hearing brief is advocacy by the proponent in a contested proceeding. It is not the final determination.
Judge Julius must decide whether the Government proved each finding required for Schedule III. His recommendation will be advisory, with ultimate administrative responsibility resting with DEA Administrator Terrance Cole. Judicial review is likely to follow.
The case therefore presents two distinct questions:
Did the Government establish a currently accepted medical use under the legally permissible two-part framework?
Did it separately prove that marijuana satisfies the criteria for Schedule III rather than Schedule II?
OLC's opinion strengthens the Government's legal position on the first question. It does not automatically establish the comparative abuse findings required for Schedule III.
Even if Judge Julius finds an accepted medical use and rejects continued Schedule I treatment, he could conclude that concerns involving abuse potential, dependence, potency, product variability and public-health risk support Schedule II.
"Schedule II is not a compromise invented outside the statute," Boise said. "It is a logical result if the Government establishes accepted medical use but fails to prove that the entire marijuana category belongs in Schedule III."
DEA'S SCIENTISTS COMPLICATE THE GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
According to contemporaneous hearing notes obtained by MMJ, two federal scientists provided testimony that complicates the Government's position.
The descriptions below reflect an attendee's account and should be verified against the certified transcript before use in litigation, regulatory submissions or direct quotation.
Dr. Dominic Chiapperino, the FDA official who supervised the federal scientific and medical evaluation, reportedly acknowledged that marijuana's chemistry was not known and reproducible, that the clinical evidence was insufficient for FDA approval and that marijuana would not have passed DEA's traditional five-part test.
Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye, a pharmacologist in DEA's Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section, reportedly applied the five-part test and concluded that marijuana failed its requirements involving reproducible chemistry, adequate safety studies, controlled efficacy studies, expert acceptance and widely available scientific evidence.
The Government argues that OLC rejected that test as the exclusive method for establishing accepted medical use.
But changing the legal test does not make marijuana chemically reproducible, standardize its dosage or create controlled evidence that does not exist. Those scientific deficiencies remain relevant to safety, abuse potential, appropriate controls and the distinction between Schedule II and Schedule III.
DEA'S PUBLIC FACT SHEET ADDS ANOTHER CONTRADICTION
OLC issued its opinion in April 2024, concluding that DEA's accepted-medical-use approach was too narrow and that state medical experience could be considered.
The fact sheet does not override OLC. It also addressed federal drug approval, which is not identical to currently accepted medical use under the Controlled Substances Act.
But the timing creates an unexplained institutional contrast.
After DOJ's lawyers rejected FDA approval as the exclusive measure, DEA continued publicly emphasizing the absence of an FDA-approved marijuana product while marijuana rescheduling was pending. DEA now argues that OLC's broader framework governs the proceeding.
DEA should explain how those positions fit together.
A 480-CONSTITUENT PLANT IS NOT A STANDARDIZED PRODUCT
DEA's fact sheet also states that marijuana contains more than 480 constituents.
That reinforces the distinction between the broad statutory marijuana category and a standardized pharmaceutical product with defined composition, dosage and manufacturing controls.
MMJ developed a final dosage form containing 5 milligrams of CBD and 2.5 milligrams of THC per soft-gel capsule. Thousands of soft gel capsules were manufactured by Catalent Pharma Solutions.
MMJ holds two Investigational New Drug files with FDA and received Orphan Drug Designation for its Huntington's disease program. Its products remain investigational, have not been approved by FDA and remain subject to Full Clinical Hold.
MMJ BioPharma Cultivation applied for DEA bulk-manufacturing registration in December 2018. After investigations, inspections, security review, an Order to Show Cause and administrative litigation, the application remains unresolved more than seven years later.
"A state license does not transform hundreds of plant constituents into a reproducible drug product," Boise said. "MMJ has been required to characterize its product and proceed through FDA and DEA controls. The Government should explain why variable commercial marijuana receives expedited treatment while a federally inspected pharmaceutical applicant remains unresolved."
WHAT DEA STILL MUST EXPLAIN
Before Administrator Cole acts, MMJ believes the Government should reconcile:
Its Schedule III advocacy with testimony from DEA and FDA scientists;
OLC's two-part legal inquiry with the scientific deficiencies identified under DEA's traditional framework;
DEA's January 2025 public fact sheet with its present legal position;
HHS's Schedule III analysis with evidence concerning potency, dependence and product variability;
DEA's diversion intelligence with reliance on state marijuana systems; and
Expedited treatment for state licensees with the prolonged scrutiny applied to MMJ.
"There are three views of this proceeding," Boise said. "The advocate sees victory. The police officer sees the criminal commerce surrounding bulk distribution. The courtroom sees a Government carrying the burden of proof against a record containing its own contradictions. Only the third perspective determines whether the proposed rule survives."
Advocates are entitled to be encouraged. Police are entitled to warn about what they encounter.
But the Government is not entitled to substitute its preferred conclusion for a complete explanation of the evidence.
That is what the courtroom is for.
ABOUT MMJ INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC.
MMJ International Holdings, Inc. is a privately held pharmaceutical company developing standardized cannabinoid-based investigational medicines through federal pathways administered by FDA and DEA.
MMJ holds two Investigational New Drug files with FDA and Orphan Drug Designation for its Huntington's disease program. MMJ BioPharma Labs holds a DEA Schedule I analytical-laboratory registration. MMJ BioPharma Cultivation has a pending DEA bulk-manufacturing application.
MMJ's investigational programs concern potential treatments for Huntington's disease and multiple sclerosis.
CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
MHisey@mmjih.com
203-231-8583
STATEMENT
Hearing descriptions are not certified transcript quotations and should be verified before use in litigation, regulatory submissions or direct quotation.
The Clarksville incident is discussed solely as an illustration of the law-enforcement perspective on illicit bulk distribution. Public reporting did not identify the marijuana's source or connect it to a state-licensed operation.
DEA's January 2025 publication path does not necessarily establish when the fact sheet was drafted or substantively reviewed. MMJ raises it as an institutional contrast, not as a legal determination superseding OLC.
MMJ's product candidates are investigational, have not been approved by FDA and remain subject to Full Clinical Hold. No clinical trials involving those candidates have been completed, and no conclusions concerning safety or efficacy may be drawn.
MMJ is a petitioner in federal litigation concerning the April 2026 rescheduling order and an appellant in litigation concerning a CMS cannabinoid program. No court has ruled on the merits, and no prediction of outcome is made or implied.
Nothing herein constitutes an offer to sell or a solicitation of an offer to purchase any security.
SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire
