Scientists reported: “Our results clearly demonstrate that NIDA cannabis samples are substantially genetically different from most commercially available drug-type strains and share a genetic affinity with hemp samples in several of the analyses.”
The DEA’s website did not provide a timeline as to when it anticipates finalizing the applicants’ grow authorizations or when it plans to take actions on the dozens of remaining applications that are still pending before the agency.
For over five decades, federal regulators have only authorized a single licensee – the University of Mississippi – to cultivate cannabis plants for use in FDA-approved clinical studies.
“These common-sense regulatory changes are necessary and long overdue. The reality that most high-schoolers have easier access to cannabis than do our nation’s top scientists is the height of absurdity and an indictment of the current system.”
“Legislative action is necessary in this arena because the DEA has proven time and time again that it is not an honest broker in this process.”
“The reality that most high-schoolers have easier access to cannabis than do our nation’s top scientists is the height of absurdity and an indictment of the current system.”
“We believe that the adoption of these rules may further stonewall efforts to advance our scientific understanding of cannabis by unduly expanding the DEA’s authority and control over decisions that ought to be left up to health experts and scientists.”
“These new rules are unduly onerous, expensive, and impractical. Even if they are ultimately implemented, it is unlikely that they would greatly facilitate clinical cannabis research in the United States.”