GAETZ WASHINGTON OFFICE 507 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BUILOIN DISTRICT, FLORIDA (202) 225-4136 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES DISTRICT OFFICE COMMITTEE ON THE BUDGET [If th waltth ?tat?? COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ?91153 uf 4794?? Washington, 20515?0901 August 23, 2017 The Honorable Jefferson Sessions Attorney General US. Department of Justice 950 Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001 Dear Attorney General Sessions: We write to express our concern regarding an August 15th article from the Washington Post, ?Justice Department at odds with DEA on marijuana research, which asserts that the Justice Department has prevented the DEA from moving forward in its permitting process for marijuana research. The purpose of our letter is threefold: ?rst, we wish to establish the veracity of this article?s claims. Second, if the article?s claims are true, we would like to know the rationale behind the Department of Justice?s decision. Finally, we would like to encourage you to proceed with rapidity on the permitting process, as we believe it is in keeping with President Trump?s campaign promises, and the best interests of the American people. On August 11, 2016, Chuck Rosenberg, Acting Administrator of the Drug Enforcement Administration, stated in a letter to Governors Gina Raimondo of Rhode Island and Jay Inslee of Washington that the DEA ?fully support[s] legitimate medical and scienti?c research on marijuana and its constituent parts,? and that the DEA ?will continue to seek ways to make the process for those researchers more ef?cient and effective.? The following day, on August 12th, the DEA established a new rule (21 CFR Part 1301, Docket No. DEA-447) that it would begin accepting applications to grow cannabis for the purposes of medical and scienti?c research. According to the Post story of August 15, as well as a July 24 report from Scienti?c American, over two dozen applications have been completed. These applicants, however, have received neither an approval nor a denial they are in limbo. The Post claims this is because the Justice Department will not give the ?sign-off to move forward? on processing these applications. Quite simply, we would like to know whether this is true, and, if so, we would like to know the rationale for this decision. Over eighty percent of Americans believe that doctor-prescribed marijuana should be legal, according to recent polls. Yet despite widespread public support, health care professionals are understandably cautious about prescribing medical marijuana. Further research into its safety and ef?cacy is necessary. Only rigorous scienti?c research can ascertain the medical potential of cannabis, if any, but the rules and regulations surrounding cannabis make such research extremely challenging. The cumbersome and permitting process, as well as the dif?culty of obtaining different types and ?strains? of cannabis with which to perform research, have thwarted researchers? ability to study the pharmacology and potential medical usage of cannabis. The new permitting process of August 2016 does not attempt to change marijuana laws, except for the acquisition of research material. Such a change is small, but will PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER greatly enhance scientists? ability to perform research, and, as such, it should not be hindered unnecessarily. A ?tough-on-crime? position is important to this administration, and your efforts to curb the importation of drugs into America are laudable. While we must continue our ?ght against organized crime and drug- related violence, it is our opinion that medical marijuana research falls outside of those categories, and does not pose a pressing danger to American society. This View, it seems, is supported by President Trump: in an October 29, 2015 campaign rally in Sparks, NV, Mr. Trump stated that he believed in the ef?cacy of medical cannabis for certain patients a position he expressed several times at many other campaign stops. Indeed, as you surely know, many patients and patients? advocacy groups nationwide have attested to the potential bene?ts of medical marijuana including its usage as a treatment for PTSD, which has af?icted many of the heroic men and women of our armed forces. These groups? claims for medical marijuana?s ef?cacy can only be determined through scienti?c research, which will be expedited and enhanced by the new permitting process. It is worrisome to think that the Department of Justice, the cornerstone of American civil society, would limit new and potentially groundbreaking research simply because it does not want to follow a rule. We write to inquire whether the allegations raised by the Post are true, and, if so, to understand the Department of Justice?s rationale in refusing to process these applications. Finally, because we know you to be a man with unwavering commitment to the rule of law, we ask with respect for the rule to be followed, and for the permitting process to move forward with all possible expeditiousness. Sincerely, . 4' Matt Gae Dana Rohrabacher (CA-48) Member of Congress I Member of Congress 115 (CO Earl Blumenauer OR-03) of Conss Member of Congress