"Government's Own Scientific Expert Testified Marijuana Failed DEA's Traditional Medical Use Standard, Lacked Reproducible Chemistry, and That HHS Omitted Critical Public Health Findings" stated Duane Boise CEO MMJ International Holdings.

WASHINGTON, DC / ACCESS Newswire / July 8, 2026 / One witness may ultimately define the entire DEA marijuana rescheduling proceeding-not because she opposed marijuana legalization, but because she authored the Drug Enforcement Administration's own scientific review.

Dr. Luli Akinfiresoye, a pharmacologist in DEA's Drug and Chemical Evaluation Section and author of the agency's 2024 Scientific Data Review, testified under subpoena during the marijuana rescheduling hearing. Her testimony revealed a striking scientific divide within the federal government: the DEA's own scientific evaluation reached conclusions that differ materially from the analysis relied upon by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to recommend moving marijuana to Schedule III.

If the testimony is ultimately reflected in a certified transcript, it raises a central question: How can the DEA issue a rescheduling order based on scientific conclusions that its own expert rejected?

"This was not MMJ's expert. This was a DEA employee and expert. The government placed its own pharmacologist under oath, and she testified that marijuana failed DEA's traditional scientific standard for accepted medical use. That testimony deserves enormous weight because it came from the agency's own scientific review."

- Duane Boise, CEO, MMJ International Holdings

The Most Significant Admission

According to MMJ's Ceo Duane Boise who witnessed the hearing testimony, Dr. Akinfiresoye concluded that marijuana failed the first three elements of DEA's longstanding five-factor test for determining "currently accepted medical use":

• Known and reproducible chemistry

• Adequate safety studies

• Adequate and well-controlled efficacy studies

Under DEA's historical framework, failure of any one of those factors weighs against a finding of currently accepted medical use.

That testimony directly contrasts with the HHS recommendation supporting Schedule III.

"Not Consistently Reproducible"

Perhaps the most significant scientific conclusion concerned chemistry.

According to testimony discussing DEA's own Scientific Data Review, marijuana's chemical composition varies to such an extent that standardized dosing cannot reliably be established because botanical marijuana does not possess a consistent and reproducible chemical profile capable of producing predictable clinical effects.

That observation mirrors a principle underlying FDA drug development: medicines intended for nationwide prescription use are expected to demonstrate consistent chemistry, manufacturing controls, and reproducible performance.

For MMJ International Holdings, which has pursued cannabinoid medicines through the FDA's Investigational New Drug pathway, reproducible chemistry has always been a cornerstone of pharmaceutical development.

DEA Used the More Rigorous Standard

One of the hearing's most revealing exchanges addressed why DEA employed its traditional five-factor test rather than relying exclusively on HHS's newer two-part approach for determining currently accepted medical use.

According to Dr. Akinfiresoye, she explained that DEA chose the five-factor framework because it was more comprehensive, and that her objective was to address chemistry issues she believed were not fully analyzed in HHS's review.

Dr. Akinfiresoye suggested the DEA's own scientific evaluation identified gaps in the very analysis supporting the rescheduling recommendation.

DEA's Scientist Rejected HHS's CAMU Conclusions

During cross-examination, Dr. Akinfiresoye was questioned about HHS's findings regarding currently accepted medical use.

Accordingly, she acknowledged that her scientific evaluation disagreed with HHS's conclusions regarding accepted medical use.

That disagreement goes to the heart of the rescheduling proceeding because HHS's recommendation forms the scientific basis for the proposed Schedule III classification.

Diversion Was Not an Afterthought

The hearing also highlighted concerns about diversion from state marijuana programs.

According to DEA's Scientific Data Review, state medical and recreational programs remain significant sources of diversion, including diversion through individuals with lawful access, theft from dispensaries, household redistribution, and interstate movement.

Dr. Akinfiresoye mentioned that these concerns were addressed in DEA's review and that HHS did not include the same diversion analysis in its recommendation.

Public Health Concerns

The testimony also addressed broader public health issues associated with expanded marijuana availability.

According to questioning during the hearing, Dr. Akinfiresoye discussed:

• increasing prevalence of high-THC products;

• overlap between medical and recreational marijuana use;

• concerns regarding psychosis reflected in scientific literature;

• drug interactions;

• patient safety; and

• the risks of dispensary personnel providing recommendations outside the traditional physician-patient relationship.

She also confirmed that advice provided by dispensary staff should not be considered medical advice.

Why Science Matters

The marijuana rescheduling debate is often framed as a policy dispute.

The hearing demonstrated that it is also a dispute about scientific methodology.

HHS adopted a newer, two-part framework emphasizing widespread medical use and professional recognition.

DEA's own scientific review applied the agency's traditional five-factor analysis emphasizing reproducible chemistry, adequate safety, controlled efficacy studies, expert acceptance, and widely available scientific evidence.

According to Dr. Akinfiresoye, marijuana did not satisfy that traditional framework.

The Question Before DEA-and the Courts

The hearing leaves a question that regulators and reviewing courts may ultimately have to answer:

If DEA's own scientific expert concluded that marijuana failed the agency's longstanding scientific standard for accepted medical use, on what scientific basis can the agency justify reaching the opposite regulatory conclusion?

For MMJ International Holdings, that question extends beyond marijuana policy.

It concerns whether federally regulated medicines should continue to be evaluated under rigorous pharmaceutical standards-or whether a fundamentally different standard should apply to one class of products.

"Patients deserve medicines that are scientifically characterized, reproducible, clinically tested, and manufactured to pharmaceutical standards," Boise said. "If the federal government changes that standard for one product, it should explain why-and it should explain why its own scientific review reached a different conclusion."

Editor's Note: This article summarizes testimony from the Day 6 hearing based on an attendees notes. Final quotations and specific wording should be verified against the certified transcript when it becomes available.

CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
MHisey@mmjih.com
203-231-8583

SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings