Harvard neuroscientist tells the D.C. Circuit that expanding marijuana access without fully addressing documented public health risks could have far reaching consequences. Rising emergency room visits, psychiatric injury, psychosis, and elevated suicide-attempt risks among adolescents the rescheduling process has overlooked.
WASHINGTON, June 15, 2026 (Newswire.com) – As the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit weighs an emergency motion to stay the federal government’s recent marijuana rescheduling order, a newly filed declaration from a Harvard Medical School professor warns that the policy change poses “substantial” and “unacceptably high” risks to public health-particularly for adolescents and unborn children.
The declaration (Exhibit D), filed June 9 by Bertha K. Madras, Ph.D. , a Professor of Psychobiology at Harvard Medical School and former White House drug policy official, directly challenges the Acting Attorney General’s April 2026 order transferring certain marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act (CSA).
Dr. Madras, who has over 50 years of experience in neuroscience and substance-use disorders, was the sole expert witness for the U.S. Department of Justice in prior federal cannabis litigation and was commissioned by the World Health Organization to author monographs on cannabis and its medical uses. Her declaration offers a stark scientific counterweight to the government’s rescheduling rationale.
Key Findings from the Declaration:
Emergency Room Crisis: Citing 2023 federal Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) data, Dr. Madras notes that cannabis was documented in an estimated 896,418 emergency department visits-slightly exceeding opioid-related visits and now representing nearly 12% of all drug-related ED encounters. “Cannabis is now among the most frequently cited substances in U.S. emergency department encounters,” she writes.
Adolescent Suicide Risk: The declaration states that adolescents who use marijuana only occasionally are three times more likely to attempt suicide. Even one or two instances of adolescent use can alter grey matter volume in the brain, leading to lasting cognitive deficits.
Psychosis and Schizophrenia: Dr. Madras emphasizes that marijuana use is associated with an increased risk of later psychotic disorders, with users experiencing symptoms two to three years earlier than non-users. A 2025 cohort study of 463,000 adolescents found that those who used cannabis had more than double the risk of psychotic disorders.
Pregnancy and Prenatal Harm: The declaration cites a 2018 survey finding that 69% of Colorado dispensaries recommended marijuana to pregnant women-despite evidence that THC passes the placental barrier and is linked to low birth weight, preterm birth, and poorer cognitive outcomes in children.
Diversion to Minors: Dr. Madras warns that state medical marijuana programs do not prohibit access for those under 18 and that diversion is rampant. One Massachusetts survey found that 44% of youth reported using someone else’s “medical” cannabis. In Arizona, while only 105 minors held valid medical cards, thousands of minors are purchasing from dispensaries annually.
The “Null Set” of FDA-Approved Botanical Marijuana
The declaration also exposes what petitioners call a critical flaw in the Rescheduling Order: the first category of transferred substances-“marijuana in FDA-approved drug products”-appears to be an empty set. Dr. Madras states unequivocally that there is no FDA-approved drug product containing botanical marijuana itself, whole-plant preparation, smoked product, or botanical extract containing the mixture of cannabinoids found in dispensary products.
“If the first category is a null set,” said Duane Boise, CEO of MMJ International Holdings, a pharmaceutical cannabinoid developer and petitioner in the case, “then the only real world effect of this order is to grant Schedule III legitimacy to thousands of state licensed products that have never undergone FDA review, lack standardized dosing, and have no validated safety data.”
A Call for Regulatory Consistency
The joint motion for a stay, filed by MMJ, the National Drug and Alcohol Screening Association (NDASA), and other petitioners, argues that the Rescheduling Order violates the CSA, ignores binding D.C. Circuit precedent (NORML v. DEA, 1977), and unlawfully bypasses notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Dr. Madras’s declaration adds a public health imperative to the legal arguments. She concludes that marijuana does not meet the standards required of a medicine, and that the risks of increased access-particularly to vulnerable populations-are unacceptably high.
“The Court should not operate on the assumption that the rescheduling is neatly cabined,” Dr. Madras warns. “State licensing regimes inevitably result in adolescent use, diversion, and harm to the most vulnerable.”
The D.C. Circuit has not yet set a date for oral argument on the stay motion. The case is SAM Inc., et al. v. Department of Justice, et al., Case No. 26-1106 (consolidated with Nos. 26-1130 and 26-1136).
CONTACT:
Madison Hisey
MHisey@mmjih.com
203-231-8583
SOURCE: MMJ International Holdings
Source: MMJ International Holdings
2 days ago
See the complaint. When Commentary Becomes Advocacy?
2 days ago
“Before the DEA’s June 29 Rescheduling Hearing Proceeds, a Foundational Question Demands an Answer: Is This Process Constitutional” asked Duane Boise CEO MMJ International Holdings.?
The Department of Justice has already told a federal court that the administrative law judge framework being used to conduct the hearing “does not comport with the separation of powers and Article II.” The DEA is proceeding anyway.
5 days ago