Should CDC Be Involved in Cannabis Regulation?

By Pat Anson

If you think the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention bungled its handling of COVID-19 tests and misled the public about the risks of opioid pain medication – then you’re probably not going like a new recommendation from a federal advisory panel.     

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) wants the CDC to play a much larger role in setting federal policy on cannabis, such as expanding its surveillance of cannabis use and establishing “best practices” for states to follow in cannabis regulation.

In other words, a CDC cannabis guideline that would be used as a model for state laws and regulations, much like the agency’s opioid prescribing guideline was. Only this guideline would go much further.

“The best practices should encompass marketing restrictions, age restrictions, physical retail and retail operating restrictions, taxation, price restrictions, product design, and measures to limit youth access,” NASEM said in a 312-page report released this week. “Once the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s best practices have been developed, they should be incorporated into the model legislation.”

Cannabis is currently illegal under federal law, but 38 states and the District of Columbia allow its medical and/or recreational use. At the urging of the Biden Administration, the DEA is considering a proposal to reclassify cannabis as a Schedule III controlled substance, which would allow for some medical use of cannabis under federal law. A final decision is not likely until sometime next year.    

But with a major change in federal policy on the horizon and a hodgepodge of state regulations already in place, NASEM wants federal agencies and Congress to get more involved in setting policy for legalized cannabis.

“There is an urgent need for a coordinated public health approach to cannabis policy in the U.S.,” said Steven Teutsch, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California and chair of the committee that wrote the NASEM report. “Our report shows that cannabis policy often focuses on regulating sales and revenue first, and protecting public health second. Now is the time for the federal government to create guidance for states that have legalized cannabis in the interest of protecting the public’s health.”

The first recommendation from NASEM is for Congress to overhaul the regulation of hemp, which was legalized under the 2018 Farm Bill.  That opened the door for cannabis companies to tweak the chemical composition of hemp-derived Delta-8 THC to make it more potent. Intoxicating edibles containing Delta-8 THC are now widely sold as candy, cookies, gummies and beverages – even in states where medical and recreational cannabis are illegal.

NASEM wants Congress to close that loophole by changing the definition of hemp so that Delta-8 THC is regulated the same way as other cannabis products.

Public Health Campaigns

The report also calls for the CDC to develop “targeted public health campaigns” to warn about the risks of cannabis use by children, pregnant women and older adults.  

The latter is one of the fastest growing segments of the population using cannabis, according to a recent survey that found 12% of Americans over 50 had consumed a THC-containing product in the past year. Only 3% were using cannabis in 2006. Ironically, many older adults use cannabis to manage chronic pain because they are no longer able to obtain opioids after the widespread misapplication of the CDC’s opioid guideline.

The NASEM report also warns about the lobbying influence of the cannabis industry, which it blames for the weakening of cannabis regulations in Colorado and Washington, as well as conflicts of interest and “financial entanglements” that some state regulators have with the industry.

“The influence of the burgeoning legal cannabis industry on policy development raises concern about potential bias. Lobbying efforts by the industry have demonstrably impacted regulation,” the report states.

That’s pretty rich when you consider the many biases and conflicts the CDC had when it secretly developed the opioid guideline, and how CDC insiders hijacked a public hearing to silence anyone who might oppose it. Some CDC consultants were later paid millions of dollars testifying as expert witnesses in opioid litigation.

Conservative critics of the CDC are unlikely to support any effort to get the agency involved in cannabis regulation.  The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 calls for the CDC’s budget to be slashed and its ability to set healthy policies severely restricted.

“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government,” wrote Roger Severino, former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services during the Trump administration.

“Never again should public health bureaucrats be allowed to hide information, ignore information, or mislead the public concerning the efficacy or dangers associated with any recommended health interventions.”

A CDC spokesperson told the Associated Press the agency would study NASEM’s recommendations, but more money would be needed to implement them.

CDC Could Be ‘Dismantled’ in Second Trump Term

By Pat Anson, PNN Editor

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is “the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government,” not qualified to offer medical advice to patients, and its ability to set public health policy should be “severely confined.”  

Those are some of recommendations being made by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that seeks a major overhaul of the federal government if a Republican president – presumably Donald Trump – is sworn into office next year.

The agenda for Project 2025 is outlined in “Mandate for Leadership” – an 887-page book that advocates for many traditional conservative goals: smaller government, lower taxes, restrictive abortion laws, and an end to federal policies that promote equality and diversity.

We’re not going to get into those hot button issues, but will focus on how Mandate for Leadership would “dismantle the administration state” that governs healthcare in America.

That section of the book is written by Roger Severino, the former director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) during the first Trump administration.   

To begin, it’s pretty clear that the CDC has a target on its back, largely due to how the agency responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by shutting down much of the country in a bid to control the virus.    

“COVID-19 exposed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as perhaps the most incompetent and arrogant agency in the federal government. CDC continually misjudged COVID-19, from its lethality, transmissibility, and origins to treatments,” wrote Severino.

“Unaccountable bureaucrats like Anthony Fauci should never again have such broad, unchecked power to issue health ‘guidelines’ that will certainly be the basis for federal and state mandates. Never again should public health bureaucrats be allowed to hide information, ignore information, or mislead the public concerning the efficacy or dangers associated with any recommended health interventions.”

Substitute “Tom Frieden” for “Anthony Fauci” and that paragraph would nicely sum up how many pain patients and doctors feel about the former CDC director and the 2016 CDC opioid guideline. Drafted in secret under Frieden’s leadership, the agency’s guideline development process likely violated federal open meeting and conflict-of-interest laws, while hiding behind an almost comical “Cone of Silence.”

Although its recommendations are voluntary, the opioid guideline was quickly adopted as a mandatory policy by many states, regulators and law enforcement – resulting in hundreds of doctors losing their medical licenses or going to prison for “overprescribing” opioids.

Severino, an attorney who seems well-positioned for another key healthcare job if Trump is elected to a second term, says the CDC went far beyond its authority when it created medical guidelines.  

“Most problematically, the CDC presented itself as a kind of ‘super-doctor’ for the entire nation. The CDC is a public health institution, not a medical institution,” he wrote. “It is not qualified to offer professional medical opinions applicable to specific patients. We have learned that when CDC says what people ‘should’ do, it readily becomes a ‘must’ backed by severe punishments, including criminal penalties.

“CDC guidelines are analogous to guidelines from other public health associations or medical societies: They are informative, not prescriptive. By statute or regulation, CDC guidance must be prohibited from taking on a prescriptive character.”

Split in Two

How can the CDC be reined in? The answer, according to Severino, is to cut the CDC in half and slash much of its funding.

“The CDC should be split into two separate entities housing its two distinct functions,” he wrote. “These distinct functions should be separated into two entirely separate agencies with a firewall between them. We need a national epidemiological agency responsible only for publishing data and required by law to publish all of the data gathered from states and other sources. A separate agency should be responsible for public health with a severely confined ability to make policy recommendations.”

Frieden calls that proposal “very dangerous and very wrong.”

“We don’t split up the military because it’s too big. We don’t split up corporations because they’re too big,” Frieden told Politico. “Big organization needs a big management structure and also flexibility.”

Severino says the CDC Foundation, a not-for-profit organization that works closely with the agency in promoting health policy, should be prohibited from accepting contributions from the pharmaceutical industry. The foundation received nearly $275 million in donations last year, much of it coming from Pfizer, Biogen, Merck and other healthcare companies.  

“This practice presents a stark conflict of interest that should be banned,” wrote Severino. “The CDC and NIH Foundations, whose boards are populated with pharmaceutical company executives, need to be decommissioned. Private donations to these foundations — a majority of them from pharmaceutical companies— should not be permitted to influence government decisions about research funding or public health policy.”

Severino also wants stronger transparency and conflict of interest policies, not just at the CDC, but at HHS and all federal agencies involved in healthcare. He thinks a lengthy “cooling off period” should be adopted to prevent federal regulators from going into industries they helped regulate once their government jobs end. A 15-year cooling off period “would not be too long,” according to Severino.

To be clear, Mandate for Leadership is more of a wish list than anything else. It all hinges on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. If it does become a playbook for a second Trump administration, some of its recommendations could be imposed by executive order, but many will require congressional approval. CDC directors, once directly appointed by the president, will need Senate confirmation next year under a new law, just as other cabinet members do.      

Whatever happens, it’s clear that conservative advocates are gunning for the CDC.

“The federal government’s public health apparatus has lost the public’s trust. Before the next national public health emergency, this apparatus must be fundamentally restructured,” Severino wrote.