Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Youtube Music 
Amazon Music 
iHeartRadio 
Podcast Addict 
PocketCasts 
In Part II of our special series on the DEA cannabis rescheduling hearings, expert witnesses Dr. Philip Drum, Dr. Ken Finn, and Dr. Karen Randall continue their detailed breakdown of the medical evidence the DEA is ignoring.
Dr. Finn opens with shocking data from Colorado: 70% of dispensaries surveyed encouraged pregnant women to use marijuana during the first trimester, despite this being the most critical period of fetal brain development. He cites the NIH‑funded ABCD study showing that children exposed in utero are experiencing psychotic‑like symptoms as early as age 8–10 — even without using cannabis themselves.
“Some of them are having psychotic‑like experiences without having use.”
He also explains research showing cannabis use by fathers may alter autism‑related genes, and that states with marijuana programs have 20% higher autism rates.
Dr. Drum expands on the medical and regulatory failures, including rising rates of head and neck cancers, breast cancer, and testicular cancer in Canada following legalization. He reiterates that marijuana has no FDA‑approved medical use, and daily use carries a 30% addiction rate, higher than daily opioid use.
“Chronic daily use will lead to 30% of people having a cannabis use disorder.”
He also details how the DEA mis-transcribed his testimony, falsely claiming he supported Schedule III — which he corrected twice.
Dr. Randall highlights pediatric harm, including infants and toddlers exposed to cannabis products. She notes that DEA lawyers repeatedly dismissed her cases as “diversion,” implying parents were supplying children — a claim she strongly refutes.
“I presented case after case… They said word zero about that.”
The doctors also expose fabricated statements in the DEA’s official brief, including claims they never made.
The episode concludes with a call to action: listeners should contact the DEA Administrator, the Attorney General, and their Congressional representatives to oppose cannabis rescheduling — and families harmed by cannabis should speak out.
___________________________________________________
To find out how to contact your congressman/woman: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
To email the attorney general: https://www.justice.gov/doj/webform/your-message-department-justice
Please write to your congressman/woman and to the Attorney General of the US about this issue, in your own words:
"I am extremely concerned that the US Government is considering moving marijuana from a CS I to a CS III substance. This will make it seem like it is approved medicine. It has NOT been approved as medicine by the FDA. There is no approved dose for any indication. No list of side effects. No list of drug interactions. I am aware that marijuana is causing psychosis, depression, anxiety, vomiting, heart attacks, strokes and should not be used during pregnancy. Please stop promoting marijuana and have it continued to be studied BEFORE changing its medical status. I am aware there have been nearly 10,000 studies paid for by US tax payers at a cost of $4.2 Billion. This is more than any other drug and it still does not have one FDA-approved indication that has been proven scientifically. Please stop placing our children at risk".
Voiceover
The addiction podcast Point of no Return.
Joanie Sigal
This is part two of our interview with Dr. Philip Drum, Dr. Ken Finn, and Dr. Karen Randall concerning their presentation to the DEA on the subject of marijuana.Wow.
Dr. Ken Finn
I think one thing, if I can interject real quick, and I think this kind of dovetails to Dr. Randall's point, is that the in utero exposure alone, if people knew about this, would be enough information to pump the brakes on this.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
In utero means that being exposed when.
Dr. Ken Finn
You're pregnant, and I think the.In Colorado, 70% of the over 400 dispensaries that were surveyed were telling women to use marijuana during the first trimester of pregnancy for their nausea.And the first trimester of pregnancy is a very critical period of organ development, particularly the brain.There's a very large ongoing study called the ABCD study on what happens to these kids after they're exposed in utero or when the mom is pregnant.And when they hit middle childhood.You know, you're talking about 8, 9 and 10 year olds.Some of them are having psychotic like experiences without having use.So the brain has been permanently impacted by mom's use.And the SAMHSA data, which is a national database, show that women are using more daily or near daily throughout their pregnancy, including the first trimester.And National Institute of Health and National Institute of Drug Abuse followed those kids.There's nearly 12,000 of them.And those problems persist into early adolescence with things like truancy, aggression, behavior problems, getting along.So the brain is permanently damaged when women are using during pregnancy.And it's not just the mom.I mean, Susan Murphy from Duke University has done very nice research on.On the father's use can alter the autism gene.And we have this rise in autism that they're blaming on Tylenol, which is a complete false narrative that nobody's looking at the link between cannabis and autism spectrum disorders.One of our advisors from Australia published a paper several years ago showing that in the United States, the states that had marijuana programs had an over 20% higher incidence of autism spectrum disorders.And nobody's connecting these dots.And these kids are having problems.So are we creating an entire new generation of people that are having behavior problems?Makes me wonder.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
Yeah, and one of the things I'd like to say that all of us are on this group.And again, we just mentioned Dr. Reese, but if you'd like to see the papers and things that we're referencing, we're all members of the International Academy of On the Science and Impact of Cannabis.Isaac, and if you go to that Website, we have a library section in which we have these studies that we are referencing on there.And it covers a wide variety of the problems from, you know, cancers.I mean, I related to the judge, you know, we're seeing head and neck cancers at higher rates now.We are seeing breast cancer and testicular cancer rates in Canada that have gone up much quicker.And again, they deem this as a result of their approval of cannabis.There again, all this information, the cannabis hyperemesis, the psychosis, the schizophrenia, it's all there.And again, a key issue that I'd like to also point out is, remember I talked about the controlled substance difference, and that being one, it has to have medical use, which marijuana does not have.Any FDA approved indication for use.None.They claim that they could potentially use it for pain, potentially use it for analgesia or anorexia, and also nausea and vomiting for chemotherapy.Okay, so the other issues, remember what I talked about was the addiction profile.And they say chronic daily use will lead to 30% of people having a cannabis use disorder.Okay, 30%.And that's higher than it is for daily use of opiates.
Joanie Sigal
Yeah.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
So if you remember what I said, this one, this level has to be higher than the previous level.Well, the opiates are CS2.And you have something that has a higher abuse potential than that.That means It's a CS1.Okay?And that's the truth about marijuana.A daily use.And you have to use it daily for anorexia.You have to use it daily, I would suspect for.For pain.And so now you're introducing a risk of 30% addiction in those people that are using it daily.And I would also add the anorexia.They kind of slid in for various.This.No, the anorexia that dronabinol was approved for was AIDS wasting syndrome.They became what we call cachectic.They look like the people from Auschwitz.They were all.They were losing their body weight.Those were the AIDS patients.I challenge you to find any of those patients nowadays, because we now have antiretrovirals that will treat aids.And so we don't see that syndrome anymore.We don't need the use of dronabinol for that.And yet if you want to use it in anorexia, as Dr. Randall just said, you wouldn't do that in something that's going to cause them to throw up.
Joanie Sigal
That's what I was going to say.It causes hyperemesis.Why would you use it for that?
Dr. Phillip Drumm
That's right.And they're trying to claim that we could Use it for anorexia.And it's like those people are already having problems with throwing up.And this is a drug that when taken on a daily regular basis is going to cause them to throw up.And I want to add also, again, I was an oncology pharmacist and I did have experience with use in this and the reality was is that it caused hallucinations in the first patient I used it in at 2.5 milligrams.And she said, I'd rather throw up all night than to use that drug again.So she made it very clear that even with a very low dose and also just to add, the national oncologists do not recommend dronabinol as an antiemetic for nausea and vomiting.In fact, the only time that it would ever be used is if everything else fails.Everything else fails.We've gotten so many good anti emetics that came out in the 90s and the 2000s that dronabinol has gone way down the list.And it's.If everything else fails, then maybe you can consider.And it's not even.They made it very clear it's not smoking marijuana.It's Dr. Nava.Okay?So very clear that, that nobody's recommending it other than apparently some people at Health and Human Services for anorexia.Again, there was a DEA pharmacologist that totally destroyed what they had created as well.She was, she was one of the witnesses that was called to the stand and she countered everything that where they're trying to claim it's medicine, saying it's not medicine and it's not a drug.Because as I said to the judge, okay, if the claim is that you need those 100 plus cannabinoids, let's pretend CBD is number one and THC is number two.Two drugs that have already had FDA approval and are already out there.So you need now 3 through 100 plus.Okay, so what's the dose for number 69?What's the dose for number 4?What's the dose for number 20?What are the drug drug interactions for number 57?You haven't told us any of this and so we have no idea.What is the side effect profile for number 89?What's the dose for it?So they haven't given us any of this information yet.We're supposed to just magically approve something of these substances that they say are active and required that we have no dose for.
Joanie Sigal
It's unfortunate that it sounds to me like the people that you were speaking to who are supposed to be making some kind of informed decision, have already made it, and don't really want to hear what you have to say.And that's very unfortunate because they are supposed to be making the decisions to impact and protect public.Public safety.And the fact that they won't.It doesn't sound like they listen to what you have to say and give it any credibility whatsoever.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
I'm actually.
Dr. Ken Finn
Absolutely.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
I'm actually kind of.I'm kind of on the other side.I'm not sure about that yet.
Joanie Sigal
Okay.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
Until we hear from the judge.Okay.So the DEA lawyers who were against us.Okay.You know, they were told, you know, we want this and that they came after us.Okay.But the judge is supposed to be impartial.And again, I know I was making some severe points in him.I could tell it in his face he'd be a bad poker player because I could read him like a book.And especially when I told him about the 9900 studies, he was like, whoa, wait, what?Yeah.And compared it to other drugs.4.2 Billion of your tax dollars have paid for this, and we have no FDA approval.So I could tell I was making points.And again, we have to see what he says in the end.
Joanie Sigal
Okay.You were going to say something, Dr. Finn.
Dr. Ken Finn
Yeah.If you read the.The DEA brief, which are available, they're public, and.And you compare them to the actual testimony of what the three of us said, they lied in their brief.They said repeatedly.What's that?
Dr. Karen Randall
Repeatedly lied.Yeah.
Dr. Ken Finn
Yes.They put in their brief things that I said, but I never said.And if you refer to my testimony, I did not say the things that the A said I said.So they completely fabricated things that we were testifying to that were completely untrue.And if nobody believes us, we'll go look at the DEA brief and look at our briefs and our testimony.They put in their brief things that they think we said, but we did not say.And that's frightening when you have the government fabricating people's testimony under oath.
Joanie Sigal
Yeah.
Dr. Karen Randall
Well, and from my standpoint.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
Yeah, go ahead, Karen.
Dr. Karen Randall
From my standpoint, almost the whole time I was testifying, the lawyer kept saying, well, that's diversion.Well, that's diversion.That's diversion implying that the parents are diverting product to their kids, and it is their mission statement to prevent diversion.So if all that is indeed diversion, they're clearly failing on that mission statement.So you want to lower the standards so you have.
Joanie Sigal
So there can be more diversion.
Dr. Karen Randall
Exactly, exactly.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
And I'd like to add, like what Ken said with regards to inappropriate representation of what we said, there was actually, it was very concerning from my testimony that whoever was transcribing, we were able to report errors in the transcription.And two times, two times they said I said it was okay for marijuana to be a CS3, and I clearly would never be that stupid to say that.And both times they then changed because we had to submit what we thought was inaccurate.And they changed it both times where I said it must remain as a CS1.So that was concerning to me, that bold as to change my testimony that I, that, that I had said was.Was inaccurate for what they.They transcribed.But I got those fixed.But here was another point that was in what Ken's talking about, which was their conclusion statement, which.Oh, by the way, just to let you know, they submitted it two minutes before it was due.Two minutes before it was due.I submitted mine like three days before it was due.But they were so concerned about us reading what they were going to conclude, they submitted it two minutes before it was ultimately due, two minutes before midnight.And so one of the other concerning things that they said about me and my testimony was that I had no basis to be able to speak about veterans and veterans research.Well, I clearly said in my, my curriculum vitae as well as mentioned it, that not only did I have a dad that was a veteran, but I worked for the Veterans Administration.I worked for the va. Not only did I work for the va, I was an investigational drug pharmacist at the va.So if any of the of the people that were providing testimony had the bonafides to be able to talk about research at the va, it was me, because I did investigational research at the va.There may have been one other person that followed me on our side that actually has done research, but I did investigational research at the va.So I think I had the bonafides to be able to talk about veterans research.And I was talking about how it's so dangerous to be using marijuana in PTSD patients.And I talked about that repeatedly and cited like five studies in which saying this is extremely dangerous, that you were even considering using this.And that's one of the other groups that they have stand behind the President is the veterans groups who are clearly, and it's even on the VA's website, not to use marijuana.
Joanie Sigal
Wow.
Dr. Karen Randall
And from my standpoint, when they did their conclusion, they talked about the cartoon figures, but they didn't talk at all about the context or the substance of my lectures.So I presented case after case after case of different children getting involved or having bad act outcomes with marijuana.They said word zero about that.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
Yeah, they said it was actually adolescents that she spoke about, and she was speaking about more than adolescents.She was talking about children's babies.
Dr. Karen Randall
11 Months old, 10 months old.Yeah.
Joanie Sigal
Wow.So what happens next with these hearings?
Dr. Phillip Drumm
Well, we're awaiting the judge's final decision.So we had to submit up to 50 pages of concluding statements.In my.I think it was about 20 pages.Between Dr. Randall and myself, we came up with about 20 pages.But in those 20 pages, we also cited 17 false statements that were.That had been presented during this and.And kind of what's commonplace things like, you know, we have to have all 100 cannabinoids and 200 terpenes and flavonoids for this entourage effect.It's natural, it's safe.You know, I covered the issue of bacteria, mold and fungus and heavy metals and that are found in this and that when they try to recall this, they have no idea who bought these products because they don't keep record of it.And they just put it out on the Internet and expect people to find it and find out that that product that they purchased six months ago should have been recalled with heavy metals and pesticides.So we all submitted our concluding statements and we're waiting now for the judge to come back with his determination as to whether to accept this.That then goes to a DEA administrator.So the DEA judge makes the conclusion from what he's heard, it goes to the DEA administrator who then can accept or potentially hear him maybe reject, as well as the Attorney general may reject what this judge says and move forward anyway.So that's kind of where we are.We're waiting for the judge to make his decision.
Joanie Sigal
So would it be worthwhile for our listeners to write to either the judge, the.The DEA administrator and.Or the Attorney General on this whole subject?
Dr. Phillip Drumm
I think, yeah, not.Not only I don't know about the judge, but definitely the DEA administrator and have to look up her name and provider information.I don't have that right at my hands.
Joanie Sigal
That's okay.I'll put it in the show notes.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
That'd be great.And then also the attorney general, but I'd also say your congressman, to let them know, because these people are also talking about this issue and they need to know that they should not be approving this and that you've got the content experts.Again, I told them this may be a legal medical decision, but you're not listening to the medical people who are telling you this is not medicine, you know, you can play games with words to try and say it's, you know, that we have less than 3% of our providers prescribing, are recommending this.It's not even actually a prescription.It's been a recommendation which totally takes away any liability from that provider.That it's just merely a recommendation is all they've been doing.And half of those, half of those are not even MDs.I mean, some states are letting dietitians recommend this.It's just really crazy.And so let your legislator know.I think another thing I would also add is that we need to tell people, if you've experienced this in your family, tell your congressman, tell your legislator, tell your local, your local supervisors that this is unacceptable.These are the people that are approving this stuff.And you have to tell them.I have family members that are dying.I have family members that have cannabis hyperemesis that are psychotic.They need to tell these people what's so many people now, you know, we're supposed to not criminalize it, but then people are afraid.
Joanie Sigal
Yep.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
To admit that they've had problems from this and they, they can't do this.
Dr. Karen Randall
A lot of the parents get shame blamed.Right.Their kids get psychotic.Oh, clearly you were a bad parent.And we know that's not true.
Joanie Sigal
Right, Right.And they do need to speak up because that makes a difference.
Dr. Karen Randall
Yeah.
Joanie Sigal
Dr. Finn, did you want to weigh in on that?
Dr. Ken Finn
Yeah.I think victims need voices and I think that it's brewing.There are currently some pending class action lawsuits for families that were negatively impacted, either via suicide of their loved one or drug addiction or homelessness.Again, like Dr. Randall said, these families are shamed for being a bad parent when that is not correct.But if you, you or loved one have been affected, because I think we're reaching a point where no one is untouched in this society by this substance.If you've been negatively impacted, you can reach out to us.We can point you in the directions of the lawyers that are going after the dispensary, selling the stuff to children.As a just real quick case report, we had a friend in Texas whose 17 year old son bought a bunch of marijuana gummies at a smoke shop.And I thought there was a concern for that because he was under 18 years of age, but apparently in the state of Texas, there's no age restriction to purchase these things.These gummies that had a variety of isomers and analogs of THC.One was THCP, which is 30 times stronger than the traditional Delta 9.And this young boy ate all five of the gummies, ended up obtunded for four days, wasn't able to urinate on his own, had EKG changes and luckily did not become psychotic.But he was unarousable for three and a half, four days.And the 12 year old could have gone into this smoke shop in the state of Texas and bought this stuff.
Joanie Sigal
Wow.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
What Dr. Finn's talking about too is what happened in 2018 with the farm bill where they approved hemp and any cogent or anything derived from hemp.And so these ingenious chemists knew this and that's why they wrote the bill this way, that they can now create Delta 9, Delta 8, Delta 10, THC, THCO, THCP, all these various products very easily.And they're selling them then at gas stations and anywhere.This was federally legalized in 2018.There is a bill that, that was supposed to stop it in November.It got pushed back to now December.I don't know what games are being played right now.But the other very interesting thing was that they, that CBD, when CBD was approved in 2018, it was originally a CS5.Remember, it was one of the controlled substance levels.It was a CS5.It was recommended by the Food and Drug Administration that was sent over to the DEA and mysteriously the DEA took it out of the CS5 status, so it's no longer a controlled substance.And then came the hemp bill because they are using CBD and if it was a controlled substance, they wouldn't be able to sell it in a gas station.
Dr. Karen Randall
Right.
Dr. Ken Finn
And so they had already done this.And so I told, I reminded the judge of that.And I said, it seems like you guys are doing the putting the cart before the horse.You are changing the controlled substance status before you got the FDA approval.
Joanie Sigal
Right.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
Why don't you get the fda, why don't you do exactly what you did with cbd?Let's get the FDA approval first, then you go and monkey around with the CS status.Don't first and then approve it later because guess what?They're never going to approve it.
Joanie Sigal
Exactly.
Dr. Phillip Drumm
They'll never approve it as a drug because there's no way we know what the dose is for cannabinoid 89 or 67 or 66 or 52.
Joanie Sigal
Understood.Listen, I want to thank you all, Dr.Drum, Dr. Finn and Dr. Randall for talking to us tonight.And I will put in the show notes how they can reach the DEA administrator, how they can reach the Attorney General.The fact that they should go to their congressman.And I will urge people to reach out about this because it sounds to me like we might be able to avoid a bigger crisis than we already have if enough people get on board and start speaking out about it.And victim is victims as well.I get the shame.I get that.But you got to reach out.You just have to.
Dr. Ken Finn
And they get.They can reach out to us via you.
Joanie Sigal
Okay.Yeah.
Dr. Ken Finn
If they've been infected and they don't know who to turn to.
Joanie Sigal
Yep.
Dr. Ken Finn
They contact you and you can subsequently.
Joanie Sigal
Absolutely, absolutely.And then I can, I can funnel them to you guys.You guys are the bomb.You are fighting the good fight.I, I, I appreciate you getting up in front of the DEA and, you know, taking the hits because somebody had to do it.And you're courageous, all three of you.
Dr. Ken Finn
Thank you.
Dr. Karen Randall
Thank you.
Joanie Sigal
Absolutely.Thank you so much for being with us tonight.
Dr. Karen Randall
Thank you for having us.
Dr. Ken Finn
Thanks for having us.
Joanie Sigal
You guys have a good bye.
Joanie Sigal
VOICEOVER: You have been listening to the Addiction podcast, Point of no return.For more information, reach out to us on Facebook or go to www.the addictionpodcast.com.Our email is the addictionpodcastahoo.com.