Oct 072013
 October 7, 2013

supreme court marijuana reclassificationBy Phillip Smith

The US Supreme Court Monday declined to hear an appeal from medical marijuana advocacy groups who had challenged the DEA’s decision to maintain marijuana’s status as a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, the category reserved for the most dangerous substances.

The court denied in summary order a petition for a writ of certiorari from the groups, led by Americans for Safe Access, which had sought Supreme Court review of a DC Circuit Court of Appeals decision upholding the DEA’s ruling that a change in marijuana’s classification required the Food and Drug Administration’s recognition of acceptable medical uses for the drugs.

Advocates of rescheduling marijuana have been trying to do so for more than four decades, but have been thwarted by DEA delays and intransigence. This was the third formal rescheduling effort to be blocked by DEA decision making.

Schedule I drugs are deemed to have no acceptable medical uses and a high potential for abuse. Other Schedule I drugs include LSD, MDMA, and heroin. Despite the fact that there is an ever-increasing mountain of research detailing marijuana medicinal effects and despite the fact that 20 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana, the DEA continues to insist that it cannot be down-scheduled.

Joe Elford, lead attorney on the case for Americans for Safe Access, told Law360 that the Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari was in line with its reluctance to overturn lower courts and administrative decisions on medical marijuana.

“It’s disappointing, but not altogether surprising,” he said.

A fourth effort to reclassify marijuana led by the governors of the medical marijuana states of Rhode Island and Washington was filed in 2011 and is still awaiting action.

Article From StoptheDrugWar.org - Creative Commons Licensing - Donate

About Johnny Green

Johnny Green is a marijuana activist from Oregon. He has a Bachelor's Degree in Public Policy. Follow Johnny Green on Facebook and Twitter. Also, feel free to email any concerns.
  • Raoul

    This is the same Supreme Court that shoved obama care down our throats. The current ruling is no surprise, they are statists.

    • Ryan Searfoss

      You mean that time they upheld the ACA after the entire country and both chambers of Congress voted for it? That time?

      Moron.

      • Kathy

        You mean the time the Senate took an unrelated bill from the House and stuffed it with Obamashit, then all the democrats who didn’t read it or care what was in it voted for it and passed it without a single Republican vote? That time?

        Jackass.

        • painkills2

          It’s funny how one event can be described two totally different ways. I guess we’ve run into the partisan divide here.
          I am not currently eligible for the ACA because I’m not poor enough, but when I look into the future, I can clearly see a time when I will be poor enough and will be glad the ACA is there. It’s a tiny step forward in America’s healthcare battle and, damn it, we’re going to take all you anti-Obamacare people with us!
          C’mon… why do ya’ll wanna fight about healthcare? Wait, don’t answer that.

          • Raoul

            You are completely out of your mind, and you will be screaming for the Democrats heads before this is over.

          • Raoul

            My above comment was aimed at painkills2.

          • wowFAD

            That isn’t going to happen, seeing as how it ended after the law was ratified by Congress, signed by the President, upheld by the SCOTUS, and then put front and center as the 2012 general election’s biggest issue. Lo and behold, the voters made their wishes clear by a margin of over five million votes.
            Before this is over? We’re in the midst of a pointless shutdown because you refuse to acknowledge something important — it’s been OVER for a while, now. And the shutdown is going to continue until you realize it.

          • painkills2

            There have been times in my life when I have been completely out of my mind, sure. Of course, I didn’t know it at the time. But I’m pretty sure this is not one of them (you know, unless I’m unaware that I’m really living in the Matrix). However, I appreciate the concern. :)

      • Raoul

        Don’t be clueless: The Supreme court said obama care was a tax, and passed it. This is unconstitutional, because all new taxes must originate in the House, and the House, Senate, and Obama claimed that it was not a tax.

  • Alex

    The judicial system is bought and paid for, how anything legit gets done inside it is beyond me.

    • wowFAD

      Well, Alex. I’m going to assume since you “liked” the comment hating Obamacare below that you vote Republican, or simply do not vote….

      In that case, for the failure of this case to pass the DC Circuit Court of Appeals — the person to blame is in your mirror.

      The GOP has blocked all nominations to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals with almost the same fervor they opposed the appointment of Chuck Hagel to Sec of Defense. There are three VACANT seats. No, Obama was NOT trying to PACK the court — that happens when there are no vacancies, but new judges are appointed anyway. There are three empty seats — which is why the two judges on the three-judge panel that voted IN FAVOR of the DEA were both BUSH appointments to the bench.

      Blame your party. Stop crying about how “bought and paid for” the court is — why not look at who is writing the checks. Charles and David Koch. Sheldon Adelson. These names ring a bell?
      Your beloved rightwing stopped this progress from happening.

      • Alex

        Seems you like many other uninformed sheep assume and continue to make an ass out of yourselves, I voted green party, see unlike you I know that there are more then 2 parties, and exercise my right to vote for the one I actually see trying to improve the country unlike the useless democrats and republicans. Thanks for proving that ignorance truly does breed a group of people like you.

        • wowFAD

          No problem, Alex. How, exactly, do you plan on wasting your vote in 2016? Gonna find someone with more political clout than ROSEANNE?

          • Alex

            Oh I see I should vote for the party that will do all the damage and then cry about it on forums like you instead? Thanks but no thanks I’d rather vote what I actually think will change the world for the better instead of people like you who just presume that voting for the lesser evil is the right way.

          • wowFAD

            No, you should vote for whoever holds the center. Right now, that’s the DNC — the green party is a blip amongst several wannabe leftwing “Tea Parties” that will never come to fruition, because most people agree that risking the GOP taking the Senate, House, and the White House is simply not worth the risk. Remember how we pleaded with Ralph Nader to sit out 2004? Yup, so do I. Remember how 2004 played out? Ya, me too.

          • Alex

            Well with this shutdown and the collapse that’s nearly certain to come in the next few months I think nearly everyone will have to take a long hard look at who they’re really voting for, and one way or the other remove them from the senate. I think it’s high time that we replaced all the useless people there for people who actually give a damn about the will of the people. I know its a radical concept but honestly when people start losing everything they’ve worked so hard for because of the 1%s never ending reign of debt something will be done.

          • wowFAD

            Sorry, wait wait wait — did you just say (a) society is about to collapse, *and* (b) people are going to worry about how they’re voting? Do you not see how those two things are juuuuust *SLIGHTLY* inconsistent? That’s just… Can I ask if you graduated high school yet?
            BTW — do you know what a filibuster is, how it is *supposed* to be used, and how it’s been abused hundreds of times in the last five years? I remember learning about that when I was a Junior in high school. Are you a Junior yet? Should I bother explaining what “obstruction” means?

          • Alex

            I said A collapse perhaps you should stop assuming and actually learn to read since you’re so clearly in need of some education. More specifically a financial collapse, nearly every analyst including all the ones for the government have said its unavoidable. Speaking with you seems to be a waste of time as you have no clue about any of this.

          • wowFAD

            Oh, I’m very aware. You should definitely write your Green Party Congressman — oh wait, that’s right. Let’s just go ahead and pretend that the Green Party is opposed to healthcare reform (it isn’t, btw) and that you ARE a voting member of the Green Party. Who have you helped? What have you changed? What have you done, other than leach voters from the SANE party with the self-righteous tagline of “vote your conscience?” You ever stop and think what 2015-2016 could be for our country if the GOP simply lost their majority in the House? If they simply lost the ability to vote for the repeal of healthcare 40 times… They haven’t PASSED 40 bills, total, but they’ve voted 40 times and burned millions of dollars to keep their lockstep-voting fruit-loops crazy CONSERVATIVE BASE happy.

            Now let’s stop pretending you’re a member of the Green Party, so you can own up to your true colors — deep, deep red. I don’t blame you. Now is not the time to openly admit to being a Republican. I mean, you have reasonable anonymity online, and you *still* want to claim you’re a member of some other party. Libertarians too gun crazy for you? LOL. Because that I would have believed — they hate any law that doesn’t fit on a bar napkin, especially one mandating health insurance.

            Come on out of the closet, Alex — I’m sure there’s one or two conservatives who are willing to own up to both the shutdown AND wrecking the Rescheduling lawsuit on the same thread. Man-up.

          • Alex

            It’s ok you can cry all you like, we both know people like you are the reason why everything has gone from bad to worse, and while you keep spouting all the things that are bad about everyone else keep in mind you’re always going to be the problem. Never the solution. Oh and 1 last thing the word you’re looking for is LEECH, if you’re going to pass yourself off as having a brain correct spelling is a requirement.

          • wowFAD

            No, it isn’t. A leech is an organism. Leach is a verb. You may wanna check to see if the ink on your GED is dry.

          • Alex

            Yes an organism that sucks the blood out of other animals, which is the context you were using it in. You may want to learn how to read before you start sounding like even more of imbecile then you already are.

          • wowFAD

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/leach

            Seriously, go back to school, kiddo.

          • Alex

            Seriously stop using the same lame 4th grader arguments and resorting to absolutely empty insults when you clearly lose.

          • wowFAD

            That was a link to the Merriam Webster dictionary… I’m sorry if you feel condescended to. Maybe you feel like this a lot? Perhaps I’m not the problem?

          • Alex

            You are most definitely the problem, just not for me, stupidity has no cure, and in your case we all wish it did.

          • wowFAD

            It does have a cure, actually. I’m not surprised you’re unfamiliar with it.
            It’s called “school” and it’s something you should consider attending.

          • Alex

            Well you seem to have attended it and we all know how well that worked out. So I’ll be sure to not use you as an example for that particular argument.

          • wowFAD

            Just to make sure we’re clear — you are now officially *against* school because you’re worried it might make you more… …accurate. No wonder you’re so upset about the ACA. Your hopes of ever qualifying for a job that has health benefits must be quite remote.
            But hey, there’s all kinds of stuff you’re probably better at. I had to get my knee replaced because of a car accident (luckily, my job gives me health coverage, so it didn’t cost me $28,000) so I bet dollars to donuts you’re a MUCH faster runner than I am. Why, you backed away from our argument about “leech” vs “leach” so quickly, you left skid marks on my screen.

          • Alex

            I didn’t back away from anything, I guess in your delusional world when you lose it’s called the other person backing away. Whatever helps you sleep at night, I’m taking off as I have no desire to waste any more of my time on a loser who has no idea what he’s talking about.

          • wowFAD

            And here I was, perfectly ready to allow you the last word. After all, that’s the only thing you have left to recolor as a “win,” right?
            I’m generous, though. You may have it, if you wish. I’ll even suspend my curiosity about whether or not you knew Roseanne Barr was a Green Party Presidential nominee.
            So please, take the last word. It’s been a fun 45 minutes. A real pleasure.

          • Johnny Bloomington

            Uh, what the hell does any of this have to do with the article?

          • wowFAD

            Put simply, the two judges who voted in favor of the DEA in the rescheduling lawsuit were both Bush appointments. There are currently three vacancies on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and numerous nominations to fill the vacancies have been blocked by Senate Republicans. That’s why Joe Elford didn’t appeal for an en banc (full court panel) hearing in the DC Circuit Court and went straight for the SCOTUS — there are too many conservative judges in the DC Circuit for en banc to make a bit of difference from the 2-1 decision we now must live with.

            Those are political realities Alex would just assume pretend don’t exist. I, however, think they’re fairly important. The GOP votes lockstep inline, without fail, ever since Ross Perot gave Clinton the 92′ election. They block, obstruct, and shutdown everything/anything that their socially conservative base doesn’t like. They’re anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-education, and anti-cannabis. It’s a stark, depressing reality I live with every day. It’s why I’ll keep voting Democrat as long as the GOP insists on being the crazy, stupid party.

            I’m a fiscally conservative social liberal, and I vote Democrat. Without fail. Because I refuse to take anymore Tea Party lunacy after 2014. My state will never EVER reform its cannabis laws so long as the patients are running the asylum.

          • HughRichard

            Just a reminder wowFAD …. this was the OP you have been flaming on about the whole time…

            Alex
            •9 hours ago•
            The judicial system is bought and paid for, how anything legit gets done inside it is beyond me.

            YOU are the one that made it so political biased and started the whole thing. Alex is the one that hit the nail squarely on the head. Typical that you blame the other side for your own actions. But hey what can you expect from someone that is “…fiscally conservative social liberal, and I vote Democrat. Without fail.” I am sure you will be back to stoke your ego and self-righteous indignation but I will not. Flame on sunshine, I am sure you can prove to everyone again today what a complete fool you really are.

          • wowFAD

            Alex is the one claiming to be one of the 12 members of the Green Party who isn’t Roseanne Barr simply to dodge having to take responsibility for our legal system being in a shambles. Even money that neither of you vote, and yet, here we are, reading up on the non-opinions of non-voters.

          • HughRichard

            HAHAHA skid marks for sure … I see wowFAD blahblahblah (long skid mark) and a clump of toilet paper stuck to his shoe as he walks away.

          • wowFAD

            Seems I must have hurt your feelings pretty bad, if you’re flagging my comments to be removed. I’ll try to keep it clean — just for you.

          • HughRichard

            You fall flat yet again … you havent been in a public school lately have you? Lots of weed for sure but alot more stupidity and that does not include the students.

          • painkills2

            Right now the DNC holds the center? Right now, democrats are on the right. And some republicans are hanging on to the edge of the right with the tips of their fingers, while others are… wait, I think I see them… they’ve gone over the edge of the far right. The Green Party, Roseanne, or Occupy are never going to get big enough to take on two such firmly-entrenched, powerful, and rich political parties. David and Goliath was just a story, after all. Sure, David wins from time to time in the real world, but not enough to rally a whole country around.

            I don’t see any other way except to work from within the system, but everyone who enters the political black hole eventually becomes coated with conflicts-of-interest (a nice way to say corrupted, don’t you think?). It seems to be the only way to play the game (and if you want to win, you have to play the game). And of course the people with the most money really, really enjoy how the game is played (more accurately, how they rigged the game to be played). It’s like that all over the world…

            Yes, yes, I know, I should vote at every opportunity and that will make all the difference. Up will be up and down will be down. Democrats will move over to the left, instead of sleeping with the right. Republicans will run screaming, away from the right-wing cliff and back into moderate territory. All parties will become Green, and before I die (with a ballot in my hand), violence against women will be eradicated. The future looks bright indeed.

            If I don’t vote, I deserve what I get. If I do vote, I don’t deserve what I get, but I do get to have an opinion about it. (I’m sure a lot of people who voted for Bush jr really didn’t deserve what they got.)

            Issues are more important than rhetoric and political parties. (Obviously, that’s why a lot of us are gabbin’ on The Weed Blog!)

          • painkills2

            Oh, snap.

      • bobbyearle

        “I have friends who smoke pot… It’s ridiculous to treat them as criminals.” David Koch
        http://marijuanamajority.com/?id=89

        Some of us are real patients who keep our lives going by the use of medical cannabis. Party bickering harms patients with severe diseases like myself and so many others (Crohn’s disease that required chemo — thankfully I found cannabis in time). Please, please hear me when I tell you this. Every time the topic of marijuana legalization comes up, the conservatives who have their ears open will read your posts and say “STOP! I knew it! Marijuana isn’t a bipartisan issue — it’s a liberal agenda!!!” and then they run the other way. The left does the same thing — just on other issues. They both do it.

        But if you actually care about legalizing this plant, you’ll probably agree that we need to EMBRACE each other in any way we can on marijuana. Save yelling about how much you hate the right on Obamacare for topics that are unrelated to marijuana legalization. There is no dispute — it is polarizing. Obama had a democratic house, senate, and executive office. The DEA didn’t pass the CSA. Congress did. Obama used to be the leader of a pot smoking club and in his first term he went after 4 times the amount of medical marijuana dispensaries than President Bush did. Obama issued the Ogden memo — only to secretly change his mind and send tons of well intentioned, innocent growers and dispensary owners to serious prison time. This is NOT the place to change the CSA (I would have been thrilled if they did, of course). It was a law passed by congress and Obama had total control his first two years and could have easily urged congress to amend the CSA to adjust marijuana’s scheduling to 2 — making it just as illegal as cocaine, but now a doctor can prescribe it and researchers can study it freely (right now some 95% of all marijuana studies are approved only if they are researching the potential HARMS of cannabis). This would necessitate legalization in 2016 as the world would be flipped upside down by all the research.

        There is so much blame on the left, it isn’t even funny. Is there blame on the right? YES!!!! But we expect that on this issue. If the left wants to lead on this, they need to clean up house first. Two people doing more damage than the entire Republican party on this issue — Patrick Kennedy (former Democratic congressman) and Kevin Sabet (employee of President Obama during his first term). Liberals through and through. And the problem? PEOPLE LISTEN TO THEM! They aren’t as easily dismissed as some right wing loon or some Bill Maher type liberal.

        My experiences show me that the left won’t legalize this. They’ve known for decades that it should be legal and don’t have the backbone to take the risk of going for it. A conservative with strong libertarian roots will likely be the key. Typical conservatives will fall in line — but not if they believe this is a partisan issue or a liberal agenda.

        So let’s save the political hate for topics that don’t indirectly hinder legalization’s progress ;) Blame YOUR party — whatever side you’re on. Clean your own damn house first before you go and yell at the neighbor you can’t stand for their dirty house.

        • HughRichard

          Exactly !!! I love it when wowFAD types chime in sounding like they have a clue but then fall flat because they just dont get it. They are too busy fanning the liberal vs conservative flame to understand exactly what BOTH parties have done and failed to do. Fan boys on both sides are the problem and parrot instead of taking the lead and actually doing something because it is the right thing to do. None of us know the backroom deals that make or break an administration but we all feel the outcome and I promise you ‘We the People’ had absolutely no input but will carry the burden of every bad law they create for our own good. With friends like these ‘elected’ officials who needs enemys.

          • wowFAD

            Fan boys — fanning flames — both parties — LOL. Look at all the things you said without actually SAYING anything. Two scoops of tripe in the morning is nice, but honestly, I prefer coffee.
            But feel free to chime in if you have anything of SUBSTANCE to say. Don’t just insist I’m wrong — tell me what I got wrong. Point to the factual information I’m mistaken about. Give me something to check.
            You see, all of the reasonable people who are willing to admit to being wrong. Convince me Nixon was secretly a Democrat, and that the war on intellectuals AS WELL AS the war on cannabis was NOT started as a backlash against Vietnam war protests that originated on college campuses.
            I know it’s popular to quote the ONE thing David Koch said that was pro-cannabis. It’s harder tallying up all the MONEY he spends on candidates who are very, very anti-cannabis. What was that guy’s name? Glove Ramey? Right, right — that guy.

          • HughRichard

            wowFAD we dont have to do anything to stir your pot. You bubble over all by yourself and prove to everyone reading that the SUBSTANCE you share is nothing more than doodoo. You are ringing your own bell so hard you fail to hear anything but yourself. Narcissism fail bigtime.

          • wowFAD

            haha. Doodoo? LOL. That’s adorable. Please, keep these little semantic gems coming. It really lends you a LOT of credibility. ;-)

          • HughRichard

            You remind me of someone, Dr. Kevin Sabet. He talks a good game and can quote details about things that make people sit up and listen because he sounds so smart. He pins their ears back and uses aggressive verbal tactics to force HIS viewpoint on everyone else. He tells them to PROVE his opinion is wrong and then talks over them when they get too close to the truth, even if they are using laymans terms.
            But we all know he is full of shit. Kind of like you. As I said in a post further down, I knew you would be back because with an ego as big as yours you had to. That is another character flaw that tells us alot about you. You make assumptions in almost every post about all of us that disagree with you. The point that you miss is we have not assumed anything about you. You have proved everything we have said to be true. You win sunshine, to bad you didnt know what game was being played.

          • wowFAD

            Uh huh — so two people you’ve never met remind you… …of each other? Oh boy, it sure is hard to see flaw in that logic. Though point to you, I am insulted. My PhD certainly is NOT in Public Policy, and I’m certainly not faculty in a medical school.
            BTW — I’ve yet to see anyone point out, factually, something I got wrong. So your feelings might be hurt, sure, but your inability to articulate who what when where and why your tender emotions are bruised is precisely my point. You’re very, very upset about something I said, which is why I’ve earned a brand-new online stalker. You see, had I said something legitimately incorrect, you would have point out, specifically, what that was.
            And yet, here we are, having a non-argument because you got butt-hurt and can’t explain why. So please, continue. I’m interested to see which direction you swerve this clown car of an argument we’re having.

          • hitheredude

            Um bro I may just be stoned but I think hes laughing at you for being such a fucked up tight ass. Sounds like hes playing you for the clown, but again I could just be stoned.

          • wowFAD

            You’re definitely stoned, but you’re also correct (except for the tight-ass part). I’m an advocate for both recreational and medical cannabis, but I’m also a pragmatist. We don’t have 20 legal medical states, 2 with full legalization because we ignored details. The details are very important. I’m not going to be chased away from reasonable discourse because Beevis and Butthead discovered internet trolling.

          • Sarijuana

            wowFAD, I really appreciate that you present well researched facts, but your delivery leaves a bit to be desired. You are definitely someone I would want to have in my army (if I had one) against cannabis prohibition, but I wouldn’t put you in charge of public relations. I am married to someone who seems to be a lot like you. He is well meaning, knows what he is talking about, and I love him a lot, but I don’t have him doing the PR or marketing for my company. He’s just a bit too harsh sometimes, especially when it’s something he feels passionate about. He also has a tendency to let himself get drawn down to the level of those he argues with, to his own detriment. I used to tell him (when we had teenagers) that by acting like a teenager when he argues with them is giving away his power. He was no longer an authority, but rather just another voice in the crowd. He still doesn’t get it. Demanding respect doesn’t earn it.

          • wowFAD

            Thank you for the compliment and the candor. I freely admit this conversation was more than a little bit colored by my very, very poor public relations skills (as well as my anger over the SCOTUS quietly slamming this door shut). Your husband can probably relate to the conflicting desires of wanting to share his ideas amiably and refusing to be bullied by people who don’t like them. It’s far too easy to get sucked into juvenile displays of machismo over petty, off-topic minutiae. Inevitably, someone gets called Hitler, and nobody remembers anything that was said which was *worth* thinking about. Internet trolls get their jollies that way, though all they’re doing is mucking up the discourse, simply to see if they can get under someone’s skin. It’s very difficult to not retaliate when provoked.

          • painkills2

            A long time ago, I saw a psychiatrist who told me that I had a problem with letting go of things. She told me to make up signs that said “Let Go” in big letters, and then post them all over my home. You know, so I am constantly reminded. I didn’t do that, but I do make a mental note when I seem to be getting into that territory of being unable to leave things alone. Takes work. Takes hard work. I wish you luck.

          • painkills2

            You have a way with words, O Wise One.

        • wowFAD

          Oh yes, of course — explaining what happened with FACTS is “party bickering.” But only to one side. Tell ya what. You seem to be “in” with the conservative party. You explain to me why the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the 2nd most powerful court in the country, MUST MUST MUST continue to have three vacancies on its bench. You explain to me the negative ad campaigns that shovel meaningless talking points that don’t have antecedents in reality, especially the one which claim the white house was trying to “pack” the bench through ROUTINE appointments.
          Then we’ll talk about who is getting along with who. I know it’s trendy to say “blame both parties” but that’s just for morons who do not wich to understand the situation or accept any responsibility for it. Wanna know who has the BEST opinion? Non voters, like yourselves, who cry all day long about patients getting the access they need. Well do me a favor. Count how many red states have legal medical cannabis (Arizona, Montana, Alaska — wow, that was easy) and compare that number with the 17 BLUE states that allow access for patients.
          And oh boy, do I love me some libertarians. Especially when you sit two of them down, and you figure out they believe TOTALLY different things. Libertarians are simply narcissistic Republicans, each and every last one fervently believing THEY know what libertarianism is — everyone else is just a poser, right? They’re like redneck hipsters, and I’m not proud of the sadistic pleasure I get watching them struggle for identity — but I’m also not sorry.

  • wowFAD

    Uh, ya — just to warn you, I’m not going to talk about the Affordable Care Act. Because, at this point, if you want to argue about it, you’re four years and an ELECTION too late. Suck it up, quit your crying, and write your rep to vote for a clean CR. Grow up, America…

    That being said…

    I’m very disappointed about the appeal failing. I was *trying* to be optimistic, but it didn’t stand a chance in the SCOTUS unless Scalia spontaneously combusts. Fact is, and I mean this with the utmost respect for Mr. Elford — we didn’t argue the right case.

    This case went to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals because the DEA stalled a 2002 petition filed by the Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis for almost TEN YEARS before ultimately denying it. The ASA filed the lawsuit to appeal, arguing VERY WELL that there is adequate evidence to reschedule cannabis…. That’s how we played our hand.

    Well, this is where the fine details are very VERY important. The original petition was NOT to reschedule cannabis. That’s right — that’s not what the *original* CRC petition was. It was a petition to hold an EVIDENTIARY HEARING at which evidence would be given to determine the proper scheduling of cannabis in the Controlled Substances Act.

    Unfortunately, we should have argued that the First Amendment right of the CRC was infringed. The very last (and often overlooked) part of the FIRST AMENDMENT, the government cannot deny the right to “petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
    Clearly, the DEA infringed upon the First Amendment by stalling the petition for 9 years, and more-so when you consider the fact that the petition was only for a HEARING. The DEA denied them the venue to redress their oh-so valid grievance of the IMPROPER classification of cannabis as a Schedule 1 controlled substance.

    I’m not saying Mr. Elford’s case was not sound as-is. It was argued as well as it could be argued, given the massive amount of scientific data backing his case. It’s just unfortunate that the three-judge panel in the DC Circuit had two Bush appointees presiding over the case. Or rather, it’s a really crappy “feature” of our current political realities — despite there being vacancies in the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, the GOP blocks all of Obama’s nominations, suggesting that those three seats are just peachy staying vacant (even though the DC Circuit Court specifically exists to address virtually all cases involving federal agencies).

  • GFMG

    The Deputy Commissioner of the FDA is Michael R. Taylor, former VP of Monsanto. Interesting.

  • Joe Voll

    come on man! If doctors could prescribe toxic deadly drugs like cocaine, meth and oxycontin, why cant they prescribe marijuana???

    • hanspy

      Think of that next time voting.

    • Sarijuana

      I don’t want them prescribing MedCan. That would mean they have some control over it and I am not giving that away. I have the right to use where I live (my decision) and I don’t want to have to get a doctor’s permission.

      • painkills2

        I don’t see how mmj patients are going to get around that. I’m not sure how the market will shake out when legalization arrives (a moment of silence please), but I want some kind of protection to be able to use cannabis as a medicine. If I were to use cannabis like, say, alcohol, then it would be the same as taking Vicodin when I wasn’t in pain. Or something like that…

  • John Barrett Thill

    investigate them judges and see where their money goes.

    • Sarijuana

      Always follow the money.

  • marie

    Its all about the money these drug companies will be losing once marijuana is legalized. God forbid if anyone is cured of cancer, has adequate pain relief or just have a better quality of life altogether. They don’t want the American public to be healthy. Healthy people won’t need their drugs.

  • hitheredude

    I just wish they would stop pandering to the big corps (including politicians) and do the right thing man.

  • Robert Dewayne King

    The prohibitionists ARE “doing the right thing ” !! FOR THEMSELVES And screw anyone who wants to derail thier gravy train !!

  • hitheredude

    @ wowfad
    Um hey dude, this is a reply from a post you just made at the very bottom of the discussion and I didnt want it to get lost, I AM stoned now lol but have a question for you. I know this is really not the subject of the thread but it is kinda related so stay with me a second please.
    You say that ACA is ratified and all the rest and is now law. Done, signed, sealed and delivered. You say we need to stop fighting it because it is over. We need to lay down and been submissive to the vote. But I feel like there is a contradiction brewing here. Cannabis prohibition was the same way, right? Voted on by government and signed into law and defended over and over by SCOTUS. Billions and billions spent enforcing it and countless lives destroyed by the law, all for the greater good. Yet it was-IS an unjust law and schedule, right? You said you supported legal and medical cannabis yet the law was and has been in place for decades now. Why are you willing to fight for cannabis reform yet deny those that disagree, with government enforcement of ACA, their right to continue fighting for something they feel is injust and unconstitutional? The principle is the same even if the topic is not. Freedom and right to choose without being violated. Help me understand the difference because I dont see one.

    • wowFAD

      Very well. The difference is this: no one voted to make cannabis illegal. We did vote — a lot — about the Affordable Care Act, which is a reform package for the healthcare system, and not a bill prohibiting personal liberties. You may see parallels between the two fights, but they’re very much opposites. Proponents of the Affordable Care Act think you should not be bankrupted for getting sick, you should not be denied coverage for pre-existing conditions, and that insurance companies providing that coverage must use 80% of the premiums they collect on *actual* healthcare, and not swelling profit margins. Proponents of cannabis prohibition aren’t trying to protect anyone from anything even remotely parallel to those concerns — cannabis prohibition *itself* ruins lives, not the plant.

      Enemies of the ACA rarely understand much about the law, and likewise, enemies of cannabis prohibition understand with absolute clarity how asinine it is to insist cannabis is dangerous and has no accepted medical use. I just don’t see the two fights as equivalent, seeing as how the people arguing to help people are on opposite sides of the law in both cases.

      I’m sorry, I get that you see them as similar, and I GREATLY appreciate how civil you’ve been, but equating the Affordable Care Act and the Drug War is a stretch.

      • hitheredude

        Well thanks for responding and being civil with me as well. I am still learning and someone did say the only stupid question was the unasked one. I dont totally agree because I have seen the damage the ACA has started doing to my family already and what the potential damage from the impass may do to us. I do understand the need for medical care reform I just dont totally agree with the way it is happening with the ACA. I am still young and admit my lack of complete knowledge but I am not totally uninformed. I however have seen first hand what prohibition has done to my extended family and I hate that they cant get this right for the good of us all.
        I am going to finish enjoying my day off and hope you do as well. My buzz is long gone and I really want to relax before I start my shift tomorrow. Peace.

        • painkills2

          If you look to history, you will see the exact same arguments for and against the implementation of Social Security and Medicare that you see in the cannabis legalization and healthcare fights.

          The difference with the ACA is that no one knows what’s going to happen. As with any policy that covers millions of people, some good things will happen and some bad things will happen. Until we know what the bad things will be, we can only guess at how to fix them. We have to start somewhere… and this is an old conservative idea, and even I’m willing to give it a chance. Leaving the middleman-insurance companies in the loop will mean that it could take even longer for things to get better. In the meantime, we will have taken that first.. baby.. step.. (and to some, a great giant leap).

          The cannabis fight has a much longer history than healthcare, as cannabis is a lot older than the issue of whether people should have healthcare. Sure, “scientific” tests and research are hard to find (but becoming much easier), but people have been using cannabis for like forever. So, by now, we all know what the score is. We don’t have to wait for the scientists to tell us what we already know (at least the important basics).

          Perhaps if the dinosaurs had used cannabis, they’d still be around. (That’s a joke and scientifically untrue, in case you were wondering.)

          If you look at both issues overall, sometimes it seems like it comes down to rights and privileges. I happen to believe that healthcare and cannabis should be rights, not privileges. And I don’t think the other side agrees. At least not totally.

    • stellarvoyager

      The difference is that our side is trying to repeal cannabis prohibition through a political process — voting for pro-reform candidates, getting initiatives on the ballot, passing laws in states, etc. Nobody is threatening default on the national debt, or a shutdown of the government, because the other side doesn’t give us 100% of what we want. We are winning through persuasion and coalition building, not extortion. We are looking longer term, and taking the time and putting in the effort to get it done legitimately. That is the difference, my friend.

      • hitheredude

        But isnt the pending default because neither side (most of them anyway) is willing to give an inch and therefore the problem falls on both sets of shoulders? I dont feel we are winning cannabis reform through persuasion but rather because we are preoccupied with so many other problems in government right now. Obama said he supported reform (sort of) in 2008 yet his CZARs have done alot of damage since then, some would say more damage than Bush2.0. Okay now we have 20 states with reform on the table BUT scotus and all the alaphabet agencies can swoop in and destroy that progress in no time flat because nothing is agreed upon in Washington. It just seems to be similiar on so many levels. Sorry I am still learning so be gentle with me.

        • wowFAD

          A64, the CO initiative, and I502, the WA initiative were carefully crafted with language that does not explicitly conflict with federal law, which made “swooping” very difficult for the Department of Justice to do anything about either of them. Ensuring the language of the laws cannot be challenged in federal court is a delicate dance that’s been going on for two decades. State-level medical cannabis bills have been tossed out *by us, the advocates* because we knew in advance that the specific language used within those bills could be challenged in court.

          For example, you cannot pass a state-level law giving doctors the right to “prescribe” cannabis, because that is, specifically forbidden by the Controlled Substances Act. They can, however, *recommend* cannabis and *recommend* a treatment regiment.

          Recently, the DOJ gave testimony to the Senate about what their options were concerning legalization, and Deputy Attorney General Cole testified as much — there only two options were to try to sue, which wasn’t feasible because of how carefully the laws are worded, or to attempt to rip apart the regulatory system, which would (in his words) “make things worse.”

          Now, because the “swooping” options aren’t available because of how careful advocates have been, the initiatives are moving forward, despite the ongoing piecemeal federal crackdown.

    • Justin

      A clever idea emerged which would circumvent or do an “end-run” around the federal government’s Constitutional limitations. Instead of a passing an unconstitutional ban on narcotic drugs, the government would instead use its power to “tax” – and thus regulate – possession and use of whatever it wanted. The Harrison Act of 1914, which ‘taxed’ cocaine and opiates, was the federal government’s first attempt to criminalize and outlaw narcotic drugs… After a two-hour committee hearing and a 92-second debate on the house floor, marijuana was de facto criminalized by Congress with passage of The Marihuana Tax Stamp Act of 1937, signed into law by President Roosevelt.

      In remarks at the 2010 Legislative Conference for the National Association of Counties, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, “But we have to pass the bill (ACA) so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of controversy.” The court (SCOTUS – Chief Justice Roberts) rejected the commerce clause argument, but ruled that Congress nevertheless had the power to impose the mandate because it can be considered a tax.

      Funny how both of those sound very similar but hey why split hairs. Maybe those opposed to ACA are not willing to wait over 70 years like us cannabis consumers did, before they stand up and fight what they disagree with. How hard would you have fought to prevent prohibition back in 1937 if you knew then the costs that we have been saddled with for the last 7 decades?

      • wowFAD

        The context of then (and the context of now) is that a bunch of racists really don’t like black people. That’s the real reason a lot of people don’t like the ACA. There’s a reason so many of the people who voted for Mitt Romney (a man who forced health insurance on the entire state of MA) rail against Obamacare — they don’t like the “Obama” part.

        Likewise, cannabis was made illegal (and is kept illegal) as a vehicle of class warfare, primarily against minorities. Take their freedom, temporarily — take their right to vote forever. This was not an accident. The Drug War is the new Jim Crow.

        • Justin

          I agree with you but I must say the part that I rail against concerning Obamacare is the mandatory part. Totalitarianism is still totalitarianism no matter what shade of grey is used to make it presentable, past, present or future.

          • wowFAD

            Sadly, that was the compromise with the stakeholders from the insurance companies to get them to go along with the part of the law requiring them to spend 80% of the money they take in from their customers on actual medical care. Guaranteeing them more customers to offset their inability to gouge the ones they have was the only way to make the deal. The rationale was that they’re better off skimming less profit from more customers, not the other way around.

            There is good news, though. Because of the 80% requirement, insurance companies are now limited in how much money they take in from their customers by how much care is *actually* provided, which means insurance premiums are lower than you might expect, and will only shrink more once the law begins mitigating the rapid inflation of healthcare costs.

          • painkills2

            I know about the 80% requirement, which is great, but I don’t know anyone personally who received any sort of pay-back from their health insurance company. I mean I’ve read that some insurance companies did have to give refunds… I guess I’d just like some direct personal knowledge of this.

            I also find it hard to believe that the insurance companies agreed to a ceiling on profits from their customers. (No such agreement for the money that they make in the Wall Street Gambling Casino.) The 80% requirement would mean that they could make profits anywhere in that margin of zero to 20%. Or perhaps I am simplifying this too much? I’m wondering if the insurance companies will move into riskier and riskier ways of obtaining revenue if they are limited in this way. And of course that they will find ways around the laws. Isn’t that what corporations do?

            I’d be more comfortable with it all if President Obama was more into transparency. :)

          • wowFAD

            The simplest way I can think to explain it (and I’m sure a similar metaphor was made for the insurance companies) is that they’re better off picking two ripe apples from a thousand trees than they would be trying to get 2000 apples off of two dozen trees. In fact, they could pick 3 or 4 apples per-tree, and actually increase their “yield” from the insurance premiums simply by obeying the new law. They’d be crazy not to take that deal. The hilarious part about the deal? Insurance companies already have more than enough people employed to handle the anticipated “Obamacare bump” in business. They’re simply telling people that the old rules of stalling with endless red tape are done, and their jobs are now to process claims quickly so that premiums can be calculated properly in compliance with the 80% guideline. Because you and I both know, they’ll take any excuse to adjust the premiums even a little bit if they can legally get away with it. I gotta tell you, it was a brilliant trade-off.

          • painkills2

            I have tried and tried to wrap my head around your apple analogy and I am embarrassed to say that I cannot. It is hard for me to get a complete picture with all the middlemen involved in the healthcare industry. I thought I understood how hospitals and insurance companies work together, but that was before I began reading all about the vast differences in what hospitals charge for, well, everything.

            And when I learned about how car insurance companies determine what each person pays, well that made things more muddled. Actuary tables or not, I don’t see how it is logical that single people have to pay more than married people. But when it comes to healthcare, I can obviously see why smokers have to pay more. I don’t see how they are going to penalize people who have other bad habits, though. What’s worse — if I eat five donuts for breakfast or if I smoke one cigarette?

            So it is hard for me to speculate whether the 80% guideline will do a good job for all the little people. And you have to admit, deep down, you are worried about the fact that the ACA was an idea cooked up over there, at the Heritage Foundation. (I always wondered at the adjective used to describe such companies as “think tanks.” If I were to mentally file through all the adjectives I can think of, that would not even be included in the list.)

            As always, time will tell the tale of our country’s fledging attempt to move healthcare from the “privileged” category to the its-my-right-damnit category. My fingers and toes are crossed…

          • painkills2

            I feel that way about car insurance sometimes. Especially considering that I have a clean driving record. And considering that they use my credit rating to help determine what I will pay. And that single people have to pay more than married people. And… sorry. Stepping off my soapbox now…

          • Opalguy

            It’s mandatory NOW that you have health insurance in the U.S. today if you ever get sick. Without insurance you are forced to use Emergency rooms and because you can’t pay the rest of us pick up the tab. That kind of mandatory?

      • painkills2

        The point being, I think, is that we do not know what the outcome of the ACA will be – at least not yet. No one knew what the outcome of Social Security would be either, but it turned out pretty good.

        • Opalguy

          Social Security was another one of Franklin D Roosevelt’s socialist programs. It seems to be ‘pretty good’ because it hasn’t run out of money yet. SS is a Ponzi scheme and the question isn’t whether it will run out of money it’s when it will run out of money.

          • painkills2

            I was under the impression that a Ponzi scheme was like HerbaLife. I’m having a hard time transferring how that company works to how Social Security works. Maybe you could give me another example of a Ponzi scheme so I can try to, I don’t know, visualize and compare the two.

          • Jetdoc

            In a Ponzi scheme… Only a very few make money… Usually those who got in EARLY, (people receiving it today) and they’ll definitely receive MUCH more than they invested into the program/scheme. Those people who are now filing for Social Security will DEFINITELY receive more than they put into it. The people who are carrying the WHOLE scheme are the Young people in America. With the decline in birth rate in America, there won’t be enough young people to carry the program for too much longer. Social Security WON’T be there when today’s 20-40 y/o who are SUPPORTING todays program when they are ready to receive. These young people will pay in with NO CHANCE of cashing out on the program. That’s the EXACT definition of a “Ponzi Scheme”

          • Opalguy

            I’ll point out as a recipient of today’s Social Security lest it seem unfair. My generation put in many thousands of dollars in support of our parents who only put in a few hundred….Actually the whole damned thing is patently unfair to the latest victims of this Ponzi scheme, my son’s generation, because SS won’t be there for them. Sound like a Ponzi scheme now???

          • painkills2

            Well, ya’ll compelled me to actually look up Ponzi Scheme on Wikipedia and after reading up, I’m still a little confused. However, let’s see if I can clarify…

            Both schemes are investments that are too good to be true. I can see how you might think that the Social Security system could be described that same way. Or that certain aspects of the Social Security system are similar to the Ponzi and pyramid schemes. But Social Security should only be defined by the people who invested in it, not by everybody else with an agenda.

            Politicians have been talking about the death of Social Security since before it even began. I remember hearing that Social Security would not be around for my parents — but it is. Social Security has been mishandled, used and abused. But it can be set back on the right track again.

            If you have not yet read Eric Laursen’s book, The People’s Pension: The Struggle to Defend Social
            Security, I suggest you do. It should be required reading for every American. I saw Mr. Laursen give a talk on his book and he made a strong, historical argument. He convinced me, and that is hard to do.

            Full Disclosure: I have never met Mr. Laursen and am not financially tied to his book in any way.
            Cheers guys!

          • Opalguy

            A Ponzi scheme is where you get the money from the new guys and distribute the money to the old guys. Also like a Ponzi scheme is the new guys ‘share’ is always larger by a by a generous multiple.

    • moses

      One is for e everyone to be able to get help and the other is the right to decide what medicines to put in your body. You really think it’s ok to let people tell you what to do or say. I think we need to make booze illegal And let the real drug addicts go thru some tough soul searching when they can’t gat their fix.

  • JustWatchin

    I think it is too bad that folks have to get on here and argue about politics, etc. The idea should be to hold a conversation to discover where we agree and then work together to smooth it out and come up with a compromise.

    • ErnstClayton

      And you feel that cannabis prohibition is immune from politics? It all goes together hand in hand with everything else the feds are doing but hey, you are right, lets all join hands and sing songs. I agree we need to focus on what we can agree on (see I can do that) but ultimately politics is going to pop up because we all see things differently and because things are so messy right now in Washington. What most wont admit to is that one hand takes and the other gives. The problem is that both parties are hypocrits on one level or another and the bottom line is they are both are in a competition to see who can get the most votes, and make the biggest profits all while screwing us when we look away. I think the stoned guy — hitheredude — may be right on track asking the question he did below. Hes not the shapest knife in the drawer but he has a point.

      • JustWatchin

        I agree that it sounds simplistic. But there it is. Politics is just another guise for greed, and it covers for ego bashing. Have you ever thought that they are perhaps on “their” side of the table and “we” are on the other side. Perhaps all the games they play are simple manipulations to keep them in office, to keep us needy, and to separate us?

      • Opalguy

        He’s not the sharpest? You forgot the apostrophe in he’s and the ‘r’ in sharpest…just sayin’,

        • fkoff

          Oh the internet alphabet police is here again to save the day. Go patrol your colon dude, your head should be far enough up your ass.

    • mikehuntertz

      My grandfather passed away from brain cancer years after studies had shown that marijuana could have alleviated his condition in several ways. The time to talk has come & gone. Sitting around & singing Coombaya won’t bring back my granddad & it will not ease the suffering that many people are enduring right now. Denying people the right to life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness is a crime against humanity & is a direct violation of the Constitution of the United State of America. The government holds a patent on medicinal marijuana & actually provides it to some people every month & yet it has the gall to deny the medicinal properties that it possesses. There is no reasoning with the greedy & powerful plutocrats that rule our country. The time for action is now. Talking doesn’t work.

      • painkills2

        I’m sorry about your grandfather. But would you agree that in every group (or society), there are benefits to having people that sing and write and create great works of art, so that the tales of the heroes and activists can be told? Talking does work. It’s talking “at” one another that doesn’t work.

      • Shaun Drake

        this is the smartest reply i have read thus far

    • Jetdoc

      Not everyone agrees with us about cannabis, and that’s where the 1st Amendment comes into play

  • JustWatchin

    Personalities have no place in this situation.

  • JustWatchin

    Come to think of it, maybe we should remember it’s “US” against “THEM” and maybe we need to take back our country. I would rather have somebody that recognizes that they are NOBODY but still hold an important position within the all.

  • Czechster

    Look this has been and always will be a matter of the Rich and Powerful controlling the economy. Cannabis and Hemp are a threat to many of the same people in the thirties as it is today. This all about greed. The SCOTUS are just puppets of the 1%ers.

    • painkills2

      I don’t know if I was young and foolish, or if it is because the times were different, but I remember when I used to admire the Supreme Court. :-(

  • Tony Aroma

    The next petition I’d like to see submitted to the DEA is for the addition of alcohol as a schedule 1 controlled substance. Seriously. I think it would be very enlightening to all sides of the mmj issue to see the DEA defend the safety and medicinal uses of alcohol. What exactly does it take to submit a rescheduling petition? Can anybody do it, or do you need standing?

    As far as SCOTUS’s decision not to hear this case, I think they’ve established as precedent the DEA’s medical expertise. Does that mean we can go to a DEA agent for all our medical problems now? Will DEA agents start carrying around stethoscopes and black bags? I mean, who better to make decisions about medical issues than a bunch of unelected law enforcement officers?

    • painkills2

      Mr. Aroma, what a great strategic idea. Is this not possible?

      • wowFAD

        You would have to petition the DEA for an evidentiary hearing on alcohol to determine its proper scheduling in the Controlled Substances Act. Unfortunately, that’s precisely what the Coalition to Reschedule Cannabis did in 2002, and the DEA stalled the petition until 2011, when the ASA said they’d sue if they didn’t stop stalling, so the DEA rejected the petition. That’s what led to this lawsuit in the first place.
        So no, it’s not possible — you’d have to go through the DEA, or try to get your reps in Congress to do it. Neither of which want to do their jobs, both of which deemed “essential services” that are still getting paid during the shutdown. Just like their private gym is deemed an “essential service” during the shutdown.

        • painkills2

          Our laws and legal frameworks look like an amped up version of the IRS code (or vice versa). Only a select few understand the whole picture, and I am sure not one of them. Thanks for the clarification.

          I just keep looking for a huge idea that will start an avalanche of legalization all over the world. But that’s silly, really, because we all know it takes a million little ideas to move progress.. slowly.. forward. Fast progress always has a stronger and more unpleasant back-lash effect.

  • Joemungus

    By definition its “tyranny” , folks.

  • mr c

    sorry….but…who decide for the DEA?
    ..is it a kind of qualified experts group or just one old boss guy ?..how can people that works against criminasl still think that weed is a problem??
    cmon…it s enough,…..what?…dea!..are u scared u have to start to deal with dengerous people?…it s too easy…..too many quite pot user around…
    or….at least…..put on the same drugh list alcohol ,that is something u know is worst…and see what happens

    there is no crime if there is no damage…and….what fukin damage u see in pot users?….can i choose hw to live plz??(or die)?….and………im really bored of police weed scam around the world…because….u know what….police anywhere in the world just making money from this…
    stop this shit soon plz…
    legalize soon the cannabis worldwide….we have worst problems around..

    • Jetdoc

      WHATEVER he said!

      • painkills2

        Ditto.

  • Joemungus

    If I was caught in a bold face lie and had no evidence to support my argument my only option would be to reject the appeal. This is how dishonest and corrupt our government is. Theyre afraid for their jobs. WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD MOTHERFUCKERS! Hilarious!

  • Joemungus

    Theyre drowning. Somebody throw them something heavy that doesnt float! Ha!

  • GreenCrossStaff

    Hey guys We just opened dispensary in San Diego Have good deals from High Top to Med Top to Low SHELF. First time customers get a free gram with any order. If interested please contact us at GreenCrossStaff@hotmail.com or Text us at 619-399-7544 or join the team at Thegreencross.com leave feedback of our Product thank you have a nice day!

    • henery

      dude thanks man!!!

    • Oldtimemoonshine

      now we gonna prank you constantly for spamming this page

    • Oldtimemoonshine

      lies…. number is fake

  • CannabisAmbassador

    Its about time we get a Supreme Court of and for the people, not of and for the corporations. Everyone knows now that cannabinoids are a needed nutrient throughout the WHOLE BODY. Deny us nutritional cannabis is tantamount to democide. It is Genocide upon the people of this planet. Instilled by the corporations, and forced upon us, while private prisons lock up those who dare to heal themselves outside of the corporate mainline. Even now when I mention cannabis I can see people roll their eyes, so mediawashed to the truth.

    Dr. Anakka Hartwell PsyD
    Author The Genocide Chronicles
    Book 1 Look Up, Book 2 Surviving the Genocide, Book three due out August 2013
    Founder the Hospice underground, when hospice says no to cannabis we say yes
    Founder Serenity Senior and Veterans Centers, helping seniors with transformational healing, moving from the pharmaceuticals that are killing on to a more natural vegan diet with cannabis.
    Founder CannaGlow Raw, Organic, Vegan Cannabis Cosmetics.

  • painkills2

    If the DEA doesn’t want to down-schedule marijuana, perhaps it can up-schedule all the result of the drugs. And include “real” drugs like caffeine and nicotine into the scheduling. Then re-define each schedule of drug. At least this would be a complete list. Perhaps redefining the schedules, instead of moving cannabis to a different schedule, would force the DEA to prove why cannabis belongs in whatever schedule it ends up in.

  • thewood

    21st Amend. repealed 18th in 1933 therefore protecting alcohol Constitutionally. You cannot legally classify alcohol as a controlled substance, it falls under it’s own set of rules. Worked AODA lock down unit 10 years alcohol equals physical disability after long term use, loss of memory, violence, domestic abuse, addictive disorders, and various other physical and socioeconomic problems. Marijuana certainly does not deserve it’s lofty and dark status. In the 30’s a few states told the Fed they would no longer enforce the laws surrounding alcohol the Fed looked the other way and, BAM ! Alcohol was legal again much like what you are seeing now with Colorado and Washington and other states. You can’t keep criminalizing a substancethat is proven to be less harmful than alcohol and tobacco because you do not want to start another fire like the other two subtances previously mentioned. The Fed has stripped away the money in regard to law enforcment and marijuana and how it approaches marijuana as a priority, states will follow suit.

  • Josh

    Hey if you need high quality bud affordable prices email my guy firecalibud@live.com Hes legit and has amazong bud from California!

  • a. r.

    How can we support the governors who are sending this case right back to the supreme court?