- The Weed Blog https://www.theweedblog.com

Summary Of Oral Arguments In Federal Cannabis Rescheduling Case

52
Share.

asa v dea americans for safe access schedule 1Federal Appeals Court Hears Case On Medical Value Of Marijuana

By Jonathan Bair, Americans for Safe Access

This morning, the federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit heard an appeal in the case called Americans for Safe Access v Drug Enforcement Administration. The case is an appeal of the DEA’s rejection of a petition filed in 2002 seeking to change the placement of marijuana as a Schedule I drug per the Controlled Substances Act. Based on the scientific evidence, ASA and our fellow plaintiffs feel that it is simply untrue that cannabis is a drug with a “high potential for abuse” and “without accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The hearing today offered a glimpse at the Court’s approach to this topic.

In front of a packed courtroom in Washington, the three-judge panel questioned ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford and a federal lawyer about the merits of the scientific case, and the crucial legal issue of “standing.” Standing is a legal concept that restricts the right to sue to injured parties – people who are directly hurt by what they are fighting, and can get relief from a legal judgement. The issue of standing has been the reason why two prior appeals of the DEA’s classification of marijuana were rejected. In the past, patients have not been part of lawsuits against the Controlled Substances Act. The three judges were Merrick Garland, Karen Henderson, and Harry Edwards.

ASA’s Chief Counsel Joe Elford opened his appeal by arguing that the federal “Department of Health and Human Services plays a game of gotcha” by tightly controlling research access to cannabis and then claiming that there is not enough compelling research to justify reconsidering it as Schedule I. The Drug Enforcement Administration erred by determing that cannabis has a high potential for abuse when its findings determine its abuse and harm potential is less than other substances in less-controlled schedules, such as cocaine.

Elford opened his arguments with the issue of standing. He pointed to the affidavit of plaintiff Michael Krawitz, a veteran denied access to Veterans Administration services because of his medically necessary use of marijuana. The Veterans Administrastion’s harmful policy is based on marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance. He also spoke of the many members of Americans for Safe Access, who are fearful of the consequences of cultivating their own cannabis for their medical needs, and that a medical necessity defense in court could be allowed if marijuana were not in Schedule I.

Elford then turned to the issue of the merits of the DEA’s position on marijuana’s medical value, to prove their position was “arbitrary and capricious” and therefore impermissible. The contention that there is not a complete consensus was argued to be an unreasonable interpretation of the regulatory standard, and that many of HHS’s standards are inapplicable to an organic substance. Significantly, the lack of access to marijuana for medical research is a consequence of the scheduling, yet the lack of suitable research is cited by the DEA as a reason for maintaining the schedule. Despite this lack of research access, ASA cited a growing body of high-quality scientific and medical research into the benefits of marijuana.

Judge Garland asked Elford if he was arguing that marijuana in fact meets HHS’s standard for studies. ASA’s counsel cited over 200 studies and argued that a circular standard is impossible to meet. He also said that, given that the schedule is relative, the DEA is ignoring even its own studies showing that marijuana has merely a “mild” potential for abuse.

Joe Elford concluded by arguing that Schedule I was an inappropriate classification of marijuana and it caused harm to patients and prevented meaningful medical research. Rescheduling marijuana would allow for a reasonable policy solution for suffering patients and uphold the intent of the Controlled Substances Act.

Judge Edwards asked about the standing of Mr. Krawitz, and his access to medical marijuana. The judges asked about access in medical states and noted that marijuana would not be legal just because it were rescheduled.

Federal counsel Lena Watkins then presented her position against appealing the DEA’s decision to continue cannabis in Schedule I. She noted that state legislatures or popular votes do not determine accepted medical use. She said that research is inadequate and has not progressed, and argued that the government does provide access for research.  Turning to the abuse potential, Watkins said, “marijuana is the most widely abused drug in America,” and dependency is a factor in making that assessment.

The judges questioned the level of access provided for research, and Watkins said that fifteen studies of a specific federal “quality” metric have been allowed. Pressed to explain why these studies haven’t persuaded the DEA that marijuana has medical benefits, she said, “we don’t have the final results yet.” To many in the audience, the circular nature of the government’s position on the science of marijuana was clear. The judges then invited Elford to give a rebuttal.

Focusing on rebutting the government’s claims about research, Elford argued that there has been adequate study and even more since this case was filed in 2002, and noted that he would like to admit additional evidence to the case. Summarizing by turning the government’s “no substantial evidence” argument on its head, Elford said that both sides agree more research needs to be done and that research can only happen if marijuana is released from Schedule I. Requiring the DEA to make scientific determinations on a new schedule would lead to better policy and more relief for suffering patients.

The patients spoke out at a well-attended press conference after the hearing, and Americans for Safe Access is proud to have given patients a day in court. Many observers felt the judges were willing to consider the argument of Michael Krawitz’s direct harm from the Controlled Substances Act, and this issue of “standing” has been the Achilles heel of past lawsuits against Schedule I. However, Judge Garland asked at one point, “Don’t we have to defer to the agency? We’re not scientists. They are.”

We’ll find out whether the judges felt the DEA’s science is adequate, or if patients can sue for a medical necessity defense against harsh marijuana laws, when the judges rule. We don’t expect it for a few months. This opportunity is thanks to the brave plaintiffs who took on the federal government on behalf of many others.

Jonathan Bair is ASA’s Social Media Director. Recordings of any kind were not allowed in the courtroom.

Source: Americans for Safe Access

Share.

About Author

52 Comments

  1. I am tired of hearing that cannabis is the most widely used drug in america. I can name many other drugs that are more harmful or just as harmful, that we use everyday. Caffeine, sugar, Nicotine, Pain killers, ALCOHOL.

  2. Armed, violent rebellion is the only alternative if we are once again swept aside by our bullshit excuse for a government!

  3. More roundabout bullshit. Lets see how long this takes , 2 months
    2 years, more stalling. At least the case was heard.

  4. You can reason with unreasonable people. The only thing the DEA douchbags know is violence, so I say lets give it to them. The only way we are going to get what we want is to stand up and take it!

  5. “This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it. ”
    Abraham Lincoln

  6. “When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. ”
    Thomas Jefferson

  7. But mj is much safer and beneficial than aspirin, Tylenol, codeine, and many other ’medicines ’…

  8. i completely agree with you. Big pharma keeps shoving garbage down our throats. There is not a day that goes by that i don’t see a drug commercial on tv that list the side effects during more than have the commercial.

  9. Lets keep it medicinal for a few year before legalizing. As a society we can learn from this plant in a controlled manner. Make it harder for teens to access it by keeping the dispansaries up and operating. We do not want to legalize it and have society go haywire and next thing you know it has a bad reputation like alcohol. We should all be proud that we had our day in court from this first puff that was 1000’s of years ago to the moment when every patient today lit up. Legalize later and understand its medicinal values now is all im saying…

  10. Timothy Leary used the same circular logic argument that overturned the marijuana tax stamp law. Yes, marijuana was completely legal for a short time before Nixon made the controlled substances act on October 27, 1970.
    If the judge uses logic and reason it will be rescheduled.

  11. mmj is beneficial at all ages. you sir are afraid of what might not happen. why do people think negative things will happen? they never have.

  12. Iowa NICER 2012 – Iowa is so nice we still jail non-violent adults for cannabis…Iowa NICER – Is Iowa so nice we still jail non-violent adults for a substance safer than 1000’s of legal drugs that may kill you instantly or slowly ? Because of the reefersad agents of Lucifer running the statehouse chance of reform are slim… http://youtu.be/9szOHy3vRPw

  13. Hey, I voted for McGovern. We all knew about Watergate before the election in 72 and the stupid populas voted that SOB in again. I was so upset I didn’t vote for almost 30 years.

  14. Bullpucky! If it ain’t legalized soon for all, all we’ll get it medical pills, sprays, and crap from Big Pharma while the goons keep arresting people for the natural plant. The time is NOW!

  15. I’m “sorry” to say I don’t live there any longer but I was in an Iowa jail about 45 years ago for weed. I hope your winter is good and you stay safe! When will that douche bag Grassley go back to farming?

  16. “Judge Garland asked at one point, “Don’t we have to defer to the agency? We’re not scientists. They are.” Yes they are scientist who must follow the CSA Schedule I drug rules. Which is, “The DEA (or any agents) can not say or research on said drug in a positive light. Only in a negative light,” paraphrased.

  17. It seems that since there are a large number of doctors already prescribing Marijuana and a huge amount of promising research is being done now that the medical usefulness as well as safety have already been established.
    the FDA should have an internal system to persue and seek approval for any drugs that were abandoned and showed promise or any sibstances like marijuana which can be very beneficial medically but do not present the same profit potential or are a direct threat to manufactured drug companies. Maybe our healthcare sytem could reduce costs with less prescription drug use.
    Currently, as with marijuana, if a substance is not profitable it will not be made available to the general public since drug companies have 100% control, in conjuction with DEA and FDA or other compliance agencies.
    Currently, if a miracle cure comes along and a drug company can’t make a profit (to offset the high cost of regulatory approval, to some extent) then a drug will not be made available and that is were my idea of an internal department to persue those (drugs) solves the problem. It is basically just another system of checks and balances to prevent corruption.

  18. Of course they will not reschedule marijuana. The system is getting rich off of patients and dispensaries. And you pot heads would rise to places of power and decision making, God forbid that should happen you are addicts and criminals. A government for the people and by the people

  19. marijuana cures cancer. 314,605,113 x.41 (% cancer victims) x.70 (cancer curing %) = 90,291,644 lives. legalizing marijuana would save 90,291,644 lives. that’s like 10 holocausts.

  20. “and this issue of “standing” has been the Achilles heel of past lawsuits
    against Schedule I. However, Judge Garland asked at one point, “Don’t
    we have to defer to the agency? We’re not scientists. They are.” What gives Judge Garland the idea there are any scientists in the DEA?
    I still don’t see the issue of “standing” as a problem. That is just verbal BS. used to obfuscatethe ishue.

  21. Would not I qualify for ‘STANDING’ against the FDA in that I contracted Diabetes & worst of all Diabetic Neuropathic Gastroparesis (Paralyzed Stomach) by following Dr’s orders and taking my methadone daily for 10-12 years. I am now 100% methadone free, healthier and have gained back some lost weight. All thanks to Cannabis and Colorado. I still get sick about 4 times a year, it use to be every 3 weeks. But with cannabis I have an safe & effective way of controlling chronic nausea & vomiting. Of which the FDA has nothing, zero, zip! Ergo due to FDA rules my health was damaged by following Dr’s order’s who was following FDA’s order’s.

  22. That’s funny. Doesn’t America know satire anymore? I’ll bet Opinionated is a pot smoker. The “system” is all ready making construction real-estate, and management companies, rich building prisons. So he said “they are now getting rich off addicts and criminals by being patients and having dispensaries??? HA HA HA! That’s funny!

  23. The people must unite and stand against Federal Government. Has any one read their position on cannabis. By the same laws that outlawed it in 1937. You are a criminal and an addict. I refuse to be labelled by government. Rules are meant to be broken when principles apply. They have failed the people. And robbed them of their vote.

  24. These are Doctors who are protected, they are a front to gather a data base of users for Federal Government

  25. Thanks to medical marijuana i have been able to cut my intake of narcotic pain pills in half.The quality of my life has improved.For me it just takes a little bit is all i need

  26. I’m sure that coffee is the #1 drug in America. It also seems that pure caffeine and pure refined THC have similar lethal dose thresholds. Aside from this, cannabis extracts are approved medications in the UK and other countries.

  27. alcohol is the most widely used drug, to bad the people using/abusing alcohol

    dont even consider it a drug!

    ie: drugs and alcohol.

    I think they refer to it as the most “abused drug”

    its still another lie either way!

  28. state source? THC = no record of death
    Unless you quote the “mice” that were gas masked to death that died from lack of oxygen to the brain! And they still tote around that propaganda!

  29. and created a prison industrial complex for a profit, trading on WAll st.
    Jim Crow laws provide Fodder!
    Modern Day Slave Trading!

  30. If they would just PROPERLY reschedule this substance (I absolutely REFUSE to call it a “drug”…it’s a frickin’ PLANT…at BEST it’s an HERB) all of the problems surrounding it would end, at least IMHO. The states that have legalized for medical use will stop having their patients harassed by the feds and the states that have just legalized across the board can start collecting their taxes and showing the rest of the country that legalization is pretty much all upside, then the rest of the states can follow suit and the world can be a happy place (and lord knows the tax revenues combined with the law enforcement/incarceration savings would likely save the economy as well). LEGALIZE 4:2012!! :D

    I wonder how much longer it will be before we learn the ruling?? I just SO hope they do the right thing!!

  31. Unfortunately it’s not as simple as the DEA rescheduling MJ. The United States is a signatory to an international treaty (Single Convention on Drugs) that mandates MJ be classed as a schedule 1 narcotic. The United States Senate will have to get involved to fix that.

  32. Response to Judge Garland’s question should be “No, the DEA does not consist of scientists. In fact it has specifically filtered out all honest scientists. It consists of cops. As for the scientists at the HHS, they have admitted that cannabis has accepted medical uses.”

    Something to remember for the appeal.

Leave A Reply