Roachclip
New Member
The drug policy reform community is woefully ignorant about the federal rescheduling process. As a result patients, the public, and activists have all been misled about the actual mechanisms by which medical marijuana must be approved by the federal government.
Advocates have a responsibility to know what they are talking about. In this area it is a responsibility to know about the legal mechanisms of the scheduling process, and to educate the public about them. (Details of the federal rescheduling process can be found in the U.S. Code - the legal citation is 21 USC 811.)
It is true that state initiatives can put pressure on the federal government to take steps to expedite the availability of medical marijuana. It is misleading, though, to talk about legalizing medical marijuana by way of state initiatives, as many advocates do. It is one thing for states to decide, by legislative process, initiative, or prosecutorial discretion, not to subject patients who use medical marijuana to criminal sanctions. Such action is justified on several grounds - most particularly recognition that patients who use cannabis medically do not do so with criminal intent. However such action at the state level does not in any way legalize medical marijuana use, and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise state laws of this kind in no way over-ride the federal laws about the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of cannabis as a controlled substance.
It is also misleading to imply, as many advocates do, that the federal government can reschedule marijuana by way of a presidential order. Indeed that sort of arbitrary use of power is exactly what the rescheduling process is designed to prevent and protect against. Advocates frequently imply that state level medical cannabis reform will pressure the federal government into rescheduling cannabis without paying any attention to just how the government would be able to do so. State level reform in this area does put pressure on the government to reschedule; however the only way the federal government is authorized by Congress to reschedule cannabis is through use of the rescheduling process laid out in the Controlled Substances Act. Under their strategy we are supposed to spend several years passing state-level reform, and then wait several more years in the distant future for the government to conduct rescheduling proceedings.
Interestingly the most prominent national advocates of using state level initiatives to pressure the federal government into rescheduling cannabis declined to support the cannabis rescheduling petition filed by this writer and High Times in 1995. Had these advocacy organizations supported the 1995 effort marijuana may have already been rescheduled today. The 1995 petition ran into a roadblock that prevented judicial review by the federal courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners (this writer and High Times) were not sufficiently harmed by DEA's refusal to reschedule to gain access to the federal courts. The involvement of more individuals and organizations would have made a difference in this prior action, and a coalition of patient advocacy groups joined with the prior petitioners to launch a new rescheduling action in 2002.
Advocacy groups that tell the public that winning the battle over medical marijuana will result in the end of marijuana prohibition are not only misleading but incompetent. They are misleading because the rescheduling of marijuana will only address medical access to cannabis, and for that matter rescheduling only addresses the regulatory framework necessary to expedite the investment, research, and Food and Drug Administration approval required to make cannabis available as medicine. Not only does the rescheduling process take several years at best, the follow-up steps required to gain approval of specific cannabis medical products will take several more years after that. None of these developments will have much affect, if any, on the arrest of individuals for cannabis use. For most cannabis users marijuana prohibition will continue if and after medical cannabis has been approved. Consequently advocating such positions is not only misleading but incompetent, because advocates of public policy positions ought to take the time to know what they are talking about - advocates of reforming the marijuana laws ought to know how those laws can be reformed. Anything else is demagoguery, a blatantly self-serving appeal to public emotion used as a source for political power and personal financial gain.
State level reform on medical marijuana should be pursued vigorously; however national groups seeking to exploit these local efforts to advance their national agendas should be more honest about the significance of local reform. Misleading rhetoric harms the movement far beyond the short term gains it provides in media exposure and fundraising. It detracts from other reform efforts and priorities, such as working to reduce arrests for marijuana possession as well as attempts to build support for the rescheduling at the federal level. It also risks tremendous backlash from supporters who will eventually realize they have been misled, manipulated, and exploited.
However there is a connection between medical marijuana reform and reducing if not ending arrests for marijuana related offenses. The connection is that the scientific basis for both policies is the same. However unlike state level reform the federal rescheduling process provides a mechanism for a thorough review of all the scientific evidence relevant to the cannabis issue. A breakthrough at the federal level will certify formidable scientific evidence that cannabis is not the drug many people fear it is, and can have a tremendous impact on public and political attitudes about the wider cannabis reform. For this reason rescheduling at the federal level, unlike state level medical marijuana reform, provides not only a tremendous opportunity for public education but also will make a significant contribution to ending the wider prohibition on marijuana use. In other words, federal rescheduling can actually deliver what some national advocacy groups can only vaguely promise.
It is counter productive to imply to patients, activists, and the public that all that is needed to reschedule cannabis are more state-level initiatives. In fact it is an outright lie. There are plenty of reasons to support state-level reform without lying to the public about how the federal status of marijuana can be changed. When the federal government decides it wants to reschedule cannabis they will have to use the rescheduling process of the Controlled Substances Act. Some advocacy groups are content to press on with their current strategies and just wait for the federal government to reschedule cannabis at some distant point in the future. However many locally based patient advocacy groups, joined by NORML, this writer, and High Times, are not content to wait for the federal government to reschedule cannabis at their leisure and seek to compel rescheduling as soon as possible. That is the purpose of the current rescheduling petition - to use the actual mechanism provided by law to both compel rescheduling now, to educate the public on how current law requires that cannabis be made medically available to patients in need, and to provide a much needed boost to efforts to end marijuana prohibition not just for patients in need but for all Americans.
Author's Note: The opinions expressed in this column are the solely the author's and in no way meant to represent the opinions or positions of High Times, any organization, coalition, or other individuals.
Jon Gettman is a long time contributor to HIGH TIMES. A former National Director of NORML, Jon has a Ph.D. in public policy and regional economic development and consults with attorneys, advocates, and non-profits on cannabis related research and public policy issues. On October 8, 2002, along with a coalition of organizations, he filed a new petition to have cannabis rescheduled under federal law.
www.drugsense.org
By Jon Gettman
DrugSense Weekly, Aug 06, 2004 #361
Advocates have a responsibility to know what they are talking about. In this area it is a responsibility to know about the legal mechanisms of the scheduling process, and to educate the public about them. (Details of the federal rescheduling process can be found in the U.S. Code - the legal citation is 21 USC 811.)
It is true that state initiatives can put pressure on the federal government to take steps to expedite the availability of medical marijuana. It is misleading, though, to talk about legalizing medical marijuana by way of state initiatives, as many advocates do. It is one thing for states to decide, by legislative process, initiative, or prosecutorial discretion, not to subject patients who use medical marijuana to criminal sanctions. Such action is justified on several grounds - most particularly recognition that patients who use cannabis medically do not do so with criminal intent. However such action at the state level does not in any way legalize medical marijuana use, and until the Supreme Court rules otherwise state laws of this kind in no way over-ride the federal laws about the manufacture, distribution, sale and use of cannabis as a controlled substance.
It is also misleading to imply, as many advocates do, that the federal government can reschedule marijuana by way of a presidential order. Indeed that sort of arbitrary use of power is exactly what the rescheduling process is designed to prevent and protect against. Advocates frequently imply that state level medical cannabis reform will pressure the federal government into rescheduling cannabis without paying any attention to just how the government would be able to do so. State level reform in this area does put pressure on the government to reschedule; however the only way the federal government is authorized by Congress to reschedule cannabis is through use of the rescheduling process laid out in the Controlled Substances Act. Under their strategy we are supposed to spend several years passing state-level reform, and then wait several more years in the distant future for the government to conduct rescheduling proceedings.
Interestingly the most prominent national advocates of using state level initiatives to pressure the federal government into rescheduling cannabis declined to support the cannabis rescheduling petition filed by this writer and High Times in 1995. Had these advocacy organizations supported the 1995 effort marijuana may have already been rescheduled today. The 1995 petition ran into a roadblock that prevented judicial review by the federal courts. The U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners (this writer and High Times) were not sufficiently harmed by DEA's refusal to reschedule to gain access to the federal courts. The involvement of more individuals and organizations would have made a difference in this prior action, and a coalition of patient advocacy groups joined with the prior petitioners to launch a new rescheduling action in 2002.
Advocacy groups that tell the public that winning the battle over medical marijuana will result in the end of marijuana prohibition are not only misleading but incompetent. They are misleading because the rescheduling of marijuana will only address medical access to cannabis, and for that matter rescheduling only addresses the regulatory framework necessary to expedite the investment, research, and Food and Drug Administration approval required to make cannabis available as medicine. Not only does the rescheduling process take several years at best, the follow-up steps required to gain approval of specific cannabis medical products will take several more years after that. None of these developments will have much affect, if any, on the arrest of individuals for cannabis use. For most cannabis users marijuana prohibition will continue if and after medical cannabis has been approved. Consequently advocating such positions is not only misleading but incompetent, because advocates of public policy positions ought to take the time to know what they are talking about - advocates of reforming the marijuana laws ought to know how those laws can be reformed. Anything else is demagoguery, a blatantly self-serving appeal to public emotion used as a source for political power and personal financial gain.
State level reform on medical marijuana should be pursued vigorously; however national groups seeking to exploit these local efforts to advance their national agendas should be more honest about the significance of local reform. Misleading rhetoric harms the movement far beyond the short term gains it provides in media exposure and fundraising. It detracts from other reform efforts and priorities, such as working to reduce arrests for marijuana possession as well as attempts to build support for the rescheduling at the federal level. It also risks tremendous backlash from supporters who will eventually realize they have been misled, manipulated, and exploited.
However there is a connection between medical marijuana reform and reducing if not ending arrests for marijuana related offenses. The connection is that the scientific basis for both policies is the same. However unlike state level reform the federal rescheduling process provides a mechanism for a thorough review of all the scientific evidence relevant to the cannabis issue. A breakthrough at the federal level will certify formidable scientific evidence that cannabis is not the drug many people fear it is, and can have a tremendous impact on public and political attitudes about the wider cannabis reform. For this reason rescheduling at the federal level, unlike state level medical marijuana reform, provides not only a tremendous opportunity for public education but also will make a significant contribution to ending the wider prohibition on marijuana use. In other words, federal rescheduling can actually deliver what some national advocacy groups can only vaguely promise.
It is counter productive to imply to patients, activists, and the public that all that is needed to reschedule cannabis are more state-level initiatives. In fact it is an outright lie. There are plenty of reasons to support state-level reform without lying to the public about how the federal status of marijuana can be changed. When the federal government decides it wants to reschedule cannabis they will have to use the rescheduling process of the Controlled Substances Act. Some advocacy groups are content to press on with their current strategies and just wait for the federal government to reschedule cannabis at some distant point in the future. However many locally based patient advocacy groups, joined by NORML, this writer, and High Times, are not content to wait for the federal government to reschedule cannabis at their leisure and seek to compel rescheduling as soon as possible. That is the purpose of the current rescheduling petition - to use the actual mechanism provided by law to both compel rescheduling now, to educate the public on how current law requires that cannabis be made medically available to patients in need, and to provide a much needed boost to efforts to end marijuana prohibition not just for patients in need but for all Americans.
Author's Note: The opinions expressed in this column are the solely the author's and in no way meant to represent the opinions or positions of High Times, any organization, coalition, or other individuals.
Jon Gettman is a long time contributor to HIGH TIMES. A former National Director of NORML, Jon has a Ph.D. in public policy and regional economic development and consults with attorneys, advocates, and non-profits on cannabis related research and public policy issues. On October 8, 2002, along with a coalition of organizations, he filed a new petition to have cannabis rescheduled under federal law.
www.drugsense.org
By Jon Gettman
DrugSense Weekly, Aug 06, 2004 #361
