Marijuana Legalization Struggles: The Ridiculous Rule That's Preventing It

[Truth Seeker]

In what feels like an all-too-familiar outcome, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled this Tuesday that marijuana will continue to be recognized as a Schedule I drug, meaning highly dangerous and with no accepted medical uses, following a decade-long struggle to reclassify it. The court ruled that the Drug Enforcement Administration was justified in denying the initial petition for rescheduling.

The DEA's reasoning? There's insufficient research to merit approval by the Food and Drug Administration, a position that places marijuana policy reform in what Drug Policy Alliance senior staff attorney Todd Tamar is aptly calling "a Catch-22."

"The DEA is saying that marijuana needs FDA approval to be removed from Schedule I," she said, "but at the same time they are obstructing that very research."

The petition, filed by Americans for Safe Access (ASA) and other advocacy groups back in 2002, was rejected by the DEA in 2011, nine years after the original filing. The DEA maintained that marijuana had not been sufficiently established as medically effective in "well-controlled, well-designed, well-conducted and well-documented scientific studies" – a statement backed by a 2006 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Joe Elford, chief counsel for ASA, questioned the DEA's meaning of the word "well," affirming that the DEA has overlooked a "mountain of well-documented studies" that prove marijuana's medicinal merits.

"The Court has unfortunately agreed with the Obama Administration's unreasonably raised bar on what qualifies as an 'adequate and well-controlled' study," Elford commented, "thereby continuing their game of 'Gotcha.'"

Following the 2011 rejection, the ASA pioneered the legal coalition to sue the DEA, asserting their position as "arbitrary and capricious." In the end, it was that legal language which received the most questioning from the court, which attested that the DEA provided a sound argument and that, although there exists medical research widely pointing to marijuana's medicinal properties, there was no legal merit in the appeal itself.

Elford argued the suit's standing in court by citing the case of Michael Krawitz, a U.S. veteran who was denied services by the Veterans Administration due to his need for medical marijuana, a policy directly influenced by the drug's Schedule I status. Judge Harry Edwards, who wrote the final ruling for the appeal, questioned the efficacy of rescheduling marijuana in relation to Krawitz's, since reschedule wouldn't necessarily affect its legality by state. This, once again, highlights the legal vicious circle that systematically limits marijuana from decriminalization. Judge Edwards states that marijuana cannot be rescheduled because doing so won't ultimately affect its legal standing in a given state, but, at the same time, states are hesitant to seriously tackle the legality debate because of its current federal scheduling.

Another cog in the wheel is the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), an organization that holds the national monopoly on DEA-approved marijuana. The NIDA seems non-biased enough; except for statements by its spokeswoman Shirley Simson declaring that "[the NIDA's] focus is primarily on the negative consequences of marijuana use." She continued, "We generally do not fund research focused on the potential medical effects of marijuana." With such explicit disdain for marijuana, researchers stand little to no chance at obtaining much objectivity in their studies.

Meanwhile, if it's LSD, ecstasy, or heroin that needs researching, scientists have a free market riddled with different suppliers, all provided as options by the DEA, according to Rick Doblin, founder of the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies (MAPS).

In 2007, DEA Administrative Law Judge Mary Ellen Blittner ruled that private growing of marijuana for research was a matter of public interest. Michelle Leonhart, administrator for the DEA, rejected the ruling, citing (as you most probably guessed) research done by the NIDA and HHA.

With all odds almost methodically placed against comprehensible marijuana research, advocates' efforts continue, according to ASA executive director Steph Sherer. "We're disappointed, but not surprised," she said. "... we are also turning our attention to Congress. It is time we had a conversation about marijuana at the federal level."

But the question remains, is the federal government capable or even willing to have that conversation? Is there a way out of the vicious circle?

News Hawk- TruthSeekr420 420 MAGAZINE
Source: policymic.com
Author: Gary Bryan
Contact: https://www.policymic.com/info/contact
Website: Marijuana Legalization Struggles: The Ridiculous Rule That's Preventing It From Happening

 

[Blue Planet Nutrients]

I have praying that Obama will at least reschedule cannabis. That would be a major victory for us and a HUGE step in the right direction. Cannabis IS medicine and it is time that the federal government recognizes this.

 

[sHEMP]

What about the studies on the negative effects of alcohol and cigarettes? The NIDA must know that they are bad for you, with absolutely no medicinal value, except alcohol if you drink yourself into a stupor. They simply ignore it because it has been around forever. They ignore the thousands of deaths alcohol and cigarettes cause every year. They ignore that there is no confirmed case of a death caused by Marijuana, or at least I've never heard of it. If there were anyway, it would only be a handful at the most over all those years. I just don't get the denial, the narrow-mindedness, and their ability to turn their backs on people with a voice to be heard and make it difficult for them. The DEA and the NIDA know that if Marijuana is legalized or at least reclassified, it would mean less funding for them. The DEA for sure, maybe the NIDA too, not sure. We'll keep fighting! Thanks for all you guys do!

 

[wrinklHorn]

If the Dept. of Justice intends to shut down both states, they'll probably use the argument that federal law trumps state law. They won't attack the individual states. That would be more work to invalidate each separate state's laws.

A discussion panel hosted by the Brookings Institute and the Washington Office on Latin America was broadcast on CSPAN on January 8, 2013. A panel member, Michael Greve, professor at George Mason University School of Law, brought up a good point that when this issue of state law conflicting with federal law becomes more focused, it will be very divisive. He was in favor of states having soveriegnity over their laws and people. Another panel member, Angela Hawken, professor of Public Policy at Pepperdine University, said that the world needs to let these laws happen as an experiment to understand the problems involved with cannabis legalization. Bravo!

The federal law placing cannabis on the Schedule I list will have to change and soon. Politicians won't do it. Government bureaucrats won't do it. The President won't do it. But the people of Colorado and Washington, through their own initiative processes, legalized cannabis. That's the start. More states need to do the same.

Two fundamental differences between Colorado's legalization laws and Washington's are the personal growing and the DUI issues. I think Colorado will have a tougher time, than Washington, convincing the rest of the world that their laws are viable. Washington may be the only state that might get the opportunity to try legalized cannabis.

Same as the repeal of alcohol prohibition, our nation as a whole, will probably have to change the constitution in order to get cannabis legalized.

 

[Blue Planet Nutrients]

Re-scheduling Cannabis is the key imho. I don't think that changes to the constitution are necessary but in a more perfect United States, The Constitution would be amended for the 28th time to clearly state that US citizens have the right to consume cannabis and that all states must allow manufacture, importation, and exportation of cannabis. Really, We, The People, should have the god given right to decide what we put or don't put inside of our bodies, regardless of the substance. Of course this world is not perfect. I am just praying for "baby steps" to be taken in the right direction. The federal government just needs to start adhering to the verbiage of The Constitution. The "Bill of Rights" was designed to "protect our natural rights of liberty" which has a VERY clear interpretation to me. And, to put it bluntly, we are all getting our eyeballs screwed out in my opinion.

What Colorado and Washington did was very clearly demonstrate that democracy works and the will of the people will prevail regardless. This has been a long fight and it is not even close to being over.

Back to re-scheduing cannabis....that is our backdoor. If we can just pry it open a bit, the kinetic energy behind it will throw it open and it won't be able to be shut again.

On another note, even my home state of Texas currently has a bill recently introduced (House Bill 184) that seeks to amend minor marijuana possession penalties to a fine-only. "Baby Steps" in the right direction is what is going to take to win this war. Battles are being fought and won constantly in our favor.

Don't even get me started on the 2nd amendment guys lol ....