:mad:
Marijuana stays Schedule I |
Appellate decision puts the ball in your court
January 22nd, 2013
Posted by Don Duncan http://safeaccessnow.org/blog/wp-con...ol-150x150.jpgThe US appellate court in Washington, DC, denied our appeal to reschedule cannabis under federal law today, agreeing with the Drug Enforcement Administration??s (DEA) position that ??adequate and well-controlled studies? on the medical efficacy of medical cannabis do not exist. Americans for Safe Access (ASA) strongly disagrees with the court??s opinion. Our briefs referenced two hundred peer-reviewed scientific studies proving the medical value of cannabis.
The Obama Administration keeps changing the definition of medical efficacy. Politics have trumped medical science on this issue. ASA can point to a research approval process for medical cannabis, controlled by the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA), which is unique, overly rigorous, and hinders meaningful therapeutic research. ASA argued in its appeal brief that the DEA has no ??license to apply different criteria to marijuana than to other drugs, ignore critical scientific data, misrepresent social science research, or rely upon unsubstantiated assumptions, as the DEA has done in this case.?
The decision in Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration is disappointing, but not the end of the road. ASA will seek an en banc review, asking all nine judges to review the two-to-one decision by a three-judge panel that heard oral arguments in October of last year. If the full nine-member panel does not reverse the decision, we will ask the US Supreme Court to hear the case. In the meantime, the ball is in your court. We must now turn to Congress to do what the courts have not. ASA is calling on patients and advocates to join us in Washington, DC, February 22-25, for our national conference and historic citizen lobby day.
The conference, called ??Bridging the Gap between Public and Policy,? is a chance to network with other activists from around the country, attend panels and workshops to improve your skills and increase your knowledge, and to engage in direct citizen-lobbying efforts in the halls of Congress on Monday, February 25. Our goals are to bring medical cannabis into the mainstream political conversation in the nation??s capitol and to send an army of motivated and empowered activists back home to work at the local and state level. The courts may not be ready to acknowledge that cannabis is medicine ?? but we are going to be sure Congress and the Obama Administration get the message. Do not miss your chance to be a part of it. Register for the conference today!
ASA??s national conference is sponsored by the International Association of Cannabinoid Medicines, Patients Out of Time, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Veterans for Medical Marijuana Access, the American Herbal Products Association, and Students for Sensible Drug Policy. Scholarships are made possible by a generous matching funds contribution from Dr. Bronner??s Magic Soap.
See you in Washington, DC!
Marijuana stays Schedule I |
Marijuana stays Schedule I
Posted by Bryce Crawford on Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 4:23 PM
http://www.csindy.com/binary/831d/13..._121570756.jpg
Finally, we may be reaching the end of a story we've been following for almost 18 months: the attempt by Americans for Safe Access, and related parties, to see marijuana rescheduled from its current status as a Schedule I substance, which has taken the group from a 2002 petition to a 2011 denial, to a subsequent lawsuit.
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington D.C. rejected ASA's argument that the Drug Enforcement Administration's "final order denying their request to initiate proceedings to reschedule marijuana was arbitrary and capricious," reads the judgment written by Judge Harry T. Edwards.
So, basically, ASA's request to reschedule the drug to Schedule III, IV or V was rejected. Then its lawsuit saying the rejection was illogical ?? and not taking into account research that's already out there regarding cannabis' medical benefits ?? was rejected by the court.
There was a small highlight early in the case, when ASA maneuvered around and narrowly kept its standing. Unfortunately, the outcome of the whole thing hinged on portraying the bureaucracy of the DEA in a certain negative light, which was always a longshot.
"Under the Administrative Procedure Act, a court may set aside an agency??s final decision only if it is 'arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,'" it reads. "We will not disturb the decision of an agency that has ??examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.'"
Here's the DEA's reasoning regarding one of its five conditions of rescheduling, that the substance have proven medical use.
"To establish accepted medical use, the effectiveness of a drug must be established in well-controlled, well designed, well-conducted, and well-documented scientific studies, including studies performed in a large number of patients," it wrote in its initial rejection of ASA's request. "To date, such studies have not been performed. The small clinical trial studies with limited patients and short duration are not sufficient to establish medical utility."
The court said that the DEA would only consider studies that were as rigorous as what the Food and Drug Administration would put new drug applicants through, and that just any "peer-reviewed" study would not be sufficient.
"To deny that sufficient evidence is lacking on the medical efficacy of marijuana is to ignore a mountain of well-documented studies that conclude otherwise," says Joe Elford, chief counsel with ASA, in a statement. "The Court has unfortunately agreed with the Obama Administration's unreasonably raised bar on what qualifies as an 'adequate and well-controlled' study, thereby continuing their game of 'Gotcha.'"
Regardless of where you stand on marijuana's medical benefits, it's not hard to see the DEA took its sweet time deciding the issue. ASA and others (called the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis) first filed their petition in 2002. Nine years later, in 2011, the DEA rejected it, after being sued for the first time, which was five years after it had received the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' opinion in 2006 that there was not enough proof of medical efficacy.
"The Obama Administration's legal efforts will keep marijuana out of reach for millions of qualified patients who would benefit from its use," says Elford, noting the group would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary. "It's time for President Obama to change his harmful policy with regard to medical marijuana and treat this as a public health issue, something entirely within the capability and authority of the executive office."
Americans for Safe Access v. DEA by Mike Riggs: the text of the case is after this, in the link.
