| Forum | Shop | Market | ![]() |
Seeds | FAQ | Tools |
SEE OUR MARIJUANA SEED GUIDE FOR THE BEST STRAINS |
Looking for Legal Marijuana look no further! |
|||||
|
#1
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Has anyone been following this?
Drug Law Blog: DEA Accepts Petition To Consider Removing Marijuana From Schedule I I think it's important to get clarification, although I really think the law is clear on this. If you look at the two cases everyone cites, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), and United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001), the Supreme Court seems to be saying that Congress put marijuana into Schedule 1 and it can't be removed because Congress put it there. That argument is nonsense and could not possibly be what the Supreme Court intended to say. No one would suggest that marijuana cannot be rescheduled. In fact, several marijuana rescheduling petitions have been filed over the past 38 years since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted. The DEA has just accepted my petition to reschedule marijuana. If Congress had locked marijuana into Schedule I, the DEA would not have just now accepted my petition to reschedule it. It's obvious that marijuana can be rescheduled. If you look at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), it says “Initial schedules of controlled substances.” Then it goes on to require the amendment of the schedules: 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) (“transfer between such schedules”); 21 U.S.C. 811(b) (“remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules”). It's obvious that Congress didn't intend to reject rescheduling of marijuana simply because Congress initially put marijuana into Schedule I. So, the question is then: what triggers the rescheduling. In 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, answered that question. The court said there is no federal definition of accepted medical use, and that in the absence of such a defition, the court defers to the DEA's opinion. In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Supreme Court explained why there is no federal defintion of accepted medical use, saying that Congress never intended to occupy the field of medicine and the states determine accepted medical use. So, there actually is a federal definition of accepted medical use - whatever the states say it is. In 1991, there was no accepted medical use of marijuana, because the states did not start accepting medical use of marijuana by state statutes until 1996 (California and Arizona). So, today, there are 12 states that have accepted the medical use of marijuana. These laws are binding on the federal government and the DEA has no discretion in the matter. The DEA's opinion isn't relevant any more. I guess I should answer your question. Both state (Iowa) and federal law say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Although Iowa has the power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in Iowa, it cannot speak for the other states. As explained previously, the federal government has no power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Twelve states say it does have accepted medical use in treatment and that means "in the United States" as explained by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1987 in Grinspoon v. DEA. Iowans for Medical marijuana is part of a coalition of groups that filed a rescheduling (in 2002) which is still pending with the DEA: Marijuana Research: The Members of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis My current petition is different. My current petition is actually just a notice to let the DEA know they are in violation of federal law. There's nothing for them to do but obey federal law and remove marijuana from Schedule I now that it no longer fits the definition of a Schedule I substance. Congress gave the power to determine accepted medical practice to the states (see 21 U.S.C. 903) and not to the DEA. 21 U.S.C. 903 says clearly that Congress did not intent to occupy the field of medicine, and that's how the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted it in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). My current petition is purely a matter of law and fact. The law says the stated determine accepted medical use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the fact is that twelve states have determined that marijuana has accepted medical use. The DEA is in violation of federal law for maintaining marijuana in a schedule that says it has no accepted medical use in the United States. My petition merely gives them notice that they are in violation of federal law. The next step is federal court. Lengthy read, but interesting nonetheless.
__________________
One sec...I am trying to think of something clever... Got CFL? http://www.rollitup.org/cfl-growing/71259-cfl-sog.html |
|
#2
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Quote:
So your Carl? ~~TLB
__________________
Bagseed journal:http://www.rollitup.org/grow-journal...y-journey.html BB 'J!!!!! http://www.rollitup.org/grow-journal...berry-yum.html |
|
#3
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
NM I saw you copy/pasted it. . . . .Good site though!
~~TLB
__________________
Bagseed journal:http://www.rollitup.org/grow-journal...y-journey.html BB 'J!!!!! http://www.rollitup.org/grow-journal...berry-yum.html |
|
#4
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Yes, sorry for any confusion. I am not Carl. I posted the link, and then copied for those who would rather read it here. There is more as well...
Iowans for Medical Marijuana Apparently a notice has been served to the DEA to cease and desist. On August 11, 2008 the DEA was served Notice to Cease and Desist enforcement of fraudulent federal marijuana regulations within 30 days or further action will be taken.
__________________
One sec...I am trying to think of something clever... Got CFL? http://www.rollitup.org/cfl-growing/71259-cfl-sog.html |
|
#6
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
I will need to time to really chew on this, but usually if Congress enacts something (this time declares a substance to be rated at a particular Schedule), it usually requires Congress to change it. To my own mind it's rather like administrative types making medical decisions (insurance carriers), in other words, they have NO business making such decisions or distinctions. However, my opinion doesn't really change much in matters of fact.
|
|
#7
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Here's a good place to start chewing (as good as any!): US CODE: Title 21,812. Schedules of controlled substances
TITLE 21 > CHAPTER 13 > SUBCHAPTER I > Part B > § 812 Prev | Next § 812. Schedules of controlled substances (a) Establishment There are established five schedules of controlled substances, to be known as schedules I, II, III, IV, and V. Such schedules shall initially consist of the substances listed in this section. The schedules established by this section shall be updated and republished on a semiannual basis during the two-year period beginning one year after October 27, 1970, and shall be updated and republished on an annual basis thereafter. (b) Placement on schedules; findings required Except where control is required by United States obligations under an international treaty, convention, or protocol, in effect on October 27, 1970, and except in the case of an immediate precursor, a drug or other substance may not be placed in any schedule unless the findings required for such schedule are made with respect to such drug or other substance. The findings required for each of the schedules are as follows: (1) Schedule I.— (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) There is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision. (2) Schedule II.— (A) The drug or other substance has a high potential for abuse. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substances may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. (3) Schedule III.— (A) The drug or other substance has a potential for abuse less than the drugs or other substances in schedules I and II. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence. (4) Schedule IV.— (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule III. (5) Schedule V.— (A) The drug or other substance has a low potential for abuse relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. (B) The drug or other substance has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. (C) Abuse of the drug or other substance may lead to limited physical dependence or psychological dependence relative to the drugs or other substances in schedule IV. (c) Initial schedules of controlled substances Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V shall, unless and until amended [1] pursuant to section 811 of this title, consist of the following drugs or other substances, by whatever official name, common or usual name, chemical name, or brand name designated: (for post brevity I cut out the listed scheduled drugs, you can follow the first link for the full schedule listings) |
|
#8
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Basically what I gather from it is that at the time (Before Prop 215) there was no evidence to support a reschedule even though several attempts had been made.
Since there was no state approved Medical MJ, congress deferred to the DEA for scheduling recommendations. Now, there is proof that MJ has medicinal benefits both from the volume of states implementing MMJ and the fact that the government itself took out a patent on Cannabinoids. " The Dept. Of Health and Human Services actually holds a patent (#6.630.507) on the use of cannabinoids for the prevention and treatment of a wide variety of diseases including stroke, trauma, auto-immune disorders, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's and HIV dementia" The decision of rescheduling as indicated by U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1987 in Grinspoon v. DEA. should then lie with the state. The fact that there is a patent for cannabinoids should at the very least require a reschedule from I to II. Neither the DEA nor Congress are experts in the field of medicine and therefore should not have the sole authority to override medical research and medical doctor recommendations. That is why there is a process for rescheduling...in the event that more research and information is obtained to overturn preconceived notions about a substance.
__________________
One sec...I am trying to think of something clever... Got CFL? http://www.rollitup.org/cfl-growing/71259-cfl-sog.html Last edited by Tanuvan; 08-15-2008 at 11:16 AM.. Reason: typo |
|
#9
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
#10
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
If you get a chance, download and read the actual petition of the notice to cease and desist pdf. It is really succinct.
__________________
One sec...I am trying to think of something clever... Got CFL? http://www.rollitup.org/cfl-growing/71259-cfl-sog.html |
| Tags |
| dea, federal, law, scheduling, violation |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Thread |
Thread Starter |
Forum |
Replies |
Last Post |
| probation violation | kronik1023 | Toke N Talk | 33 | 08-26-2008 11:44 PM |
| What is Federal Jurisdiction? | Dankdude | Politics | 15 | 10-29-2007 12:57 PM |
| Federal Domestic Military | 7xstall | Politics | 8 | 10-18-2007 05:39 PM |
| Stopping federal raids? | CannaBoss | Medical Marijuana | 9 | 08-13-2007 12:31 PM |
| scheduling | PrettyHate | Outdoor Growing | 2 | 06-04-2007 12:24 PM |
Come Check out a new Poker Forum for the online poker community