Americans for Safe Access versus Drug Enforcement Agency

J9BLACK

J9BLACK

Active Member
www.safeaccessnow.org/article.php?id=7345

The countdown to making the government get it right continues. History will be made in 10 days.

Though, the ruling could take up to 200 days...I expect an early decision maybe even before the election. I don't even care that it would help Obama win...I want the win for ourselves.
 
CWinAZ

CWinAZ

Well-Known Member
"Medical marijuana patients are finally getting their day in court," said Joe Elford, Chief Counsel with Americans for Safe Access (ASA), who will be arguing the case before the D.C. Circuit. "What's at stake in this case is nothing less than our country's scientific integrity and the imminent needs of millions of patients."

Yes!!!! Shit gives me chills, because I feel we DO have scientific integrity in this country, if only once we can get past the red tape and propaganda. Too many people are wise to the lies now, and there are too many studies to deny the medical aspect. We all feel like lawyers and HR and Risk Management usually trump reason when it comes to corporations or government, but the thing they don't trump is facts. The truth is out about the things medical-grade weed and concentrates can do for those in pain and those who are sick with certain ailments.

Also, a silver lining for the Feds is this could be a big money-saving action ahead of the states who could be about to outright legalize. What I mean is hopefully the Feds would not be as pressured to enforce big-time and get all militaristic if weed stores and production facilities began being very common if they weren't producing Sched 1 stuff.

Any guesses where it ends up if it DOES get moves? 2? 3? Legal entirely? Lol yeah right but I can dream.

Somethings gotta give, and cannabis has given too much already. Can you tell I'm optimistic about this?? :joint:
 
J9BLACK

J9BLACK

Active Member
8 Days to go.

8 Days until the future is rewritten.

As for the past, if cannabis had NEVER been criminalized, our country would be completely different today--though, probably speaking German.
 
A

Azoned

Well-Known Member
The scientific evidence is in...it's just making the govt move. They have to admit to being wrong.
...and with the number of mmj states, there is a certain amt of pressure for the fed to change the position...
 
I

irieie

Well-Known Member
What are you guys talking about there are no double blind government funded clinical trials for cannabis at all, hence one of the reasons for rescheduling from schedule 1.
 
headtreep

headtreep

Well-Known Member
irieie said:
What are you guys talking about there are no double blind government funded clinical trials for cannabis at all, hence one of the reasons for rescheduling from schedule 1.
Click to expand...
Must lower the scheduling to conduct government testing. Most tests were done in the private sectors but we all know uncle sam knows whats really going on. It's all a big fuckin game in the end right?
 
KAL EL

KAL EL

Well-Known Member
Like snow in phoenix, it would be nice but aint gonna happen unless hell freezes over.
 
J9BLACK

J9BLACK

Active Member
TWO DAYS now before the future of the world is changed for the better. America will be reborn as the land of the free and we will be reunited as a people. It is the real dawn. The real Morning in America.

California led the nation with MMJ, and Colorado will lead the nation with legalization this coming election.

Can you think of a better thing to pray for this Sunday morning?
 
tumorhead

tumorhead

Well-Known Member
I dunno, it's been a year now since the Governor of WA petitioned the DEA to reschedule MJ so it could be sold in pharmacies after she vetoed legislation that would have let it be sold at state run liquor stores. And they just blew her off.

Then 42 fucking state lawmakers from WA, as well as governors of CO and RI also asked for the same thing and the DEA just ignores them.... http://www.komonews.com/news/local/42-state-lawmakers-ask-DEA-to-reclassify-marijuana-138333869.html

West coast needs to get some leverage against the feds, I mean the states love herb because of the revenue it generates, Seattle, Portland, San Fran all WANT to license herb and tax it.

also I blame religion for the extreme bias against cannabis. Nothing you can say or explain to those people will change their view of it.

We need to overgrow the gov by spreading seeds everywhere to the point it grows so thick they can't possibly eradicate it all.
 
J9BLACK

J9BLACK

Active Member
Ok, tomorrow is the big day. This has been such a looooooooong road for everyone involved from the first kid's life ruined by prohibition to Joe Elford as he stands tomorrow to present the scientific evidence to reschedule cannabis.

It may be a day or a year before we learn. But, the future changes tomorrow.
 
J9BLACK

J9BLACK

Active Member
From the ASA Blog:

This morning, the federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit heard an appeal in the case calledAmericans 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 have 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 filed by 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 the schedule. 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 would 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 areinapplicable 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 the 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. Descheduling or 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 the determinative 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 woudl 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.
 
J9BLACK

J9BLACK

Active Member
ASA is arguing that the DEA is ignoring not just scientific evidence but it's own scientific evidence. This is how "you" lose a case: "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.”

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top