# Have You Guys Seen This Yet!



## medical4de (Aug 22, 2007)

OK this is a long text but worth the read
here is the full link if you want to read it there
MAPS' efforts to establish a medical marijuana production facility

the other interesting part is this pettition going around capitol hill in the US
write your senator
check out this link.. and please contact your senator
this could be the hope we were waiting for
MAPS: DEA Lawsuit Supporting Prof. Craker's Proposed UMass Amherst Marijuana Production Facility


Background
MAPS, in association with Prof. Lyle Craker, Director, Medicinal Plant Program, UMass Amherst Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, is in the midst of the process of seeking DEA permission to establish a medical marijuana production facility to grow high-potency marijuana for FDA-approved research. MAPS recently completed a congressional sign-on letter campaign, gathering signatures from 38 members of Congress (36 Democrats and 2 Republicans) for a letter to DEA Administrator Karen Tandy expressing support for the proposed UMASS-Amherst medical marijuana production facility. 
At present, the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) has a monopoly on the supply of marijuana that can be used in research, seriously hindering medical marijuana research. NIDA provides inferior, low-potency marijuana to researchers whose protocols it approves and denies marijuana even to FDA-approved protocols it doesn't approve, preventing those studies from taking place. 
No privately-funded sponsor (such as MAPS or alternatively a for-profit pharmaceutical company) will invest significant sums in a realistic drug development research program aimed at obtaining FDA-approval for the prescription use of marijuana without first obtaining its own independent source of supply of a drug whose quality, price and availability it determines. As far as we can tell, there has been no US-based privately-funded marijuana production facility since 1942, when marijuana was removed from the US Pharmacopoeia and its medical use was prohibited. 
Dr. Lyle Craker originally submitted the application for a license to DEA in June 2001. In December 2001, DEA claimed it was lost. We subsequently resubmitted a photocopy but were told in February 2002 that the photocopied application was invalid since it didn't have an original signature. In July 2002, the original application was returned, unprocessed, with a DEA date stamp showing it had been received in June 2001. Dr. Craker resubmitted the original application to DEA on August 20, 2002, which DEA finally acknowledged receiving. 
MAPS has worked with the Marijuana Policy Project on a Congressional sign-on letter to the DEA expressing support for the UMass Amherst license. This letter was submitted to DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson on June 6, 2002. 
DEA Administrator Asa Hutchinson responded in a letter to Rep. Barney Frank on July 1, 2002. DEA has questioned whether this new facility would be in the public interest, since NIDA currently grows marijuana for research. 
In response, MAPS has written a document explaining why it would be in the public interest for DEA to grant a license for the UMass Amherst facility, and submitted the document to DEA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) and NIDA. 
The DEA has also indicated that granting such a license might conflict with US international treaty obligations, specifically the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs. 
MAPS has worked with Graham Boyd of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project and Peter Barton Hutt and Alexei Silverman, of the DC law firm Covington & Burling, on the development of a legal document detailing why US international treaty obligations do not prevent the licensing of the UMass Amherst facility. 
This legal analysis was submitted to the DEA along with Prof. Craker's August 20, 2002 resubmission of his license application, along with a response to a series of questions from DEA about the bulk manufacturing purposes and processes. 
On July 24, 2003, DEA finally filed a notice in the Federal Register about Prof. Craker's application, with a public comment period ending on September 23, 2003. MAPS obtained a copy through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of the only comment filed. The comment by Prof. Mahmoud ElSohly, the director of NIDA's marijuana farm at the University of Mississippi objected to the licensing on grounds that MAPS has challenged in MAPS' response letter to the Administrator of the DEA. On October 23, 2003, Senators Kennedy and Kerry wrote a letter to the Administrator of the DEA expressing their strong support for DEA licensing of the facility. On November 18, 2003, the Boston NPR station aired an almost nine minute story by reporter Rachel Gotbaum about MAPS' UMass Amherst and vaporizer research projects. We had expected DEA to either approve or reject Prof. Craker's application sometime before the end of 2003 but that hasn't occurred yet as DEA is once again choosing to delay any decision as long as possible. 
On July 21, 2004, MAPS, Prof. Craker and Valerie Corral filed lawsuits against DEA and also against HHS/NIH/NIDA for obstructing medical marijuana research. On July 29, 2004, MAPS filed a motion to consolidate the lawsuit against the DEA and the lawsuit against HHS, NIH and NIDA. 
On October 13, 2004, MAPS and MPP filed our amicus curiae brief in the US Supreme Court in the Ashcroft v. Raich medical marijuana case. The brief describes the political obstruction of MAPS' efforts to conduct FDA-approved medical marijuana research and DEA's lack of response to Prof. Craker's application for a license to establish a medical marijuana production facility. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for November 29, 2004. 
On November 22, 2004, the Court required DEA to respond by December 22, 2004 to the portion of our lawsuit against DEA about the UMass Amherst marijuana production facility. This is a positive development in that DEA can no longer just delay and not have to explain why. 
On December 3, 2004, MAPS mailed petitions for reconsideration to the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, asking again for the Court to pressure HHS and DEA for not responding in 17 ½ months to our applications to purchase 10 grams and import 10 grams, respectively, in both cases for marijuana vaporizer research. 

I know its alot to digest.. but i think its the best thing ive seen in a long time

Medical 4 DE


----------

