Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Headed to Federal Court to Challenge Schedule I Status

[StayHigh149]

thk u rives. Found it...wow, a whole 15 minutes per side for oral arguments...

Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:30 A.M. Courtroom 11 - Judges Henderson, Garland, Edwards
12-5142 Gang Luan v. USA 10 minutes per side
11-7078 Vernon Earle v. DC 15 minutes per side
11-1265 Americans for Safe Access v. DEA 15 minutes per side

 

[StayHigh149]

Judges info & contact # for 2 of them:

HARRY T. EDWARDS
(202) 216-7380

Judge Edwards was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals in February 1980, served as Chief Judge from September 15, 1994, until July 15, 2001, and took senior status on November 3, 2005. He graduated from Cornell University in 1962 and the University of Michigan Law School in 1965. Judge Edwards went into private practice with Seyfarth, Shaw, Fairweather & Geraldson in Chicago from 1965 to 1970. He then moved to the academy and was a tenured member of the faculties at the University of Michigan Law School, where he taught from 1970 to 1975 and 1977 to 1980, and at Harvard Law School, where he taught from 1975 to 1977. He also taught at the Harvard Institute for Educational Management between 1976 and 1982. He served as a member and then Chairman of the Board of Directors of AMTRAK from 1978 to 1980, and also served as a neutral labor arbitrator under a number of major collective bargaining agreements during the 1970s. In 2006, he was appointed the Co-Chair of the Forensics Science Project established by the National Academy of Science (Committee on Science, Technology, and Law). Judge Edwards has co-authored five books and published scores of law review articles on federal courts, legal education, professionalism, judicial administration, labor law, equal opportunity, and higher education law. His most recent book, Edwards & Elliott, Federal Courts - Standards of Review: Appellate Court Review of District Court Decisions and Agency Actions, was published by Thomson/West in 2007. Since joining the court, he has taught law at Harvard, Michigan, Duke, Pennsylvania, Georgetown, and NYU School of Law. He is presently a Visiting Professor at NYU School of Law, where he has taught since 1990.

Recent paper: "The NAS Report on Forensic Science - What it Means for the Bench & Bar" (May 6, 2010)


KAREN LECRAFT HENDERSON

Judge Henderson was appointed United States Circuit Judge in July 1990. She received her undergraduate degree from Duke University and her law degree from the University of North Carolina. Following law school, she was in private practice in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. From 1973 to 1983, she was with the Office of the South Carolina Attorney General, ultimately in the position of Deputy Attorney General. In 1983, she returned to private practice as a member of the firm of Sinkler, Gibbs & Simons of Charleston and Columbia, South Carolina. In June 1986, Judge Henderson was appointed United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina where she served until her appointment to the D.C. Circuit.


MERRICK B. GARLAND
(202) 216-7460

Judge Garland was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals in April 1997. He graduated from Harvard College (summa cum laude) in 1974 and Harvard Law School (magna cum laude) in 1977. Following graduation, he served as law clerk to Judge Henry J. Friendly of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. From 1979 to 1981, he was Special Assistant to the Attorney General of the United States. He then joined the law firm of Arnold & Porter, where he was a partner from 1985 to 1989 and from 1992 to 1993. He served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia from 1989 to 1992, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice from 1993 to 1994. From 1994 until his appointment as U.S. Circuit Judge, Judge Garland served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General, where his responsibilities included the supervision of the Oklahoma City bombing and UNABOM prosecutions. He has taught antitrust law at Harvard Law School and has served as co-chair of the administrative law section of the District of Columbia Bar.

 

[LouDog420]

Bumpity bump, interested to hear how the first day went!!

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

what happened, what happened , whats the haps!!!!!

 

[Stondestmanaliv]

Go Get`em Colorado!

We in Butte County / Chico Cali, recently defeated a fucking worthless law which would restrict outdoor herb to land plots more than a few acres. This would have eliminated the back-yard hobbyist and empowered the mega-growers with 50+ acres who could legally grow 99.. COMPLETELY FUCKING WORTHLESS!!! It`s obvious organized crime is over-the-top here in Butte County.

 

[Wise]

Check safeaccessnow on Facebook for updates

Latest update from their blog:

This morning, the federal Appeals Court for the DC Circuit heard an appeal in the case called Americans 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 would 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.

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

Thanx for the info......

 

[Wise]

I posted the latest blog post from their website, safeaccessnow.org.

 

[supermanlives]

hope for the best expect the same.

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

slow an steady....

 

[vta]

Just ran across this summery...

Marijuana Backers Ask Judges for Less Regulation

By Tom Schoenberg
Source: Bloomberg.com

medical Washington, D.C. -- The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ignored research showing marijuana had legitimate medical uses when it rejected efforts to reclassify the drug as a less harmful substance last year, a lawyer for medical marijuana backers told a federal appeals court.

Joseph Elford, a lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, asked a three-judge panel in Washington today to order the DEA to reconsider its decision to keep marijuana a Schedule I narcotic, saying the agency’s ruling that there are no scientific studies finding an acceptable medical use was arbitrary and capricious.

“There are over 200 studies that are adequate and well- controlled studies,” Elford told the judges.

The case involves an 10-year-old petition from medical marijuana advocates who asked the DEA to reclassify marijuana as a Schedule III, IV or V drug, which would allow for looser regulation. On June 21, 2011, the DEA rejected the request, stating that existing clinical evidence wasn’t adequate to warrant reclassification.

The judges questioned whether the medical marijuana patients and the advocacy group had the authority to challenge the DEA’s decision. U.S. Circuit Judge Merrick Garland said the court has limited authority to review it as long as the agency made a proper showing of support for it.

“I’m trying to figure out what our standard of review is,” Garland asked a lawyer for the Justice Department. “Is there evidence to support the administration’s position that there is no substantial evidence? That sounds funny.”

Lena Watkins, a lawyer for the Justice Department, said the studies cited by the marijuana proponents were rejected because the research didn’t meet government standards. She said about 15 studies meet the standards, though the government doesn’t have the final results yet.

The case is Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 11-1265, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (Washington).

 

[KSP]

Looks like the academic community sets the standard for acceptance of research. I guess the the Justice Dept. knows more about scientific research than qualified scientists.

Thanks VTA

 

[village green]

Looks like the academic community sets the standard for acceptance of research. I guess the the Justice Dept. knows more about scientific research than qualified scientists.

Thanks VTA

I fervently hope the genie's out of the bottle but this era we're in seems eerily familiar to the last time we felt all guilty over a war and government authority was at a low point. Still remember those great High Times articles in the 1970s which exposed how policy positions colored research through the NIDA.

 

[Wise]

I fervently hope the genie's out of the bottle but this era we're in seems eerily familiar to the last time we felt all guilty over a war and government authority was at a low point. Still remember those great High Times articles in the 1970s which exposed how policy positions colored research through the NIDA.

Meanwhile, I can't smoke the herb or I lose my job!

 

[supermanlives]

i quit my job ,sold my farm and moved to cali. well i kept 5 acres deeded seperately lol. now i am legit last time cops were here i was smokin a j and they saw my grow. had to leave empty handed without my dog being shot either. hellllll yyyyyyaaaaaaa

 

[crazybear]

We can hope that the herb we need will be free, but I fear it will be worse !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Wise]

DC Circuit Orders Supplemental Briefing in Federal Landmark Medical Marijuana Case
October 17th, 2012
Posted by Joe Elford

Just hours after the U.S. Court of Appeal for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in the federal landmark case Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, the court ordered supplemental briefing on the issue of “standing.” In a rare move for a case that has been covered by the Associated Press, Reuters, CNN, Bloomberg News, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Huffington Post, and others, the request for additional briefing indicates that the court is taking the issue of medical marijuana very seriously.

Yesterday’s order asks the petitioners to provide the court with details about how plaintiff Michael Krawitz, a U.S. Air Force veteran, sustained harm as a result of the federal government’s refusal to recognize the therapeutic value of marijuana. During yesterday’s oral arguments, Americans for Safe Access (ASA) Chief Counsel Joe Elford argued that Krawitz had been denied medical services and treatment from Veterans Administration physicians because of his status as a medical marijuana patient.

Specifically, the court ordered ASA to file a brief not to exceed five pages in order to “clarify and amplify the assertions made [by] Michael Krawitz regarding his individual standing,” and “more fully explain precisely the nature of the injury that gives him standing.” The brief is due by Monday.

If ASA can reasonably show that Krawitz has been harmed by a federal policy that holds marijuana has no medical value, the country’s largest medical marijuana advocacy group may also get the court to rule on the merits of the case — whether the scientific evidence of medical efficacy is ample enough to reclassify marijuana from its current status as a Schedule I substance.

We remain hopeful that the science on medical marijuana will prevail over politics in order to overcome the decades-long effort by the federal government to keep marijuana out of the reach of millions of Americans who would benefit from its use.

 

[Arthritis_sucks]

YESSSSSSSSSSSS! This is monumental!

 

[Stonefree69]

Looks like a good day in court.

 

[StayHigh149]

I can say that if ur a vet & currently live in a non-med state & are seen at the pain management clinic at a VA hospital.....they will not prescribe any medications to u if u test positive for mj use on a urinalysis. In many cases the pain management clinic will no longer treat u at all. U actually have to sign paperwork that basically agrees to those conditions

There was a VA directive letter that said, if ur in a med state, they are supposed to not refuse any services due to a positive piss test for mj.

Michael Krawitz....I salute u!!