Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

ASA Audiotape of teleconference briefing for Oct 16th.

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by Windex83, Oct 6, 2012.

  1. Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Reviewing Scientific Evidence Reaches Federal Court for First Time in Nearly 20 Years
    Audiotape of teleconference briefing with researchers, legal counsel and lawsuit plaintiff now available.
    43 mins.

    ASA : Medical Marijuana Lawsuit Reviewing Scientific Evidence Reaches Federal Court for First Time in Nearly 20 Years <--- Audio


    "Washington, D.C. -- For the first time in nearly 20 years, a United States Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments in a lawsuit challenging the federal government's classification of marijuana as a dangerous drug with no medicinal value: Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration. This historic case will force a federal court to finally review the scientific evidence regarding the therapeutic efficacy of marijuana.

    During a press briefing Thursday, plaintiffs in the case, along with leading medical researchers and clinicians, spoke about the necessity of the federal government recognizing current scientific data supporting marijuana rescheduling. Marijuana is currently classified in the same category as heroin despite calls from scientists, medical professionals, and policy makers to reschedule marijuana for medical use.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear opening arguments on the case the morning of October 16, 2012. "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."

    On the call, Dr. Donald Abrams, Director of Clinical Programs at San Francisco General Hospital, described the effectiveness of medical marijuana in the treatment regimens of cancer and HIV/AIDS patients. "In my practice every day as a cancer specialist I see patients who have loss of appetite, nausea and vomiting from their chemotherapy, pain on and off of opiates, anxiety, depression, and insomnia," conditions which Dr. Abrams said can be alleviated by medical marijuana.

    Dr. Igor Grant, Executive Vice-Chair, Department of Psychiatry, University of California-San Diego School of Medicine, and director of the Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research, stated that multiple California state-supported studies have resulted in "very good evidence" that medical marijuana "is effective in treating muscle spasticity," which is often experienced by patients with Multiple sclerosis and other painful disorders. He added that it is critical to separate out patients' legitimate medical needs from other issues surrounding marijuana's distribution and usage. Dr. Grant recently published a study in Open Neurology Journal concluding that marijuana's current classification is "untenable."

    Plaintiff Michael Krawitz, a U.S. Air Force veteran and medical marijuana patient, conveyed his struggle in managing his pain without relinquishing federally-mandated VA benefits under marijuana's current classification. Without access to medical marijuana, he stated he is in danger of destabilizing his overall health condition, a situation Krawitz has faced multiple times due to federal policy.

    Steph Sherer, ASA's Executive Director, ended the call by noting that the rescheduling case coincides with the organization's 10th anniversary of its founding, which will be marked by an event the night of October 16th honoring individuals, including numerous elected officials, who have led the fight for patient access.

    "The time has come to address medical marijuana as a public health issue and for the federal government to prioritize science over politics," Sherer said.

    Further information:
    Audio recording of Thursday's teleconference briefing on the rescheduling case: REV-Press Call 10.4.12 by scotthawkins on SoundCloud - Create, record and share your sounds for free
    Details of ASA's 10th anniversary dinner on October 16th: Online Action Center | ASA"
     
  2. I predict an ASA win, followed by a 20 year "review."
    You watch.
     

  3. I bet they try to push this one everyone. Its already used overseas and in Canada. Its licensed in America.

    GWPharma - Sativex
     
  4. Oooh I hope the people win,But you know America,Its obvious.......
     
  5. Maybe I should go become a judge or something.
    If I were sitting in that courtroom on that day, I'd just look at the guys from the DEA and go, "You guys are idiots. Not only is it not going to be a schedule one substance anymore....it's not going to be on the schedule at all. Find new jobs."
     
  6. Pushed under the rug.
     
  7. Absolutely. That's what its all about at this point. The dispensary raids to get rid of the "competition" that sells the same damn thing already. The insistence we don't need "more substances" to add to the alcohol evils. The idea raw cannabis is "too dangerous" for the masses and only something like Sativex is safe because "you know the dosage size." The continuance of racism. Throwing our rights out the window. (Oh, and billions for bankers thanks to prohibition's prices.)

    Never mind the safety record of big pharma. They're the logical choice to be the stewards of these cannabis meds of course. :rolleyes:

    The UK allowed research and development for years. Even with a schedule change in America, it would still be outlawed, the black market continued, and big pharma raking in the profits (and government renting out their patents to get their cut.)

    Utter hypocrisy. :mad:
     
  8. Which is exactly why it shouldn't be a scheduled substance at all.
    It needs to be totally removed from the CSA and completely legal for the average citizen to grow in their own back yard. That's the only way you'll ever keep big pharma's dirty little fingers out of it.
     
  9. #9 claygooding, Oct 8, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 8, 2012
    This is an unknown,,it really depends on the judges and they are all public servants and have been for years,,,,

    it could also be the out for both political parties,,ruled medical by the courts removes either party accusing the other to be soft on crime or attacking American values,,,my take on it Vern :smoke:

    The politicians can stand there and holler how it's probably a mistake..but thye have to follow the court ruling.
     
  10. i'm keeping a close eye on this one. with any luck they will be honest with themselves and get this ball rolling once and for all. it's fitting for me on a personal level since the 16th will be my father in laws birthday, had he still been alive. i know for a fact that the cancer he had could have been remedied with hemp oil and a great man would still be with us today.

    fuck big pharma and know that we come for you now.
     
  11. [quote name='"Al Swearengen"']i'm keeping a close eye on this one. with any luck they will be honest with themselves and get this ball rolling once and for all. it's fitting for me on a personal level since the 16th will be my father in laws birthday, had he still been alive. i know for a fact that the cancer he had could have been remedied with hemp oil and a great man would still be with us today.

    fuck big pharma and know that we come for you now.[/quote]

    The feds will never come clean and be honest about it. They and their masters have waaayyy too much to loose. That would be killing their own cash cow. They will have to be forced and dragged through it and we are ready to do just that. Too many people like your old man (rip) have suffered and lost their lives to this corruption and this shits gone way too far.
     
  12. i agree with that about the feds but i was more so refferring to the judge. pun intended. :D
     
  13. A fair hearing will result in re-classification of marijuana and would also give the Republicans and Democrats a political savior,,it allows the legalization of hemp to move forward without either party being labeled as soft on crime or initiating a policy change by their party,,a win/win because then they can tell their paymasters it was a judicial decision,not a failure by them of protecting their financial backers profits,,,

    That's how I see it Vern :smoke:

    And it matters not what schedule the move it too,,anything but schedule 1 removes all barriers for research on organic marijuana that the DEA and NIDA can only control as long as it is schedule 1,,game over :hello:
     

  14. Every time they sit and lie to everyone it makes them look even less intelligent.
     
  15. #15 WookiesDoItBest, Oct 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2012
    Well...I went to the hearing.
    Couldn't get into the actual courtroom because it was filled up with people who'd been there since 6am.
    They put myself and a bunch of other people into an adjacent courtroom and piped the audio feed over.

    Between the bad acoustics and the court staff/marshalls talking and making fucking noise, I couldn't follow the arguement too well.

    Essentially ASA argued that the DEA refuses to consider rescheduling, because they claim that no acceptable studies have been done, all the while setting impossible or undefined standards to meet, and not allowing such studies to be conducted. They also argued that such studies do in fact exist....and that the DEA itself used one for its decision to place THC at schedule 3.

    Here's pretty much exactly what the ASA argued.
    http://www.safeaccessnow.org/downloads/ASA_v_DEA_Reply_Brief.pdf

    The DEA's response was fairly lacking....with the lawyer saying "uhh" and "umm" a lot, and at one point, having the entire courtroom audience laugh at her, with the judge going, "You don't know?" when she couldn't answer a question about the DEA's actions/policies.
    Their basic arguement seemed to be that their standards for scientific study are fine and that they haven't bothered to review scheduling because no one has bothered to meet the standards.

    I really wish I could have heard well enough to write down what exactly was said. But I would be highly surprised if the DEA doesn't get their ass handed to them. On the other hand, I wouldn't expect the ASA to get a complete win either. It sounded like the judges were heading more toward forcing the DEA to allow studies to be done, and to actually define their standards when they basically said, "Both sides are in agreement that more research should be done."
     

Share This Page