Court will hear case ASA vs. DEA on rescheduling.

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by DoobieDuck, Jul 31, 2012.

  1. I received a letterthis AM with an important development in the ASA vs. DEA case in my inboxtoday. Here it is in part from Steph Sherer Executive Director ASA:

    Late last weekAmericans for Safe Access (ASA) got some exciting news: the United States Courtof Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed to hear oral arguments in Americans forSafe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration. Ten years after originalrescheduling petition was filed, the courts will finally review the scientificevidence regarding the therapeutic value of cannabis!

    ……………Last year, we appealed the Administration's decision todeny our nine-year old rescheduling petition, knowing that the courts couldstill choose not to hear our case. The decision to hear oral arguments is huge.This appeal may lead to the first evidentiary hearings of the medical value ofcannabis since 1994 – and a lot has happened since then!

    ………….ASA can make this happen. We have a strong legal teamand recognized expertise in the field. We also have a comprehensive plan to usemedia, legislation, and strategic grassroots organizing to get the most out ofthis lawsuit……………

    Victory on this front would literally be the turning pointfor safe access to medical cannabis nationwide! We can fight this fight and win– if people like you support the effort. Thank you for helping make ithappen………...

    Steph Sherer
  2. This is big. Hopefully with all the latest medical evidence the courts will finally realize the benefits of cannabis. :)
  3. Awesome! Even if it can be removed from the schedule 1 list to 2 its better than nothing
  4. When is this supposed to happen
  5. October, not sure the exact date
  6. Thanks everyone for posting,

    ASA's challenge to the government's denial of a rescheduling petition has been granted a hearing by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral arguments in Americans for Safe Access v. Drug Enforcement Administration, scheduled for October 16 at 9:30am, will be the first opportunity in decades for a federal court to hear the full scope of scientific evidence on the therapeutic applications of cannabis.
  7. Hopefully it goes well :D
  8. we were doing just fine before Prop 19 failed.
  9. We were doing fine until every Tom, DICK and Harry tried scamming people and ripping off the kiddies who are too dumb to know that $60 an 1/8 is a butt job.

    People like this George character:

    From the RIPOFF REPORT
    Complaint Review: 420 College
    420 College medical marijuana Internet, California

    We put out $300 dollars to have a "consultation" with George "Grimes" this is not his real last name his real last name is "Boyadjian" Only to find out that he will NOT answer any questions after the consultation. He says "watch the videos!!" Well, the videos DO NOT tell you what to do at all. All that the videos do is give you false information. George REALLY screwed us over with his "consulting" He said we would be "legal" but when we talked to a lawyer basically all the information given by George was completely wrong! He gave us the wrong paperwork and the wrong information on what to write on these forms. If we had gone off what he said and filed everything we would have gotten in bad legal trouble. As our lawyer put it "Basically, all the information that George gave you is wrong and a piece of toilet paper would cover your a** more than this paperwork." Unfortunately, we had to learn the hard way and hope no one else gets pulled into his trap. Thankfully, we had enough knowledge to ask someone else for advice and good thing we did or else we would have ben taken to court.
  10. I'd just like to say thank you all for helping with the legalization of cannabis. I'm with you guys every step of the way.
  11. Thanks for all your efforts. The war against plants has to end! God gave us everything we need to sustain life on earth, and our own people don't want us to have the best thing for us. Im sure every politician would use cannabis if it would save their own life, but not someone else's, just sad.... I wish everyone the best!

  12. Agreed! It's about time we MAKE A POSITIVE CHANGE and get rid of the people who are holding us down!!
  13. Hm, I am intrigued. Sub'd for info.
  14. By 'get rid of' you really mean kill, right?


  15. I completely agree but too bad the guy in that report didn't get ripped off, just didn't know how to follow directions. You forgot post the rebuttal to that complaint case for some reason. :wave:

    What a bunch of bull**** I am George Boyadjian, and I don't ever remember introducing myself as "Grimes" The person did purchase our skype consultation course and did receive the full counseling that was being purchased. Three months later he calls and asks me about a particular subject, and I gave him the answer to it. Then he writes an email asking the same question, so after once again answering the same question this time in an email, I sent him the link to our Online Video Course for FREE, which we sell online for $150, that is separate from the $300 consultation fee that he had already paid. I asked that he watches the videos and if he still has questions to call back. Some people understand things the 1st time you tell em other understand things the 5th time you tell em. In the case of this person who complained, he was the "gotta tell em 5th time" type of a person. I explained to him that we are a consulting firm and not a babysitting service, I also asked him, how many times do I have to answer the same question and cover the same subject for him to feel like he got his money's worth, and he couldn't answer. As far as the "toilet papers" he's referring to, they are actual papers from the Secretary of State's office in Sacramento. Also, I wouldn't trust a lawyer as far as I can throw him, so far who's ever met an honest lawyer? Not me. As far as I know lawyers will say and do anything to make a buck, so obviously he was gonna down grade our paperwork so he can sell his. Good luck in your venture buddy. If anyone needs help with the starting a business, look up California Attorney General's Guidelines.
  16. A summary from ASA on the hearing. Sounds like a month or two before we hear from the judges..DD

    Appeals Court hears case on medical value of marijuana

    Medical Cannabis: Voices from the Frontlines » Blog Archive » Appeals Court hears case on medical value of marijuana

    October 16th, 2012
    Posted by Jonathan Bair

    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 has 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 of 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 marijuana’s status as a Schedule I substance. 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 could 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 are inapplicable 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 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. 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 a 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.

    Jonathan Bair is ASA’s Social Media Director. Recordings of any kind were not allowed in the courtroom.
  17. This sounds promising. It's all on who's ears it falls. Like trying to change anyone's mind about anything, it depends on the mind you are trying to change and their life experiences. At least there's some movement on probably the craziest part of the drug war, schedule 1, worst of the's so sad there aren't enough words to describe it.

    I challenge anyone to watch this video and tell me there aren't medicinal purposes.
  18. [ame=]Dad Gives Toddler Battling Brain Cancer Medical Marijuana - YouTube[/ame]
  19. An important first step, let's all hope it comes out for the best!

Share This Page