Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

Fed court to review Marijuana drug status, first time in 20 years

Discussion in 'Marijuana News' started by thehighman, Oct 9, 2012.

  1. Today's the big day. Let's see what happens, ill be checking in here and there at work in case anyone has updates. I'm assuming we won't be able to find out much until tomorrow though.
     
  2. Any updates on this yet? What time was/is the actual hearing?
     
  3. The hearing was at 9: 30am est i believe
     
  4. Just in from ASA's Twitter:

    "Presser over - we'll post a blog about the hearing this afternoon. Summary: standing looks good. Decision not for months."

    Looks like it'll be months before a decision is made on this..
     
  5. So if it they legalize it for medicinal use on the federal level does that mean jobs can still drug test you for it?

    I think drug testing is ridiculous cause hard drugs only stay in your system for a few days weed is harmless and stays in your system for 30 days. So that means coke heads and ex pill poppers etc have better chances at getting jobs.

    What part of the game is that!
     
  6. [quote name='"squiggledoodles"']Just in from ASA's Twitter:

    "Presser over - we'll post a blog about the hearing this afternoon. Summary: standing looks good. Decision not for months."

    Looks like it'll be months before a decision is made on this..[/quote]

    Don't suppose they posted links to a transcript or anything? That post is mighty vague.
     
  7. [quote name='"squiggledoodles"']Just in from ASA's Twitter:

    "Presser over - we'll post a blog about the hearing this afternoon. Summary: standing looks good. Decision not for months."

    Looks like it'll be months before a decision is made on this..[/quote]

    What does "standing looks good" mean?
     
  8. There will be blog posted this afternoon at ASA
     
  9. Excited to read it :D
     
  10. 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."
     
  11. ^ thx for the update!
     
  12. Agreed, thanks! Although a lot of big words for me :p
     
  13. #93 claygooding, Oct 16, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 16, 2012
    Interesting but a long ways to go,,,the both sides agree that more study is needed should have been challenged by the ASA attorney and rely on the studies already done,,plus the historical history of marijuana used as a medicine for the last 4000 years should be evidence,,,coupled with Judge Young's transcriot and decision should have been a gimme,,IMO

    Thanks wookie for your effort..a blog is supposed to go up soon at ASA to brief us,,,perhaps they will have more info on what you missed.
     
  14. If it doesnt pass I think it becomes official that we live under a dictatorship and not a democracy
     
  15. I think ”more research” is probably exactly what the DEA wanted.

    They know the science will only hurt their case so they wanted to stall re-scheduling as long as possible.

    The DEA should've been forced to re-schedule cannabis until they had the evidence to say otherwise. Instead they got away with coming to court with less evidence than the pro-legalization camp and keeping the current bullshit schedule.

    I expected disappointment but not such obvious trickery.
     
  16. Of think I hear the sound of a broom and a rug being lifted...
     
  17. It ain't over yet,,it's just the first day and ASA is pewdicting a couple of months before we get the decision,,no way it would come out before the election.
     
  18. [quote name='"claygooding"']It ain't over yet,,it's just the first day and ASA is pewdicting a couple of months before we get the decision,,no way it would come out before the election.[/quote]

    This. Politics, plain and simple.
     
  19. Typically when you come to court unprepared and lacking evidence, you lose the case. You can't just request more studies at a later date.
     
  20. Unless you are the government in which its typical.
     

Share This Page