Tanuvan
Well-Known Member
Has anyone been following this?
Drug Law Blog: DEA Accepts Petition To Consider Removing Marijuana From Schedule I
I think it's important to get clarification, although I really think the law is clear on this.
If you look at the two cases everyone cites, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), and United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001), the Supreme Court seems to be saying that Congress put marijuana into Schedule 1 and it can't be removed because Congress put it there. That argument is nonsense and could not possibly be what the Supreme Court intended to say.
No one would suggest that marijuana cannot be rescheduled. In fact, several marijuana rescheduling petitions have been filed over the past 38 years since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted.
The DEA has just accepted my petition to reschedule marijuana. If Congress had locked marijuana into Schedule I, the DEA would not have just now accepted my petition to reschedule it. It's obvious that marijuana can be rescheduled.
If you look at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), it says Initial schedules of controlled substances.
Then it goes on to require the amendment of the schedules: 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) (transfer between such schedules); 21 U.S.C. 811(b) (remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules).
It's obvious that Congress didn't intend to reject rescheduling of marijuana simply because Congress initially put marijuana into Schedule I.
So, the question is then: what triggers the rescheduling. In 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, answered that question. The court said there is no federal definition of accepted medical use, and that in the absence of such a defition, the court defers to the DEA's opinion.
In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Supreme Court explained why there is no federal defintion of accepted medical use, saying that Congress never intended to occupy the field of medicine and the states determine accepted medical use. So, there actually is a federal definition of accepted medical use - whatever the states say it is.
In 1991, there was no accepted medical use of marijuana, because the states did not start accepting medical use of marijuana by state statutes until 1996 (California and Arizona).
So, today, there are 12 states that have accepted the medical use of marijuana. These laws are binding on the federal government and the DEA has no discretion in the matter. The DEA's opinion isn't relevant any more.
I guess I should answer your question. Both state (Iowa) and federal law say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Although Iowa has the power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in Iowa, it cannot speak for the other states. As explained previously, the federal government has no power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Twelve states say it does have accepted medical use in treatment and that means "in the United States" as explained by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1987 in Grinspoon v. DEA.
Iowans for Medical Marijuana is part of a coalition of groups that filed a rescheduling (in 2002) which is still pending with the DEA: Marijuana Research: The Members of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis
My current petition is different. My current petition is actually just a notice to let the DEA know they are in violation of federal law. There's nothing for them to do but obey federal law and remove marijuana from Schedule I now that it no longer fits the definition of a Schedule I substance. Congress gave the power to determine accepted medical practice to the states (see 21 U.S.C. 903) and not to the DEA. 21 U.S.C. 903 says clearly that Congress did not intent to occupy the field of medicine, and that's how the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted it in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). My current petition is purely a matter of law and fact. The law says the stated determine accepted medical use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the fact is that twelve states have determined that marijuana has accepted medical use. The DEA is in violation of federal law for maintaining marijuana in a schedule that says it has no accepted medical use in the United States. My petition merely gives them notice that they are in violation of federal law. The next step is federal court.
Lengthy read, but interesting nonetheless.
Drug Law Blog: DEA Accepts Petition To Consider Removing Marijuana From Schedule I
I think it's important to get clarification, although I really think the law is clear on this.
If you look at the two cases everyone cites, Gonzales v. Raich (2005), and United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative (2001), the Supreme Court seems to be saying that Congress put marijuana into Schedule 1 and it can't be removed because Congress put it there. That argument is nonsense and could not possibly be what the Supreme Court intended to say.
No one would suggest that marijuana cannot be rescheduled. In fact, several marijuana rescheduling petitions have been filed over the past 38 years since the Controlled Substances Act was enacted.
The DEA has just accepted my petition to reschedule marijuana. If Congress had locked marijuana into Schedule I, the DEA would not have just now accepted my petition to reschedule it. It's obvious that marijuana can be rescheduled.
If you look at 21 U.S.C. 812(c), it says Initial schedules of controlled substances.
Then it goes on to require the amendment of the schedules: 21 U.S.C. 811(a)(1) (transfer between such schedules); 21 U.S.C. 811(b) (remove a drug or other substance entirely from the schedules).
It's obvious that Congress didn't intend to reject rescheduling of marijuana simply because Congress initially put marijuana into Schedule I.
So, the question is then: what triggers the rescheduling. In 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics v. DEA, answered that question. The court said there is no federal definition of accepted medical use, and that in the absence of such a defition, the court defers to the DEA's opinion.
In Gonzales v. Oregon (2006), the Supreme Court explained why there is no federal defintion of accepted medical use, saying that Congress never intended to occupy the field of medicine and the states determine accepted medical use. So, there actually is a federal definition of accepted medical use - whatever the states say it is.
In 1991, there was no accepted medical use of marijuana, because the states did not start accepting medical use of marijuana by state statutes until 1996 (California and Arizona).
So, today, there are 12 states that have accepted the medical use of marijuana. These laws are binding on the federal government and the DEA has no discretion in the matter. The DEA's opinion isn't relevant any more.
I guess I should answer your question. Both state (Iowa) and federal law say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Although Iowa has the power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in Iowa, it cannot speak for the other states. As explained previously, the federal government has no power to say marijuana has no accepted medical use in treatment in the United States. Twelve states say it does have accepted medical use in treatment and that means "in the United States" as explained by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in 1987 in Grinspoon v. DEA.
Iowans for Medical Marijuana is part of a coalition of groups that filed a rescheduling (in 2002) which is still pending with the DEA: Marijuana Research: The Members of the Coalition for Rescheduling Cannabis
My current petition is different. My current petition is actually just a notice to let the DEA know they are in violation of federal law. There's nothing for them to do but obey federal law and remove marijuana from Schedule I now that it no longer fits the definition of a Schedule I substance. Congress gave the power to determine accepted medical practice to the states (see 21 U.S.C. 903) and not to the DEA. 21 U.S.C. 903 says clearly that Congress did not intent to occupy the field of medicine, and that's how the U.S. Supreme Court interpreted it in 2006 in Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006). My current petition is purely a matter of law and fact. The law says the stated determine accepted medical use under the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the fact is that twelve states have determined that marijuana has accepted medical use. The DEA is in violation of federal law for maintaining marijuana in a schedule that says it has no accepted medical use in the United States. My petition merely gives them notice that they are in violation of federal law. The next step is federal court.
Lengthy read, but interesting nonetheless.
~~TLB
No KIDDING! Wow, he's cited FOUR cases to make his argument and declaration as well. FUCK ME BLEU! 
Whether the substance is an immediate precursor of a substance already controlled under this subchapter. 
