Pubdate: Wed, 08 Aug 2012
Source: Metro Times (Detroit, MI)
Copyright: 2012 C.E.G.W./Times-Shamrock
Contact:  http://www.metrotimes.com
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1381
Author: Larry Gabriel
Column: Higher Ground

PUTTING DEA ON THE DEFENSIVE

Court Case Puts Marijuana Prohibition on the Stand

This might be the big one for medical marijuana and marijuana
legalization advocates. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Washington, D.C., has agreed to hear Americans for Safe Access vs.
Drug Enforcement Administration, which challenges the federal
classification of marijuana as a Schedule I drug.

The Schedule I classification is one of the biggest arguments against
medical marijuana nationwide because Schedule I drugs are defined as
having no accepted medical use. Marijuana, heroin, ecstasy, LSD and
GHB (the so-called date rape drug) are all classified as Schedule I
substances. Marijuana was placed in that classification of the
Controlled Substances Act in 1970 on the advice of Assistant Secretary
of Health Roger O. Egeberg. In 1972, President Nixon's National
Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse reported "there is little
proven danger of physical or psychological harm from the experimental
or intermittent use of the natural preparations of cannabis," but it
didn't make any difference. Ignoring the wisdom of his commission,
Nixon kept pot on Schedule I and created the War on Drugs to get at
political opponents and bolster his stance as the law-and-order guy.

Now the government is going to have to prove in court that marijuana
deserves to be a Schedule I drug. Oral arguments are scheduled to
start Oct. 16.

This appeal stems from a 2002 petition by the Coalition for
Rescheduling Cannabis - Americans for Safe Access (ASA) is a member of
the coalition - to get the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to reschedule
marijuana. The DEA dragged its feet until last year when the ASA sued
to force the government agency to give an answer. The DEA then denied
the petition. That was actually a step forward because the decision
opened the door for the ASA to make the DEA prove its position.

"This is a rare opportunity for patients to confront politically
motivated decision-making with scientific evidence of marijuana's
medical efficacy," ASA attorney Joe Elford wrote in a statement on the
ASA website.

The ASA filed suit in January.

"The ASA has been working on this for more than 10 years," says Brandy
Zink, a Michigan spokesperson for the ASA. "There is a mountain of
evidence that supports the safety and efficacy of cannabis as medicine."

Indeed, that mountain encompasses thousands of peer-reviewed
scientific studies. The results of a study recently published in the
Open Neurology Journal by Dr. Igor Grant, director of the Center for
Medical Cannabis Research (CMCR) at the University of California San
Diego concluded that "Based on evidence currently available, the
[federal] Schedule I classification [of cannabis] is not tenable; it
is not accurate that cannabis has no medical value, or that
information on safety is lacking."

The CMCR study was a 12-year series of FDA-approved clinical trials,
the gold standard for these types of inquiries. Many other studies
have found indications that marijuana may be useful in treating some
cancers, HIV, multiple sclerosis, neuropathic pain and other
illnesses. It will be interesting to see what evidence the DEA will
have to refute the mountain of evidence contrary to its position.

It may be that the government doesn't even believe its own position -
as evidenced by the fact that it holds a 2003 patent on "Cannabinoids
as antioxidants and neuroprotectants." Cannabinoids are the active
substances in marijuana such as THC and CBD that have effects such as
euphoria and appetite enhancement. The patent application (No.
6630507) refers to the "therapeutically effective amount of a
cannabinoid," which seems to contradict the DEA Schedule I
classification. That's something I'm sure the ASA intends to mention
during the legal proceedings.

The CMCR study did find that cannabis has "some abuse potential," but
that it more closely resembled Schedule III drugs. Those drugs are
deemed to have less potential for abuse or addiction than Schedule I
or II drugs. Codeine, testosterone and Dronabinol (synthetic THC also
known as Marinol) are among the Schedule III substances.

"If rescheduling is successful, there are patients in federal court
who will gain a medical necessity defense," Zink says. "If marijuana
were reclassified on a federal level it would apply equally in all 50
states. The ASA is asserting that the federal government has acted
arbitrarily and capriciously in its efforts to deny cannabis to
millions of patients throughout the United States. This is about
preserving our scientific integrity and to address the urgent needs of
millions of patients across our country."

An ASA victory in this case would not make marijuana legal, but it
would clear the way for research on therapies utilizing marijuana and
open a defense for medical marijuana patients charged with federal
drug crimes. Currently anyone charged by the feds for activities that
are legal under state law cannot use or even mention their state
medical marijuana status. It would also probably open the door for a
more rational discussion of the drug war that has cost our nation a
trillion dollars and many lives over the past 40 years.

Governors from the states of Washington and Rhode Island petitioned
the DEA to reschedule marijuana in November 2011. Colorado and Vermont
governors signed on later. In the original petition, the governors
wrote that "the vast majority of modern research" has found marijuana
useful in treating a variety of diseases.

No one knows how this will end. The DEA has been whacking away at
large California dispensaries in seeming contradiction to President
Obama's promise to not prosecute facilities operating within state
laws that permit medical marijuana. It almost seems that from a
federal point of view it's OK to have a small operation, but once any
big money starts flowing they will cut you down.

Here in Michigan, things are looking better for medical marijuana
patients, with a recent Courts of Appeals ruling that the city of
Wyoming could not ban medical marijuana facilities by claiming they
are contrary to federal law. Judges Joel Hoekstra, Douglas Shapiro and
William Whitbeck, the Kent County appeals court panel in this case,
voted unanimously against Wyoming's medical marijuana ban. They also
ruled that municipal law does not trump state law. The city of Wyoming
could appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court, although it's
not clear if it will. This decision has potential to ripple across the
state because a number of municipalities have avoided the issue by
declaring moratoriums on medical marijuana facilities.

This ruling has nothing to do with whether there can be marijuana
dispensaries in the state. The definitive answer on dispensaries will
come when the state high court rules on People vs. McQueen, involving
a Mount Pleasant medical marijuana dispensary. Then we will know if
medical marijuana patients can not only have their medicine, but will
they be able to buy it somewhere.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt