ASA Injunction will bring about the legalization of Medical Marijuana

[Albatross]

JOSEPH D. ELFORD (S.B. NO. 189934)
AMERICANS FOF SAFE ACCESS
1322 Webster St., Suite 402
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 573-7842
Fax: (510) 251-2036
[email protected]

ALAN B. MORRISON
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford CA 94305
Telephone: (650) 725 9648
Fax: (650) 725 0253
[email protected]
(application to appear pro hac vice pending)

Counsel for Plaintiff
AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
RELIEF AND PERMANENT
INJUNCTION



AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS,
Plaintiff

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES and FOOD AND
DRUG ADMINISTRATION
Defendants​

I. INTRODUCTION​

1. Despite numerous peer-reviewed scientific studies establishing that marijuana is effective in treating AIDS wasting syndrome, muscle spasticity and chronic pain, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) continues to tell the public that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” This action is filed under the Data Quality Act, 44 U.S.C. § 3516, Statutory and Historical Notes, P.L. 106-554 (“Data Quality Act” or “DQA”), and the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., to correct this false and misleading statement, as the Data Quality Act requires.
   
   
2. In 2001, Congress recognized a problem with the quality and integrity of information disseminated by federal agencies, which prompted it to enact legislation to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” disseminated by federal agencies. 44 U.S.C. § 3516, Statutory and Historical Notes, P.L. 106-554, Sec. 1(a)(3). Pursuant to this Act, HHS has an obligation to consider requests from the public to correct erroneous statements that it has disseminated. Here, more than two years ago, plaintiff Americans for Safe Access (“ASA”) made such a request of HHS with respect to particular claims that marijuana has no medical use. In support of its request, ASA supplied citations to numerous scientific studies confirming the medical efficacy of marijuana, including a report from the prestigious National Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) that was commissioned by the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy (“ONDCP”).
   
   
3. HHS responded by engaging in inexcusable delay and, ultimately, issuing a nonsubstantive rejection of ASA’s request. Left with no other administrative recourse, ASA filed the instant suit challenging HHS’ arbitrary and unlawful behavior, since the federal government’s false statements deter sick and dying persons from seeking to obtain medicine that could provide them needed, and often life-saving, relief. When it comes to medical marijuana, HHS has failed in its avowed mission of “protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves.”
   
   
   
   
   II. JURISDICTION AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT​
   
   
   
4. Plaintiff ASA brings this action on behalf of itself and its members to redress the deprivation of rights secured to them under the APA, the Data Quality Act, and HHS’ Guidelines implementing the DQA, 67 Fed.Reg. 61343 (Sept. 30, 2002).
   
   
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361.
   
   
6. Venue is proper in this judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) and Local Rule 3-5(b) because plaintiff ASA maintains its headquarters in Oakland, California, which is in this judicial district, and a substantial portion of the events giving rise to the complaint occurred in this judicial district.
   
   
   
   
   III. THE PARTIES​
   
   
   
7. Plaintiff AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS (“ASA”) is a non-profit corporation headquartered in Oakland, California that has as its primary purpose working to expand and protect the rights of patients to use marijuana for medical purposes, including providing outreach and education to the public regarding the use of marijuana for medical purposes. ASA’s members and constituents include seriously ill persons who would have benefited from the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but who were deterred from using marijuana to ease their suffering, in part, by HHS’ statement that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” ASA has devoted significant resources to combat this false statement, including the expenditure of more than one hundred thousand dollars and hundreds of hours of staff time producing and disseminating educational materials explaining that scientific studies demonstrate that marijuana is effective in treating symptoms associated with cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, gastrointestinal disorders, and chronic pain. HHS’ failure to correct its false statement that marijuana does not have any currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States adversely affects the membership and constituency of ASA and causes ASA to suffer injury to its ability to carry out its mission, as well as causing ASA to suffer economic loss in staff pay, funds expended to produce educational materials, and in the inability to undertake other efforts to improve the access of seriously ill persons to medical marijuana.
   
   
8. Despite HHS’ dissemination of false and misleading information about the effectiveness of marijuana in relieving the pain of victims of certain diseases, four ASA members obtained the correct information and it dramatically improved their lives.
   
   
   • For instance, ASA’s Executive Director, Steph Sherer, suffers from a condition known as torticollis, which causes her to experience inflammation, muscle spasms, pain throughout her body, and decreased mobility in her neck. Until November of 2001, Ms. Sherer did not believe that marijuana had medical use, due to statements that it did not on federal websites; however, after Ms. Sherer suffered kidney damage from the large amounts of conventional pain killers she was taking, her physician recommended that she try marijuana. Ms. Sherer heeded her physician’s advice and has successfully used marijuana since November of 2001 to reduce her inflammation, muscle spasms, and pain. Ms. Sherer founded ASA to share medical information with others in April of 2002.
     
     
   • Victoria Lansford (“Lansford”) is also an ASA constituent and member who resides in Blackfoot, Idaho. Ms. Lansford suffers from fibromyalgia, which causes her to suffer severe chronic pain and muscle spasms. Until 2002, Lansford used a regimen of pain medications, including a morphine patch and Oxycontin, because she did not believe marijuana had medical use, due in part to HHS’ statements. In 2002, on the recommendation of her sister, Lansford started using medical marijuana to treat her chronic pain and muscle spasms. This use of marijuana has significantly improved Ms. Lansford’s health and she has been able to stop using the highly addictive Oxycontin.
     
     
   • Jacqueline Patterson is an ASA member and constituent who resides in Marin, California. Patterson has cerebral palsy, which among its other symptoms impairs Patterson’s speech and causes her to suffer muscle spasticity and pain. Until June of 2001, Ms. Patterson did not believe that marijuana was medicine because of the federal government’s statements that it was not, but her husband eventually convinced her to try it. Since beginning to use medical marijuana, Ms. Patterson has significantly improved her ability to speak and rarely suffers the serious muscle spasms she experienced in her right arm.
     
     
   • Shane Kintvel is an ASA member and constituent who experiences chronic pain and muscle spasms as a result of a serious back injury. Until 2002, Mr. Kintvel used conventional prescription pain medications, including morphine, to treat his chronic pain. He was led to believe that marijuana would not be effective for this purpose from information he received from his doctors and his review of federal government websites. In approximately July of 2002, however, Mr. Kintvel began using marijuana in place of prescription medications. According to the progress measured by Dr. Michael McMillan, Mr. Kintvel’s current treating physician, Kintvel is now completely mobile, has discontinued his use of morphine, and has lost more than fifty pounds that he had gained from taking large amounts of morphine and being unable to exercise.
   
   
9. Defendant DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (“HHS”) is an administrative agency of the federal government with its headquarters in Washington, D.C. HHS claims on its website that it is the “government’s principal agency for protecting the health of all Americans and providing essential human services, especially for those who are least able to help themselves.” See http://www.hhs.gov/. In April of 2000, in response to a request to reclassify marijuana, HHS stated its finding that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” Federal Register, 66 Fed.Reg. 20038, 20039 (April 18, 2001). HHS continues to disseminate this and related statements in its publications and on government websites. See http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/fedreg/a010418c.html; http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/notices/2001/fr0418/fr0418a.htm.
   
   
10. Defendant FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION (“FDA”) is a federal agency within the Department of Health and Human Services. FDA claims as its mission that it is “responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.” See http//www.fda.gov/opacom/morechoices/mission.html. The FDA was assigned the task of evaluating marijuana for medical use by HHS and, in 2001, concluded that marijuana did not have any medical use. HHS’ statements to this effect are predicated on the FDA’s findings.
    
    
    
    
    IV. THE DATA QUALITY ACT AND HHS’ IMPLEMENTING GUIDELINES​
    
    
    
11. Passed in 2001 as an amendment to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C § 3502(1), the Data Quality Act (“DQA”) requires administrative agencies to develop guidelines to ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” they disseminate to the American public. In furtherance of this goal, the DQA requires all federal agencies to “[e]stablish administrative mechanisms allowing affected persons to seek and obtain correction of information maintained and disseminated by the agency that does not comply with the guidelines.” 44 U.S.C. § 3516, Statutory and Historical Notes.
    
    
12. In compliance with the DQA mandate, HHS promulgated Guidelines for seeking and obtaining corrections of information it disseminates. The HHS Guidelines are codified at 67 Fed.Reg. 61343 (Sept. 30, 2002) and can also be found at http://www.hhs.gov/infoquality/part1.html. Similar Guidelines, which are also applicable to HHS, have been promulgated by the Office of Budget and Management (“OMB”) and are codified at 67 Fed.Reg. 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002).
    
    
13. The HHS Guidelines recognize that “’[q]uality’ is an encompassing term comprising utility, objectivity, and integrity.” HHS Guideline D.2.a. The Guidelines define the term “utility” as referring to the “usefulness of the information to its intended users, including the public. . . .” HHS Guideline D.2.b. “Objectivity” requires that “disseminated information [be] presented in an accurate, clear, complete, and unbiased manner.” HHS Guideline D.2.c. The Guidelines further recognize that agencies responsible for dissemination of “vital health and medical information” have additional responsibilities to “ensur[e] the timely flow of vital information from agencies to medical providers, patients, health agencies, and the public.” HHS Guideline D.2.c.2.
    
    
14. To allow public participation in ensuring these goals, the HHS Guidelines provide for both an initial petition to correct erroneous information that HHS has disseminated and an administrative appeal (or “Information Quality Appeal”). With regard to an initial petition, the Guidelines state that “[t]he agency will respond to all requests for correction within 60 calendar days of receipt. If the request requires more than 60 calendar days to resolve, the agency will inform the complainant that more time is required and indicate the reason why and an estimated decision date.” HHS Guideline E. If the initial petition is denied by HHS, the HHS Guidelines provide for an administrative appeal, and the “agency will respond to all requests for appeals within 60 calendar days of receipt. If the request requires more than 60 calendar days to resolve, the agency will inform the complainant that more time is required and indicate the reason why and an estimated decision date.” HHS Guideline E.
    
    
    
    
    V. FACTS​
    
    
    
15. On October 4, 2004, ASA filed with HHS a “Request for Correction of Information Disseminated by HHS Regarding the Medical Use of Marijuana” (hereinafter “petition”). Copies of the petition, the initial agency response, ASA’s appeal, the final agency response to the appeal, and all agency interim responses can be accessed at http://aspe.hhs.gov/infoquality/requests.shtml, item 20.
    
    
16. ASA’s petition alleges that HHS has disseminated to the public, and is continuing to disseminate to the public, the statement that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.” The petition alleges that this HHS statement, and the findings underlying it, are inaccurate, in violation of the DQA and the OMB and HHS DQA Guidelines. The ASA petition alleges with specificity why the HHS information dissemination is inaccurate, and requests specific corrections. In particular, the ASA petition alleges that numerous peerreviewed studies, including the 1999 Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) study commissioned by the ONDCP establish that marijuana is accepted in the United States as effective in treating various illnesses.
    
    
17. On December 1, 2004, HHS sent ASA an interim response to its October 4, 2004, petition. The interim response stated that HHS had not yet completed its review of the ASA petition, due to other agency priorities and the need to coordinate agency review. HHS contended that it needed to consult with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), which was considering a petition to reschedule marijuana, to prepare a response, and that it hoped to provide a response within the next 60 days.
    
    
18. By letter dated December 20, 2004, ASA protested that HHS, by consulting with DEA, was inexcusably expanding its review to include considerations outside the scope of ASA’s petition and that such expansion would unduly delay an administrative response to the requested correction of information.
    
    
19. Nevertheless, HHS provided a series of interim responses over the next several months stating that it needed additional time to coordinate agency review. On April 20, 2005, HHS denied ASA’s petition without presenting any evidence that its statements about the lack of medical efficacy of marijuana are justified. HHS made no mention of its DQA Guideline D.2.c.2, which requires it to ensure the “timely flow of vital information from agencies to medical providers, patients, health agencies, and the public.”
    
    
20. On May 19, 2005, ASA filed an appeal of the HHS rejection of its October 4, 2004, petition, pursuant to the HHS Guidelines. See HHS Guideline E.
    
    
21. ASA’s May 19, 2005, appeal protested that: (a) HHS was evading its data quality responsibilities and delaying a response in contravention of its Guidelines, especially by referring the issues raised by the ASA Petition to a proceeding outside HHS; (b) the issues raised by ASA’s request for correction under the Data Quality Act are different and more limited than those raised in the DEA rescheduling proceeding, so merging the proceedings would not allow the consideration of data quality issues “on a timely basis,” as required by the HHS Guidelines, and (c) HHS had ignored its Guidelines stating that data quality complaints must be acted upon in a timely fashion where there is a reasonable likelihood that persons were suffering actual harm from the inaccurate information being disseminated by the agency. ASA alleged that “seriously ill persons represented by ASA are suffering from being misled about the medical benefits of marijuana [by HHS].”
    
    
22. Again, commencing on July 28, 2005, HHS sent ASA a series of interim responses to its appeal over a period of more than eleven months, stating that the agency required additional time to coordinate agency review to prepare a response and that its “goal is to have a response to your appeal within 60 days of the date of this letter.” Then, on July 12, 2006, HHS sent ASA a response effectively denying the appeal without addressing the scientific evidence. HHS merely noted that it anticipated providing a response by September 2006 to a marijuana rescheduling petition that has been pending before the DEA since October 9, 2002. HHS has not provided such response to the rescheduling petition as of the filing of this Complaint and its pattern of delay and evasion demonstrate that it cannot be expected to provide a substantive public response to the rescheduling petition within any reasonable time.
    
    
23. As a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, ASA has suffered, and will continue to suffer, the loss of staff time, economic resources, and impairment of its mission. In particular, to combat HHS’ dissemination of scientifically flawed statements that marijuana does not have any accepted medical use, ASA has spent more than one hundred thousand dollars and expended hundreds of hours of staff time producing and disseminating educational materials explaining that marijuana has medical use in the treatment of cancer, HIV/AIDS, multiple sclerosis, arthritis, gastrointestinal disorders, and chronic pain. This, in turn, causes ASA economic loss in staff pay and funds expended to produce educational materials, and it impedes ASA’s mission of undertaking other efforts to improve the access of qualified patients to medical marijuana.
    
    
24. Furthermore, as a direct and proximate result of defendants’ actions, ASA and its members and constituents -- which include seriously ill persons who would have benefited, or might benefit from the use of marijuana for medical purposes, but whose use of marijuana for health reasons has been impeded by HHS’ flawed statement that marijuana does not have medical use -- have been irreparably harmed.
    
    
25. If not enjoined by this Court, defendants will continue to disseminate scientifically flawed statements that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States,” in derogation of the rights of ASA, its constituents, and other similarly situated persons, and it will refuse to correct this false and misleading information.
    
    
    
    
    VII. CAUSE OF ACTION​
    
    
    
26. HHS’ denial of the petition and appeal of ASA under the DQA constitutes final agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law, and in excess of statutory authority and limitations within the meaning of the APA (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) & (C)).

VIII. RELIEF SOUGHT​

WHEREFORE, ASA, on behalf of itself, its constituents, and others similarly situated, seeks the following relief:

1. A declaration that the HHS’ denial of ASA’s petition and administrative appeal is arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and not in accordance with law under the APA;
   
   
2. A permanent injunction:
   
   
   • enjoining defendants from continuing to disseminate statements that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States;”
     
     
   • requiring HHS to make appropriate corrections to all statements that it has disseminated that marijuana “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States;”
   
   
3. Costs and attorneys fees incurred in this action; and
   
   
4. Such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

DATED: February 21, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,




________________________________
JOSEPH D. ELFORD
Attorney for Plaintiff
AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS
Americans for Safe Access v. Department of Health and Human Services,

CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS
Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undersigned certifies that as of this date,
other than the named parties, there is no such interest to report.
DATED: February 21, 2007 Respectfully Submitted,
________________________________
JOSEPH D. ELFORD
Attorney for Plaintiff
AMERICANS FOR SAFE ACCESS

 

[genkisan]

YEAAAHHHHHH!!



GO GET 'EM!!!

 

[Haps]

Nothing about legalization.
H

 

[StayHigh149]

Nothing about legalization.
H

U must win the battles, before winning the war!

Every piece, no matter how small, fits into the bigger picture.

 

[Guest]

U must win the battles, before winning the war!

Every piece, no matter how small, fits into the bigger picture.

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!

once this argument is won, the feds will have that much harder of a time prosecuting med growers in legal states.

This could also stop a lot of the anti-MJ propaganda possibly

every little step counts
its all about gaining momentum and gettin that snowball rollin down the hill

 

[DrKatz420]

I think that this is a great strategy to force the US government to reclassify cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2 or 3, which is a very important step towards eventual legalization. Schedule 1 drugs carry the toughest penalties, and to qualify for schedule 1, a drug must have no accepted medicinal value. Once this lawsuit forces a branch of the federal government to officially admit the medicinal value of cannabis, they should be left with no choice but to reclassify it out of schedule 1. Then perhaps we can move on to the idea that the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution doesn't apply to mmj, and therefore the federal government has no right to trump any states decision on the issue.

 

[Albatross]

Nothing about legalization.
H

Appropriate custom title you have Haps.

I think that this is a great strategy to force the US government to reclassify cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2 or 3, which is a very important step towards eventual legalization. Schedule 1 drugs carry the toughest penalties, and to qualify for schedule 1, a drug must have no accepted medicinal value. Once this lawsuit forces a branch of the federal government to officially admit the medicinal value of cannabis, they should be left with no choice but to reclassify it out of schedule 1. Then perhaps we can move on to the idea that the Interstate Commerce clause of the constitution doesn't apply to mmj, and therefore the federal government has no right to trump any states decision on the issue.

The Dr. gets it.

The Medical Marijuana cause has long been stymied by the three way dance between the the department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Drug Enforcement Agency. The HHS won't consider it because the FDA won't consider the medical values of it and the DEA has it schedule one'd. The DEA has it schedule one'd because the FDA won't consider the medical value of it and the HHS says it does not have any accepted medical usage. The FDA won't consider the medical value of it because the DEA has it schedule one'd and the HHS say that it has no currently accepted medical use in treatment.

Unlocking this log jam is the only possible way for Medical Marijuana to be legalized in the United States. It cannot be done legislatively as long as the HHS, FDA and DEA continue to promulgate their current stances.

This injunction comes as one of the final chapters in a long term plan to force the HHS and FDA to admit that marijuana has medical value. There is sufficient evidence that by law a judge will have to grant the injunction forcing both the HHS and FDA to stop saying that it has no medical value and correct their prior statements. This in turn will force the DEA to de-schedule marijuana most likely to class 3 whether they want to or not. Any appeal will be heard by the Ninth Circuit Appeals court who are the most Medical Marijuana and marijuana legalization friendly court anywhere. As the injunction is under the Data Quality Act there can be no possible grounds for appeal to the Supreme Court and any attempt to do so would be denied by the Supremes.

There are many people out there who have believed the party line from the 3 departments that marijuana had no medical value. When they are forced to recant that stance it will turn the tables legislatively speaking. Many people who were against legalization of Medical Marijuana will cease trying to block it. Not all of them but more than enough to swing the balance.

So while the slow minded may have read the injunction and never saw the word legalization in it the sharper minded realize that this is the key step in the legalization process. It can't possibly succeed without this and it can't possibly fail with it.

Anyone who thinks otherwise understands neither the laws nor the issues at stake.

 

[Hal]

Here is a report from the NY Times today:

February 22, 2007
U.S. Is Sued Over Position on Marijuana
By CAROLYN MARSHALL

SAN FRANCISCO, Feb. 21 — Frustrated by government policy and inaction, a group of advocates for medical marijuana sued two federal health agencies on Wednesday over the assertion that smoking it has no medical benefit.

The group, Americans for Safe Access, a nonprofit organization based in Oakland, filed the lawsuit in Federal District Court, challenging the government’s position that marijuana, “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States.”

In its lawsuit, the group contends that federal regulators have publicly issued “false and misleading statements” about the medical benefits of marijuana.

The lawsuit, which named the Department of Health and Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration, seeks a court order to retract and correct statements that the group called, “incorrect, dishonest and a flagrant violation of laws.”

A lawyer for the medical marijuana group, Joseph Elford, said the lawsuit was filed now because administrative avenues had been exhausted and because of mounting scientific and anecdotal evidence to the contrary.

Mr. Elford said a recent study by the Clinical Research Center at San Francisco General Hospital, which was approved by the F.D.A. and other federal agencies, found that smoking marijuana relieved pain and certain symptoms of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.

A spokeswoman for the health department said Wednesday in a telephone interview that “the agency does not comment on litigation as a general policy.”

The spokeswoman, Christina Pearson, said the agency stood by its publicly stated position and pointed to an April 20, 2006, statement. In that advisory, which Ms. Pearson said was current, the federal government asserts that “there is currently sound evidence that smoked marijuana is harmful.”

It goes on to say that “no animal or human data supported the safety or efficacy of marijuana,” which is not an approved drug.

 

[ogrefugee]

awesome. just simply awesome.

 

[Haps]

I did not say the suit was without merit, only that your thread title was incorrect, which it is. While this legal battle may be one that is important, as are all such battles to win back our American freedoms, it is not aimed at legalization. It is like stopping bullets at the wrong end of the gun. Legalization requires legislation, the courts do not legislate. I would be delighted to see battles like this lead to, or provide fuel for the legislation, but they must win first, against a stacked deck, which is what our courts have come to.

Let us hope that all such efforts lead us to the path of freedom. I will show enough maturity to not make fun of your name long flyer.
H

 

[Chester]

I did not say the suit was without merit, only that your thread title was incorrect, which it is. While this legal battle may be one that is important, as are all such battles to win back our American freedoms, it is not aimed at legalization. It is like stopping bullets at the wrong end of the gun. Legalization requires legislation, the courts do not legislate. I would be delighted to see battles like this lead to, or provide fuel for the legislation, but they must win first, against a stacked deck, which is what our courts have come to.

Let us hope that all such efforts lead us to the path of freedom. I will show enough maturity to not make fun of your name long flyer.
H

I have to disagree with you on that... One reason the US legislators are so chicken about changing the legislation on the MMJ issue is because MJ is classified as a Schedule 1 substance. It's very difficult for them to make a case for legalization of a (in the eyes of the law anyway) medically useless substance.

They just might find where they (legislators) hid their backbones after a reclassification. This could indeed be the key to the fortress. And ASA really appears to have their ducks in a row on this issue .

If ASA gets shot down on this case, it will be very apparent that the laws of the land only apply to the people and not to the government.

 

[robobond]

Believe it or not but both cocaine and pcp are schedule 2 drugs. It is a hypocrisy to keep marijuana a schedule 1 drug saying it has less medical use and more abuse potential then cocaine.

 

[Haps]

Chester, I would agree that changing the schedule is a very important component in the process of freeing mari jane. I just don't see anything in the suit that would lead to success in a court. I would be very happy to be wrong.
H

 

[pipeline]

With that and the DEA Judge's ruling......we're bound to see some movement! Finally!

 

[Chester]

Chester, I would agree that changing the schedule is a very important component in the process of freeing mari jane. I just don't see anything in the suit that would lead to success in a court. I would be very happy to be wrong.
H

I think the bit about the Data Quality Act is the key (and yeah, I never heard of it before either). The DQ act was intended to protect big business by preventing the US legislature (Not sure about presidential "edicts") from making a law that wasn't in line with proven scientific fact.

Actually, the DQ act was passed as an EPA loophole that meant a factory could not be fined for polluting until it was proven that the pollutant in question was dangerous. Like many laws, the DQ act is a two edge sword, and since HHS, FDA and DEA says cannabis has no medical value, which is in conflict with scientific fact, under the 2001 Data Quality Act, they may have to rescind and correct their previous "official" decrees on the matter of MMJ.

Basically the ACA is putting HHS between a rock and a hard place.

My bet is that the government will ignore the DQ act or declare that the law does not apply to them for some reason.

Like you, I'd love to be completely wrong.